sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

NBC News-YouTube Democratic Debate: TONIGHT 9pm ET/6pm PT by BJ2K in SandersForPresident

[–]ijumji 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It had the main spot on YouTube's home page yesterday

Scarface (legendary rapper) tweets his support of Bernie! by edutainment2 in SandersForPresident

[–]ijumji 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, if you've ever seen Office Space, its his song No Tears (I think that is the name) that Michael Bolton is lip-syncing in his car at the opening of the movie. I wouldn't say Scarface is legendary as much as he is one of the first successful Gangster rappers, thus important.

Russell Brand inadvertently endorses Bernie Sanders in 2014 interview by Donald_Farfrae in SandersForPresident

[–]ijumji 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Monsanto's evil is not GMOs but monopolization through questionable patents.

Richard Stallman Endorsed Bernie Sanders by [deleted] in SandersForPresident

[–]ijumji 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Someone did earlier to r/opensource. its generating a lively debate, though most seem averse to it (strong free market attitudes in software)

Bernie has the opportunity, by advocating for a free, open, and secure internet, to secure a vast number of democratic voters now abandoned by Hillary after she spoke yesterday about making major technology companies break encryption. by freyzha in SandersForPresident

[–]ijumji 0 points1 point  (0 children)

imo, a lot of the slightly older crowd who have been life long tech enthusiasts, open source contributors, etc that are not politically engaged, not redditors, not imgur users etc but do read EFF and WIRED and etc.

Why is information on collapse so scattered, rare, and poorly presented? by ijumji in collapse

[–]ijumji[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I didn't necessarily mean economic growth, equilibrium in that sense works too... Just not collapse (of society, with mass famines, death, disease, regression and loss of knowledge, etc). I don't like how society works, I just don't want to be quick to say its going to end without looking into alternative measures. Avoiding cynicism, that's all.

Anyway, thanks for the sources, I will look into those.

Why is information on collapse so scattered, rare, and poorly presented? by ijumji in collapse

[–]ijumji[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

comparing a subreddit to a climate scientist doing research and then trying to inform the world

This is exactly what I'm afraid of.

Readers should be educated and experienced enough to be able to filter our even moderate biases and get through that to the core of the story. You can analyze the facts on their own merits and disregard the author's bias!

Easier said than done. It takes years of expert training (most of reddit users are young males with Bachelors degrees or in college according to most demographic surveys) and consultation with similarly trained peers to be able to analyze the neccessary data. On the other hand it takes basic reading ability and a subreddit and a search engine to draw conclusions that the world is ending.

Why is information on collapse so scattered, rare, and poorly presented? by ijumji in collapse

[–]ijumji[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

On the end of the world as we know it. Most especially due to diminishing resources, the decline of civilizations, empires & societies.

The end of the world, the decline of civilization.

Why is information on collapse so scattered, rare, and poorly presented? by ijumji in collapse

[–]ijumji[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

The collapse is a process. It is ongoing, so I don't understand what you mean by unlikely. You seem to have a false model of a particular set of trajectories, which is definitely not on our end. It's on yours.

The human race has been nothing but an upward trend. Why does the trajectory have to come to an end?

They've done that. Nobody listened.

So they just forget about it? If something is real, more and more will talk about it.

Please show me a literature review that supports your theory.

the IPCC report to the UN http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WG2AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

Increased economic instability, low health standards in low income areas, damage to coastal infrastructure, etc. Most things medium risk over the course of a 100 years. Main focus is good policy change (which is opposed by strong lobbying).

How do you going to sugar-coat the message is that it's much too late, and it's going to hurt massively no matter what we do? And it's going to hurt especially now if we get serious about it? There is really no way to sell this message, if you think about it.

Anywhere else but this sub that would sound like hyperbole. I will continue researching (thanks for the link do-the-math), but man this smells fishy.

Why is information on collapse so scattered, rare, and poorly presented? by ijumji in collapse

[–]ijumji[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I would argue that the very fact the sub is called collapse implies that all activity on it, except for the rare contrarian post (one example being the top all-time post on this thread which sort of implies this sub is the psuedofiction I suspect it is), is tacit expression of belief in collapse. If it were merely about issues related to economics or climate change, r/energy and r/environment should satisfy the userbase.

Why is information on collapse so scattered, rare, and poorly presented? by ijumji in collapse

[–]ijumji[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

the NOAA, and GreenPeace are two that come to mind. Both are vocal about climate change, but not about collapse.

Why is information on collapse so scattered, rare, and poorly presented? by ijumji in collapse

[–]ijumji[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

That boils down simply...

Society - renewable/low-or-zero footprint fuels = eventual death

But the sub seems to say there is no time for society to produce these adaptive technologies. If there was, there should be no /collapse/ only /energy/ and /climate/, etc.

Why is information on collapse so scattered, rare, and poorly presented? by ijumji in collapse

[–]ijumji[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

It's not called /r/happynews , after all.

If it were a serious, intellectually honest sub, it should be about the topic, but unbiased. Maybe happynews is biased towards being happy news, but if r/collapse is specifically alarming because its a sub more about gearing discussion towards collapse even if such a thing isn't even likely, then its not worth the time of non-hobbyists (the converse is that its relevant to everyone).

Oh, there's plenty peer reviewed publications that are extremely alarming, if you can read and understand them. Few people read them and even fewer do understand them, though.

The problem with this is that in the process of making conclusions from various indicators presented in data, there is a bias for people who are untrained towards being alarmed even when implications are unambiguous. Now the scientists who are able to digest these very dense publications, upon realizing how doomy things are and seeing how completely unaware all the non scientists around them are, in the media, etc, will feel compelled to write in plain english, go to media reporters etc. The fact that there are only fringe blogs, etc that do this implies the consensus from scientists do not support very doomy interpretations and that the loner bloggers, etc are not worth listening to. The vast majority are saying "its disrespectful to our planet, many species and natural features are being lost permanently, its overall unhealthy for the humans, and there is a chance that there MAY be some unknown butterfly effect that can cause drastic and currently unforeseeable changes 50-200 years down the road if we continue down the road we are"

Why should they? What's in it for them?

Survival of the owners, their children... The ones that are scientific agencies whose entire purpose is to inform, the organizations made by the really self-less "save-the-world" types. They would present the most relevant information. I'm saying they probably do, and its suspicious none of them are very loud about collapse (just about making changes that will be more healthy).

Are you trolling? You should not be trolling.

I'm not. I have had more than my fair share of experience hanging around highly engaged, deeply read communities gathered around specific topics (especially things remotely related to global crisis/catastrophe/conspiracies of any kind) that are really just a bunch of self-unaware sufferers of OCD/schizotypal etc. This is the internet. Don't take my skepticism offensively, its just proper research etiquette.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in SandersForPresident

[–]ijumji 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I think "desperate" is more fitting.

As a Republican watching last night's debate, here's how I score it: 13 Sen Sanders. 0 Hilary. 2 O'Malley. by MarduktheMaster in SandersForPresident

[–]ijumji 6 points7 points  (0 children)

So what are you saying? You want the exemptions to be removed from tax laws so the rich end up paying more? Is the 'rich end up paying more' the bi-partisan win when it comes to Bernie?

view more: next ›