Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder how much the right wing is spending on anti-DEI propaganda and activism? I wouldn't be shocked or surprised if that number by far exceeds that UVA budget.

Considering the fossil fuel industry literally spent well over a billion dollars on climate denial propaganda I would tend to agree. It's sad that they could have invested that billion into cleaner tech and we would all be better off today.

The right wing is far too invested in fighting change just for the sake of fighting.

I'll bite. I'm opposed to climate fear mongering […]

Wow that was an amazingly off topic screed.

The fact that you can't tell the difference between an analysis and a screed legit makes me worried for you. And also, it's not off topic. The topic has shifted to how people who don't unquestioningly accept all climate change talking points are brainwashed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder how much the right wing is spending on anti-DEI propaganda and activism? I wouldn't be shocked or surprised if that number by far exceeds that UVA budget.

Considering the fossil fuel industry literally spent well over a billion dollars on climate denial propaganda I would tend to agree. It's sad that they could have invested that billion into cleaner tech and we would all be better off today.

The right wing is far too invested in fighting change just for the sake of fighting.

I'll bite. I'm opposed to climate fear mongering […]

Wow that was an amazingly off topic screed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder how much the right wing is spending on anti-DEI propaganda and activism? I wouldn't be shocked or surprised if that number by far exceeds that UVA budget.

Considering the fossil fuel industry literally spent well over a billion dollars on climate denial propaganda I would tend to agree. It's sad that they could have invested that billion into cleaner tech and we would all be better off today.

The right wing is far too invested in fighting change just for the sake of fighting.

I'll bite. I'm opposed to climate fear mongering because I'm concerned that it will, at a very minimum, make the US a poorer, more dangerous nation. So I'm not opposed to it because I hate the earth, or because I don't think we should make reasonable efforts to protect the environment. My concern is that I think climate change activists are proposing solutions that are doomed, and when you pursue doomed efforts in lieu of realistic ones, you end up further behind. Look at Germany. It undertook the world's most ambitious climate agenda, and like 15 years later, they are actually *dirtier* than when they began.

The reason is, the let's solution lies on a false premise that "clean" technology can be scaled up to replace the existing fleet of carbon based utilities. This was always doomed, because while you can convince humans to go along with quixotic ventures, you do not have the power to bend physics to your will. If we could scale up green energy fast enough to replace the existing utilities, you'd see much more progress than we have now. But we haven't overcome issues related to storage and the baseload. This is probably why the left embraced nuclear after decades of protesting it-- it is carbon neutral and the only way to that current technology would allow us to meet those energy goals.

But even so, who is building reactors? Very few companies. They are waiting to see if DOE will give subsidies. But the DOE is coming off a 2 decades long streak of pretending we can sustain our nation's energy needs with wind and water and pixie dust. It takes time to get everyone on the same page and move forward. Time. Time we lost when everyone embraced climate ideology as a new religion, rather than correctly looking at it as a theory about a problem and a theory about a solution that didn't actually exist (green energy).

You may recall that part of the theory was that we could reduce energy needs. Everyone needed to do laundry and run the dishwasher at 2am (I still do this), and if we all just change our habits, we will change our needs. Remember that? No one talks about it anymore because, as tends to happen, circumstances changed. AI was born.

Now, we need more energy. Like a crapton more energy. We need double what we have. And yet, the left is clamoring to shutter natural gas. Nuke plants have closed across the US. We have planned for a *decline* when we require a massive increase due to the demands of AI. Sure, we can just not do it. But India will, China will, etc. And then what will US citizens have to show for it? The climate will not be improved, but, we will be significantly poorer and more vulnerable.

If you want to think that people like me are just too dumb to understand climate change, too controlled by Tucker Carlson, too numbed and obese from non organic food to be able to understand the dire situation we are in. Ok. That's fine. But the future is coming for you too.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-US-Needs-To-Double-The-Size-Of-Its-Energy-Grid.amp.html

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-ai-boom-could-use-a-shocking-amount-of-electricity/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder how much the right wing is spending on anti-DEI propaganda and activism? I wouldn't be shocked or surprised if that number by far exceeds that UVA budget.

Considering the fossil fuel industry literally spent well over a billion dollars on climate denial propaganda I would tend to agree. It's sad that they could have invested that billion into cleaner tech and we would all be better off today.

The right wing is far too invested in fighting change just for the sake of fighting.

Yep, billions with a B. The right wing faux outrage machine is a huge industry.

Holy crap. I just did a search and this is correct - the right wing spends a billion dollars a year on climate denial via 91 think tanks, advocacy organizations and trade associations - https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/meet-the-money-behind-the-climate-denial-movement-180948204/

This is probably true of many other right wing issues as well.

That’s the only way the GOP maintains any sort of credibility - paying to brainwash people. But they keep doing it because it works, because our media exists for the benefit of the GOP and because there are no limits to the GOP paying to brainwash people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And the NYT brought receipts.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/01/20/us/dei-woke-claremont-institute.html

Why do conservatives hate America and everything it stands for? Why are they so racist?

Referencing The NY Times, now there’s an unbiased news source. LoL

Ok, provide alternative facts that undermine the facts as presented in the article. It is all public and searchable.

Free Beacon garbage incoming.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And the NYT brought receipts.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/01/20/us/dei-woke-claremont-institute.html

Why do conservatives hate America and everything it stands for? Why are they so racist?

Referencing The NY Times, now there’s an unbiased news source. LoL

Ok, provide alternative facts that undermine the facts as presented in the article. It is all public and searchable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good news.
DEI is toxic.

DEI is not toxic. The right wing has made it toxic. I work in a VERY white male industry. They don't even think about including women, let alone people of color. Part of our efforts are just reminding them that they should cast a wider net because clearly, there are other smart people out there. They literally just hire from their individual network, which is all white men. That is what DEI is trying to stop.

I don't always think it's malicious. They just don't even think about how much better they could be.

Yes, so much better. This is an example of what it is leading to.

Charlie Kirk is an idiot. Poulty processing and meat packing plants have always had a large percentage of migrants because most Americans don't want those jobs, that's been the case for decades, and has absolutely nothing to do with "DEI."

+1
Someone on this forum really loves Kirk, they post his tweets a lot.
They also must have never lived near any meat processing facilities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good news.
DEI is toxic.

DEI is not toxic. The right wing has made it toxic. I work in a VERY white male industry. They don't even think about including women, let alone people of color. Part of our efforts are just reminding them that they should cast a wider net because clearly, there are other smart people out there. They literally just hire from their individual network, which is all white men. That is what DEI is trying to stop.

I don't always think it's malicious. They just don't even think about how much better they could be.

Yes, so much better. This is an example of what it is leading to.

Charlie Kirk is an idiot. Poulty processing and meat packing plants have always had a large percentage of migrants because most Americans don't want those jobs, that's been the case for decades, and has absolutely nothing to do with "DEI."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good news.
DEI is toxic.

DEI is not toxic. The right wing has made it toxic. I work in a VERY white male industry. They don't even think about including women, let alone people of color. Part of our efforts are just reminding them that they should cast a wider net because clearly, there are other smart people out there. They literally just hire from their individual network, which is all white men. That is what DEI is trying to stop.

I don't always think it's malicious. They just don't even think about how much better they could be.

Yes, so much better. This is an example of what it is leading to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And the NYT brought receipts.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/01/20/us/dei-woke-claremont-institute.html

Why do conservatives hate America and everything it stands for? Why are they so racist?

Referencing The NY Times, now there’s an unbiased news source. LoL

Can you actually refute anything they presented? No? Then SIT DOWN.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where I work, DEI is a bunch of garbage. They keep hiring and promoting based on identity, most often women, and it leads to completely inexperienced staff with gaping holes in backgrounds managing everything. Lol, they just promoted a woman with only 5 years experience right out of grad school to a director level position. Absolute joke when it usually requires 10-15+ years experience, most of which you've at least had multiple years of managing personnel at a middle management level first. Her resume is nothing astounding, yet she's fast tracked to upper manager level positions for God knows why. 100% DEI wokeism garbage at work.

A bunch of mid, unqualified and mediocre women get to benefit these days. It's also funny, because it is often white women too who get the reap the most benefit - they get their white privilege AND can leverage DEI wokeism in their favor by citing something something something about gender.

If what you say is true, the problem is with the application of DEI, not DEI itself.

The general allegation that unqualified people get elevated is generally unfounded and racist/sexist at its core, however. And, as the NYT proves, that is a core piece of disinformation.

You’re proposing the old Communist trick… it fails in a wide variety of settings, but somehow it’s because it’s never been implemented in the proper way. How about admitting it’s a crappy idea that just won’t work no matter how it’s implemented?

Anonymous wrote:And the NYT brought receipts.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/01/20/us/dei-woke-claremont-institute.html

Why do conservatives hate America and everything it stands for? Why are they so racist?

Referencing The NY Times, now there’s an unbiased news source. LoL

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder how much the right wing is spending on anti-DEI propaganda and activism? I wouldn't be shocked or surprised if that number by far exceeds that UVA budget.

Considering the fossil fuel industry literally spent well over a billion dollars on climate denial propaganda I would tend to agree. It's sad that they could have invested that billion into cleaner tech and we would all be better off today.

The right wing is far too invested in fighting change just for the sake of fighting.

Yep, billions with a B. The right wing faux outrage machine is a huge industry.

Holy crap. I just did a search and this is correct - the right wing spends a billion dollars a year on climate denial via 91 think tanks, advocacy organizations and trade associations - https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/meet-the-money-behind-the-climate-denial-movement-180948204/

This is probably true of many other right wing issues as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder how much the right wing is spending on anti-DEI propaganda and activism? I wouldn't be shocked or surprised if that number by far exceeds that UVA budget.

Considering the fossil fuel industry literally spent well over a billion dollars on climate denial propaganda I would tend to agree. It's sad that they could have invested that billion into cleaner tech and we would all be better off today.

The right wing is far too invested in fighting change just for the sake of fighting.

Yep, billions with a B. The right wing faux outrage machine is a huge industry.

Anonymous wrote:I wonder how much the right wing is spending on anti-DEI propaganda and activism? I wouldn't be shocked or surprised if that number by far exceeds that UVA budget.

Considering the fossil fuel industry literally spent well over a billion dollars on climate denial propaganda I would tend to agree. It's sad that they could have invested that billion into cleaner tech and we would all be better off today.

The right wing is far too invested in fighting change just for the sake of fighting.