this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2024
109 points (86.6% liked)

politics

19144 readers
5938 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 46 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ChihuahuaOfDoom@lemmy.world 43 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Answer: They are far too useful.

[–] Pizza_Rat@lemmy.world 15 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Because a carbon tax incremented over a period of years would achieve the desired outcome with much less administrative burden and economic impact.

We should use fossil fuels sometimes - when it's worth paying the real cost!

[–] HerrBeter@lemmy.world 17 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Problem is the total accumulated CO2 already there. We would need to be net zero yesterday to mitigate imo.

Capitalistic institutions haven't been serious or motivated enough to make any real effort. They'll make up their next cop-out like carbon credits or whatever

[–] Pizza_Rat@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It can, and will, get worse.

A carbon tax is a specific, simple, policy that voters could form a broad coalition around to implement.

[–] Suspiciousbrowsing@kbin.melroy.org 10 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You'd think that.. it sunk the Australian government when they tried to implement it 10-15 yrs ago

[–] Liz@midwest.social 3 points 8 months ago

Canada has one, though it's not particularly aggressive, as far as I can tell. They redistribute the tax money so no one actually pays extra over the full year, but high carbon products are still more expensive.

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/news/2024/02/canada-carbon-rebate-amounts-for-2024-25.html

I have no idea how the tax is calculated.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

the first step to caring for a injury is to stop further harm. a combat medic covers their patient's wounds from falling dust and dirt by placing their body between - then evacuates the patient to safer location.

we have to stop the bullshit uses of petrochemicals. the flagrant waste, the waste for recreation, the waste for convenience, toys etc.

plastics for food, plastics for medical tech, industrial use and exploration - force everything else to reusables.

the best way to overcome the enormous build-up already accumulated IS TO STOP ADDING TO IT IMMEDIATELY.

[–] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world -3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Because having an electric car is for rich people and is poor can't fucking afford a Tesla

[–] gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 8 months ago

You're acting like there aren't affordable used EVs that would function perfectly well for people in a position to have an EV

My 2018 Leaf is more than sufficient for the majority of commuters and is cheaper than last year's Honda Civic. Oh and bonus, a lot of them just had their batteries swapped under warranty due to a manufacturing defect and have a fresh new battery and warranty!

So, assuming someone either has the ability to charge at home or close to (I lived with this car in an apartment complex for a year so yes even that is possible, if not annoying) then they should be able to locate an affordable EV if that's their desired engine type

[–] platypus_plumba@lemmy.world 12 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Why don't we ban sharing links with paywalls?

[–] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

That should absolutely be against the sub rules, if you post a paywalled link you should also be required to post the archive link.
Or, just post with the archive link to begin with.

[–] laverabe@lemmy.world -4 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I haven't experienced the NY times paywall in awhile. I don't mean to sound lectury but there really is no reason to not use Firefox desktop or mobile with ublock origin. It is so much nicer of a web experience, and NY times has some nice articles.

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 8 months ago

<.< Fuck iOS people then, I suppose.

[–] platypus_plumba@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

I just downloaded Firefox and installed uBlock on my phone to test this. Didn't work. Any specific settings?

Edit: hmm OK, figured out the custom filter import for paywalls... do you feel comfortable adding Javascript managed by random people to your browser?

For anyone who doesn't know this... Install uBlock > My filters > scroll down until you see import...

Import these two:

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/liamengland1/miscfilters/master/antipaywall.txt

https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-clean-filters/-/raw/main/bpc-paywall-filter.txt

I don't know... I don't feel comfortable doing this. I usually only install trusted stuff in my machines. This feels like an easy way to get screwed.

That person could go rogue and then you have malicious Javascript running next to your credentials on every tab.

Edit 2: after checking in detail, those filters aren't Javascript logic. So it seems fine. I thought it was some form of minimized Javascript

[–] laverabe@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

I was actually mistaken in my earlier comment, I meant to say Bypass Paywalls Clean, but actually that add-on was removed previously from the Firefox store due to a copyright claim (it became too popular). I have it installed because it was only removed from the store, not from users who had it installed already.

Like you found out though your searching though, the BPC filter list can be imported into uBlock Origin through it's settings menu.

[–] platypus_plumba@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

I think it is still nice to assume that most users don't have these plugins or filters, and to provide the archived version of the page. That way the effort to find the content is done a single time by a single person instead of everyone.

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Definitely worth thinking about for the future. Right now it would fuck over a whole lot of working class people. We need to get robust public transit up and running.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

a whole lot of working class people

it would fuck over our entire economy and infrastructure. it's an asinine question to pose by itself, in a vacuum.

But we will have to get there, especially for the optional shit - cruise ships, motorcross, snow-mobiling, pleasure / recreation boats and RVs - if it's optional, aka, not absolutely necessary to the business of righting the ecosystem, it goes.

Let people cruise and moto and snowmobile on renewably derived electricity if they absolutely HAVE to have these luxuries, but no more 2-strokes spewing unburned gas into the ecosystem, no more 'environmental cruises' to the arctic where these fucks burn bunker oil constantly in the last 'mostly untouched' ecosystem on the planet.

The only question is: how serious are we, as a species, about stopping the pain?

Because at the rate we're going, we won't - and will doom our species and ecosystem, and it's coming QUICK. 1.5c is gone already lol. The mountains are not regaining snowpack. the AMOC is wobbling. Once that goes, large parts of the ecosystem will falter.

So can we quickly do the mature thing and put away the toys, and struggle with a single focus on saving ourselves?

Or will we let the dipshits and assholes vroom vroom their way to our collective destruction, because we decided long ago to let the stupids drive the bus?

[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 9 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Because the people running our country make a lot of money off of them.

[–] SuiXi3D@kbin.social 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The entire industry employs a great number of people. It’s not so simple to just ban all fossil fuels (even if it is what we need to do) and leave millions out of work. Think of how many industries rely on fossil fuels as well, just to move things or people around. All those jobs go bye-bye overnight too.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t ban fossil fuels, but the fallout from doing so needs to be addressed before it becomes a problem in the first place.

[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 months ago

Obviously yes but it could be done. We have the resources and labor power to do it but we don't

[–] SpiceDealer@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago
[–] macisr@sh.itjust.works 6 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Because if you just ban them you would destroy the economy of basically everyone, even your community probably.

[–] ArmoredThirteen@lemmy.ml 6 points 8 months ago

Wonder what'll happen to the economy when we cook ourselves to death

[–] robocall@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

Nah, we'll bounce back probably

[–] CatTrickery@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 8 months ago

The economy isn't real

[–] Fox@pawb.social 5 points 8 months ago

Government would burn a lot of fossil fuels in the effort to save you from the sin of doing it yourself