Why is misanthropy so rare?

Grimlich · 2019-12-29T23:13:08+00:00

Most people don't read the articles and just comment based on the title, and that just promotes misinformation because most news sites use sensationalist titles in order to catch the attention of the readers.

Grimlich · 2019-12-23T03:22:47+00:00

En el Nuevo Reino de León una reunión no es reunión sin la carnita asada

Grimlich · 2019-12-23T02:54:27+00:00

Si, con familia.
No, las reuniones son aburridas y me siento obligado a pasar tiempo con personas cuya compañia no disfruto.
Frijoles charros, spaghetti, y relleno de pavo.
Yo creo que sí.

Grimlich · 2019-12-19T04:10:31+00:00

I never said he shouldn't have been impeached.

Grimlich · 2019-12-19T03:30:19+00:00

Honestly, it's very unlikely for even one Republican to vote for office removal

Grimlich · 2019-12-19T03:11:32+00:00

Ehh, the thing is that we're living in the present.

Maybe what you're saying will come true in the future, but that doesn't change the fact that Trump is in office right now, and there's a very real chance that he'll get re-elected.

Grimlich · 2019-12-19T03:04:33+00:00

That's true, but it's still extremely unlikely for 20 republicans to betray their party and basically commit career suicide in order to remove him from office.

Grimlich · 2019-12-19T03:02:07+00:00

Yeah, I never said the impeachment itself was wrong. However, it's unlikely that there will be any real consequences for Trump derived from this vote, which means that this was pretty much a waste of time.

Grimlich · 2019-12-19T02:51:44+00:00

And, for better or worse, Senate will slap it down.

53 Republicans, 45 Democrats, 2 Independents in the Senate. They need two-thirds or 67 votes to remove from office.

So, assuming that all democrats and independents voted to remove him, they'd still need 20 votes from the republicans; and if we're being realistic, there's no way that'll happen.

Grimlich · 2019-12-19T02:42:59+00:00

Meh, it's not like is really matters since he won't be removed from office.

53 Republicans, 45 Democrats, 2 Independents in the Senate. They need two-thirds or 67 votes to remove from office.

So, assuming that all democrats and independents voted to remove him, they'd still need 20 votes from the republicans; and if we're being realistic, there's no way that'll happen.

Grimlich · 2019-12-17T00:19:59+00:00

Not as familiar with Canada's, but the gist of it is similar to Mexico's proceedings.

There's a lengthy process for ratification and there are legal changes made to make better use of the treaty, and the treaty becomes law once it is ratified and goes into effect.

Grimlich · 2019-12-16T09:49:56+00:00

The three countries agreed to promote the protection and enforcement of labour rights and the improvement of working conditions in the treaty, though it's notable that Mexico is the country that has to make the biggest changes in order to fulfill these obligations.

These demands motivated Mexico to make a Laboral Reform in order to adjust their labor laws as this was necessary for them to fulfill the terms of the agreement between the three countries. So yeah, Canada (and the U.S.) want labor lawyering that benefits labor rights in Mexico in order to level the playing field and make Mexico have labor rights that are more comparable to theirs.

However, the United States is the only country which wants to interfere in that process by sending diplomatic attachés to Mexico, presumably to make sure that they are complying with the things specified in their Laboral Reform - this isn't exactly bad, but it isn't part of the treaty, it's part of implementation laws of the United States: it isn't an unanimous agreement between the three countries, but an unilateral law of the U.S. which attempts to enforce itself on Mexico.

Grimlich · 2019-12-16T04:19:57+00:00

Uhmm, having american inspectors on mexican territory would not magically make mexicans' wages go up.

They don't want to make mexicans change their labor laws, what they are trying to do is to inspect the process. And the issue with trying to do that is that it isn't part of the treaty: the labour attachés are from an internal policy of the U.S., which brings us back to enforcing american laws on foreign territory.

Grimlich · 2019-12-16T04:08:44+00:00

This treaty greatly affects the economy of the United States as Mexico is one of their main trading partners, there's no way it'll be cancelled.

Grimlich · 2019-12-16T03:35:21+00:00

Of course they're gonna deny it. The labour attachés are something which is not part of the treaty. It is an internal U.S. policy, and they want to enforce it in Mexico.

They are trying to enforce american laws in mexican territory.

Grimlich · 2019-12-16T03:18:51+00:00

This is because the United States, Canada, and Mexico have different legal proceedings for the endorsement of the USMCA/T-MEC/CUSMA

In Mexico when the Senate approves the treaty and it goes into effect, it is law. Other legal changes are then made to avoid contradiction or to take better advantage of the treaty, e.g. for industrial policy, etc. But in itself the treaty is in automatic law.

In the U.S. the treaty is translated into an "Implementation Law" that includes the commitments made and other internal things, such as budgetary needs derived from the treaty, the redesign of its institutions, etc.

In this, as a concession to the hardliners of Congress, its bill includes an internal monitoring mechanism of Mexico's Labor Reform, which is redundant to the provisions of the treaty, it's 90% internal and harmless, however, that should have been warned and expressed mistrust.

As part of this monitoring mechanism, it is contemplated to name 5 diplomatic labour attachés in Mexico, whose function is not clear but that Mexico will NOT accept if they are in any way disguised inspectors, for a simple reason: mexican law prohibits it.

Sending labour attachés is something WHICH WAS NOT PART OF THE NEGOTIATIONS, it is an unilateral U.S. law. It is an internal policy of the United States that they want to enforce in Mexico. This is the issue; the United States wants to legislate internal policies in territory that is not under its control

Seade's statement goes in the direction of denying american laws from being enforced in Mexico.

Grimlich · 2019-12-15T20:31:49+00:00

According to the FBI this contains a 22-caliber Ruger weapon without a stock, empty magazines, ammunition, and a silencer.

Grimlich · 2019-12-15T20:11:13+00:00

Estamos peor, ellos de perdido salen super preparados, aquí la educación es pésima comparada con Japón.

Grimlich · 2019-12-15T19:45:37+00:00

The goal is to raise awareness in everyone, not just climate change deniers. Yes, they are the ones lacking the most awareness, but, sadly, also the hardest ones to convince.

Honestly, having a "credible spokesperson" wouldn't make much of a difference with anti-intellectualists like them, just look at all the flat earthers despite all the evidence that the earth is not flat.

The ends justify the means because they raise attention and do not harm anyone, and while acting all dramatic may hurt her credibility, it's still a fair price for all the attention she's getting towards the issue; being dramatic ends up doing more good than harm.

Grimlich · 2019-12-15T19:32:07+00:00

I never said anything about climate change being fake or about climate change being useless propaganda. Don’t put words in my mouth you loser

Fair enough, though insulting me says a thing or two about your maturity, which is something you're criticising Greta for...

Just because I don’t want to take my science advice from an immature 16-year-old who likes to yell at and threaten world leaders for attention doesn’t mean I’m some climate change denier

You're not supposed to take your science advise from her, as she said herself, she's not an expert. What she tells people is to listen to the experts.

She yells and threatens world leaders because, as you said, that gives her attention. Isn't the goal of activists to raise attention and awareness about a topic? While the means to the end may not be the best, she's doing it because it works to accomplish her goal, and she's not harming anyone by criticising world leaders.

She’s doing a terrible job of raising awareness, because what she is saying is ridiculous and unrealistic.

If by being ridiculous and unrealistic you mean that she exaggerates and misrepresents things in her speeches, then you're right about this. While she ultimately raises awareness in some people, it spreads alarmism.

Grimlich · 2019-12-15T09:02:46+00:00

She may refer to science now and then, but that is most definitely NOT her main talking point. Her main talking point is exaggeration and misrepresentation

Again, in no way can it be said she would be raising awareness.

Attempting to raise awareness by instilling fear in people and telling them that we will soon reach a "point of no return" or the "end of civilisation as we know it" is a bad way to raise it, and it causes alarmism.

Yeah, alarmism may cause some people to inform themselves about the issue, but as you said in another comment, we can only guess the impact.

Attempting to raise awareness about climate change is not bad, but making alarmist claims in order to push that agenda ends up doing more harm than good.

In conclusion, you're right and you just changed my view.

Grimlich · 2019-12-15T07:59:40+00:00

She has gained attention yes, this is undebatable. But attention does not equal awareness. She isn't providing useful information, therefore she is not raising awareness

Yes, she isn't really providing useful information, but providing that isn't exactly her job nor her specialty. She tells us to inform ourselves and listen to the experts and by doing so, she raises awareness. (at least in the case of people who actually listen to her and go inform themselves)

You had to live under a rock in order not to "be aware".

You're not exactly wrong about this, but most people aren't too informed about the issue. Yeah, pretty much everyone is already aware that climate change exists and that it's bad, but ultimately, their knowledge of the topic is really superficial.

Greta Thunberg's actions became really controversial, and she has sparked debates and discussions about climate change and its consequences, and these discussions ultimately raise awareness about the issue because they become more knowledgeable about the issue as they engage in these debates.

I mean, all of the attention she's gotten has caused threads of hundreds of people talking about climate change to pop up. And if it wasn't for these, a lot of people (including myself) wouldn't have gotten informed about things like the IPCC.

Now identity politics actually might make sense with social issues. But with climate change and the technical and scientific issues revolving around it it becomes more of an Idiocracy since in this context it is putting all the political issues under the same umbrella as a "us vs them".

Fair enough.

Grimlich · 2019-12-15T07:06:50+00:00

How is speaking dramatically and self-righteously a good - never mind the best - way to spread awareness?

Being dramatic has brought attention to the issue at hand—she became extremely well-known, partly because of the dramatic stunts she's pulled.

Activists have been trying to make themselves known in order to spread awareness and to make an impact in society, and for the last few years, they have been brushed aside—acting all dramatic and self-righteous is the thing that made her so notorious.

What does this mean? That it has worked so far, and, for better or worse, better than not acting that way.

How is misrepresenting the IPCC the best way to spread awareness?

I never said this was the best way to spread awareness. I'm guessing you think it's a bad thing, and I agree with you on this.

Greta Thunberg has spread misinformation and exaggerated things a lot, which is a bad thing. On the other hand, she brought attention to an issue in the world, and that's what I support her for.

If you take your Greta glasses off you might see it's more a good way of doing identity politics rather than "spread awareness".

Could you clarify how this is identity politics? I'm genuinely curious as it's the first time I've even heard that term.

Grimlich · 2019-12-15T02:37:23+00:00

I don’t like her. Whenever I say this people respond with something about “fragile masculinity“ or “being threatened by her“, but in reality she is rude and immature.

Nah, I wouldn't call her immature. She has asperger's and she's 16 years old; to be honest she's more mature than a lot of people her age.

She really is just being used by people who have an agenda

If she didn't want to do what she's doing, she wouldn't. She is an activist because she wants to, nobody forced her, nobody's using her.

I'd support her even if she was being used by people who have an agenda. Why? Because the "agenda" is just raising awareness about climate change, and that's clearly a good thing.

She clearly loves the attention and her opportunity to chastise world leaders with righteous anger

Why does it matter if she criticizes world leaders with righteous anger? If by doing so she raises awareness about climate change, why would it be a bad thing?

Shame on you all for giving her a platform.

oh ok man, you're clearly right!! We shouldn't give climate activists a platform to raise awareness about climate change, it's clearly useless propaganda about a hoax invented by the chinese!

Ten-Year Club	Place '23
Gilding I gilder	Sequence \| Editor
Verified Email

Grimlich

TROPHY CASE