Well, I'm naively assuming Grokipedia is being sympathetic to the cause(?) of Gamergate, but if the best thing they could lead the article was essentially "It all started when someone got mad at his ex-girlfriend and her many other boyfriends and wrote something that went viral" ...
... it does sound like an online harassment campaign.
It was. In hindsight it signaled the beginning of the mass weaponization of the internet via social media. It also was NOT grassroots lol. It was very specifically and intentionally enflamed and groomed and funded by people like Steve Bannon and his good buddy Jeffrey Epstein. It wouldn’t have such a big Wikipedia article without them.
But America isn't a high-trust society. Roughly half of Americans proudly assert that their government must be small, gridlocked, and incompetent, and that's by design, because if the government becomes too efficient it will infringe upon Americans' freedom.
So instead Americans keep electing people who say "The government can't do anything right! Elect me and I'll prove it to you!"
Not exactly a mark of a high-trust society, whatever that means.
The only group that cries and creates hysteria is the last group. So, not sure why you think the other groups consider it as bleak. From all the other groups perspective, they are winning, because nobody is buying the stupid de-growth, ban fossils agenda.
Yes, if hysteria and de-growth propaganda wins, it is bleak for the other groups
I think you should take a step back, try to ignore your priors a bit, and take a look at this subject with an open mind/willingness to be incorrect. Because I’m telling you man, the science is against you.
It perfectly falls under - "Climate Warming is Man Made, don't need de-growth strategies because Technology will solve energy efficiency, clean energy growth and carbon capture and humans adapt along the way"
“Researchers found that plants’ protein content will likely decrease significantly if carbon dioxide levels reach 540 to 960 parts per million, which we are projected to reach by 2100. (We are currently at 409 ppm.) Studies show that barley, wheat, potatoes and rice have 6 to 15 percent lower concentrations of protein when grown at those levels of CO2. The protein content of corn and sorghum, however, did not decline significantly.”
"When grown under the CO2 levels expected by 2050, reductions of protein, iron, and zinc in common produce in some parts of the world could be anywhere from 3-17 percent. And if emissions continue at the current rate, in many countries, these nutrient declines could turn dire."
“The world's top 10 crops— barley, cassava, maize, oil palm, rapeseed, rice, sorghum, soybean, sugarcane and wheat—supply a combined 83 percent of all calories produced on cropland. Yields have long been projected to decrease in future climate conditions. Now, new research shows climate change has already affected production of these key energy sources—and some regions and countries are faring far worse than others.”
Lower available omega 3 fatty acids
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3090543/
Earth
Ozone destruction
https://psmag.com/environment/the-most-climate-resilient-cou...
In other words, heat-trapping gases contribute to creating the cooling conditions in the atmosphere that lead to ozone depletion. Greenhouse gases absorb heat at relatively low altitudes and warm the surface--but they have the opposite effect in higher altitudes because they prevent heat from rising.
In a cooler stratosphere, ozone loss creates a cooling effect that results in further ozone depletion.
Falling oxygen levels caused by global warming could be a greater threat to the survival of life on planet Earth than flooding, according to new research.
Our calculations suggest that projected changes in suicide rates under future climate change could be as important as other well- studied societal or policy determinants of suicide rates (see Fig. 5a).
In absolute value, the effect of climate change on the suicide rate in the United States and Mexico by 2050 is roughly two to four times the estimated effect of a 1% increase in the unemployment rate in the European Union20, half as large as the immediate effect of a celebrity suicide in Japan45, and roughly one-third as large in absolute magnitude (with opposite sign) as the estimated effect of gun restriction laws in the United States46 or the effect of national suicide prevention programmes in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries47. The large magni- tude of our results adds further impetus to better understand why temperature affects suicide and to implement policies to mitigate future temperature rise.
Climate Change Will Expose Half of World’s Population to Disease-Spreading Mosquitoes By 2050
https://e360.yale.edu/digest/climate-change-will-expose-half...
Unhealthy blood CO2 concentrations causing stress on the autonomic nervous system have been measured from people in common office environments where reduced thinking ability and health symptoms have been observed at levels of CO2 above 600 ppm for relatively short-term exposures. Although humans and animals are able to deal with elevated levels of CO2 in the short-term due to various compensation mechanisms in the body, the persistent effects of these mechanisms may have severe consequences in a perpetual environment of elevated CO2. These include threats to life such as kidney failure, bone atrophy and loss of brain function. Existing research also indicates that as ambient CO2 increases in the near-future, there will be an associated increase in cancers, neurological disorders and other conditions.
No. These CO2 measurement levels are at 9,000 feet, not on the surface at sea level. The CO2 concentration at the surface is much higher, and it is becoming very common for CO2 levels to exceed 1,000 ppm at the surface, going up to 4,000 ppm in closed areas, like houses.
The measured CO2 level has seasonal peaks and lows. What is important is the Mean keeps climbing. What is also important is the rise in the mean is starting to go exponential. A decade ago, the mean was increasing about 1 ppm per year. This past year, it is increasing at 3 ppm. All the projections from the 70's have been with the assumption that the CO2 level increase would be a linear ramp up, indicating when the troposphere, the breathable atmosphere, goes into Thermal Runaway, around 2070. If the ramp up is going exponential, then the conditions for Thermal Runaway move closer, possibly around 2040. The commencement of Thermal Runaway is a mass extinction event. This is the reason for all the "sooner than expected" headlines.
> Two Korean presidents were sentenced to death and were pardoned in the 90s.
The important context is that these two presidents were Chun Doo-hwan and his successor Roh Tae-Woo, who led the military coup of December 12th (1979), seizing power, and then sending paratroopers to murder hundreds of civilians to quash public protest in the uprising of Gwangju (1980).
They weren't your garden variety corrupt politicians. They were mass murderers, and by 1995 when they were arrested, they and their military cabals were still posing a credible threat to Korea's democracy. Their arrest and subsequent death sentences, accompanied with a sweeping purge of their military cabal by president Kim Young-Sam, marked an important inflection point in Korea's decades-long struggle toward democracy: before that the threat of a military coup was a constant factor in politics. After that the threat was gone, and since then, the Korean military never even pretended they had any political ambitions.
So mock their later pardons if you want to, but you can't deny it marked an important and necessary step in Korea's history. It also shows sending your ex-presidents to prison only to pardon them later is still better than not bothering with it at all.
* Also, the "obvious reason" that American politics sent zero ex-presidents to prison is that Biden chickened out. So, there's that.
> Also, the "obvious reason" that American politics sent zero ex-presidents to prison is that Biden chickened out. So, there's that.
Don't forget Ford deciding to protect his political allies (by pardoning Nixon). And George HW Bush doing similar (preventing Iran-Contra scandal investigation by pardoning participants who could have fingered Bush or Reagan)
It was also a "complicated issue" for 300 lawmakers of Korea on the night of the martial law declaration, especially since they had so little information and had only hours to act. For all they knew, Yoon could be starting a war, or sending troops to murder everyone in the capitol. Those who jumped the fence on that night did so not knowing when (or whether) they could go home.
Enough of them did, and that's why Yoon's insurrection failed.
Biden had his sweet four years to ponder on the matter, and the worst that could realistically happen to him was that people would say mean things about him. He has no one else to blame for his failure to send Trump to prison.
This insurgency was literally going to suspend democracy and lead to people getting arrested. It is incredibly disturbing so many want a dictator. It disgusts me.
> The important context is that these two presidents were Chun Doo-hwan and his successor Roh Tae-Woo, who led the military coup of December 12th (1979), seizing power, and then sending paratroopers to murder hundreds of civilians to quash public protest in the uprising of Gwangju (1980).
I think your comment here is very emotionally charged here but to clarify to outsiders reading, those protestors also broke into an military armory, armed themselves to the teeth, and an armed conflict broke out. It's still not clear as to who fired the first shot and by all definitions can be viewed as armed insurrection not a mere "public protest".
Also during this time protests were spreading not just in Gwangju but in other large cities. The Gwangju incident is still a very contested and heavily debated historical event one that has been constantly politically weaponized to silence opposition.
> So mock their later pardons if you want to, but you can't deny it marked an important and necessary step in Korea's history. It also shows sending your ex-presidents to prison only to pardon them later is still better than not bothering with it at all.
I am mocking South Korea's political arena because pardoning Presidents after charging them with treason/corruption/insurrection only reinforces that laws are selectively applied and some are still above its law and constitution. Better would've been to refrain from the tit for tat kangaroo courts altogether to placate whatever direction the country's leaning towards in that election cycle.
> Also, the "obvious reason" that American politics sent zero ex-presidents to prison is that Biden chickened out. So, there's that.
Post-watergate scandal, it was President Ford that stated going after Nixon would bottleneck national interest decision making with partisan legal/political factionalism , something that South Korea has become today and it will not stop.
> those protestors also broke into an military armory, armed themselves to the teeth, and an armed conflict broke out
Oh you are one of those people.
So when you said you were "surprised by the lack of depth of assessing Korea's history of prosecuting its presidents" you were complaining that people didn't follow your far-right revisionist history of Korea?
Talking with the likes of you is waste of my time, but just to clear the matter for others interested:
On May 18th, 1980, paratroopers were beating and arresting residents of Gwangju, not just protestors but random civilians, going into people's homes to beat up everyone and arrest anyone they didn't like. By 20th, multiple people were beaten to death, and as people got angry protests became larger and larger.
On 21st, the street of Geumnam-ro was packed with tens of thousands of protestors. On 1 pm, soldiers opened fire on protestors, with more than 50 dying. That afternoon, people started organizing armed militia.
These are all very well known and publicly available information, a google search away for anyone who can read Korean.
I'm not disagreeing with the timeline here, but the moment of breaking into an armory, handing out thousands of military grade weapons to civilians and engaging in active organized firefights fundamentally transforms a situation from a "protest" into a full-scale armed conflict.
To pretend otherwise ignores the exceptionally detailed historical record regarding the sheer level of armed action that took place. This wasn't just a crowd shouting and throwing molotov cocktails.
The citizen militia systematically raided police stations, military reserve armories in surrounding towns. They commandeered hundreds of armored personel carriers, military trucks, and jeeps to use in combat.
The citizen militia armed themselves with several thousands of M1 Garands, carbines, M16s and light machine guns with thousands of rounds of live ammunition and gernades. They even secured somewhere around like 8 tons of TNT and dynamite from local coal mines, which explosives experts among the citizens used to rig the basement of the provincial capital building which served as the headquarter for the militia.
This resulted in intense, organized urban warfare. The militia was heavily armed enough to engage in massive gun battles and physically drive the martial law troops out of downtown Gwangju for several days. In the ensuing combat, official records show 22 soldiers and 4 police officers were killed, alongside over 250 state forces wounded. Even accounting for the soldiers killed by friendly fire in the chaos, the armed citizens actively engaged, shot, and killed military personnel.
We can acknowledge that the Korean military committed atrocities AND that what followed was a highly organized, massive urban warfare between a heavily armed well organized citizens militia and the army. The two facts need not be mutually exclusive. Pointing out the severe reality of the heavy weapons used, the scale of the combat, and the casualties inflicted on both sides is what makes this complex. I'm shining a light on the complicated historical reality of how massive and violent this conflict was as an outsider looking in. I understand you are Korean and I understand this might invoke an emotionally charged take from your part.
I can't believe I'm defending Yoon, but this was one issue where Yoon identified the correct problem, and all those doctors were clearly in the wrong. But because there are so few doctors, things like emergency rooms were always overfull, and doctors who worked there were always overworked, and when they said no there was nothing the rest of the country could do. So the doctors basically had the rest of the country by its balls, so to speak.
It will forever grate me that those assholes of Korean Medical Association could say "You see how hard we're working for all of you guys? That's why there should be no more doctors!" with a straight face and will never face any consequences for that.
(Of course, it didn't help Yoon that he attacked this problem with the finesse of a bulldozer, with disastrous consequences. But still.)
Just wanted to add some context on this in case someone reads this thread down the road. I know many doctors from Korea, and their take on it was that Yoon's populist policy to increase caps on medical students wouldn't fix the actual issue at hand, which is that nobody wants to work in a low-paid, highly stressful environment. Unfortunately, those happen to be the exact fields of medicine that are lacking in doctors.
In fact, what they warned would happen is that it would just increase the number of new graduates heading towards highly lucrative, unregulated medical fields like dermatology and cosmetic surgery, and would only exacerbate the gaps in essential areas like pediatrics, OB/GYN, and emergency medicine, which face real shortages.
The root of the problem is twofold: First, South Korea's National Health Insurance heavily regulates and caps the prices for essential and lifesaving care, sometimes setting reimbursement rates so low that hospitals lose money on them. Meanwhile, non essential aesthetic procedures have no price caps.
Second, South Korea has an unusually high rate of prosecuting doctors criminally for medical malpractice. Doctors in high stakes environments like the ER or surgery face massive legal risks and the threat of actual prison time for unavoidable bad outcomes. Conversely, opening a skin clinic carries almost zero legal risk, no night shifts, and much higher pay.
The doctors' frustration was that Yoon's policy relied on a trickle down theory of medicine, the idea that if you simply flood the market by increasing the quota by a massive 65% overnight, the overflow of graduates will eventually be desperate enough to take the punishing essential jobs. While the medical association's optics and PR were undeniably terrible, their core grievance was that Yoon's draconian approach was a political bandaid that completely ignored the structural rot driving doctors away from saving lives in the first place
Protectionism may work in some cases, but even when it works, it works by making things more expensive. People don't buy American cars because it's cheaper to make similar cars in Mexico. Fine, so let's force companies to make cars in America. It's now more expensive (otherwise we won't be importing from Mexico in the first place).
You add more and more protectionism, it may get some jobs back, but the price is that things get more and more expensive. And not by a few percent, more like by 50% or more. (Just think of how much money an American worker needs to have an ordinary middle-class life compared to a Mexican worker.)
Now consider how much people were angry over the Covid-era inflation and how it was a major factor in Trump coming back (and looks like it's going to be a major factor in Republicans losing the mid-term election this year). Nobody wants prices to go up. Americans say they want protectionism but what they want is a fairy tale protectionism where jobs comes back but prices magically stay stable. It cannot happen, and if the choice is between some other group of Americans in Michigan getting better jobs and you getting your SUV at a "reasonable" price, people will choose the latter. (I'm not digging at Americans - the same is going to happen everywhere.)
It's basically "It's extremely hard to defeat capitalism at its own game." Nobody likes capitalism, but that doesn't mean you'll get popular by defying capitalism.
Well, of course, I agree with you. That's why I said I don't think it would happen.
I personally wouldn't mind a world where consumer goods were much, much more expensive and difficult to acquire, even though it would mean that my life would feel harder and less wealthy than it does now.
What I don't understand is whether or not there's any path to take besides watching the country gently sail along the sunset path into oblivion. Is that it? We gave away the keys to the country's wealth generation mechanism, and now we're at the mercy of the global economy to do whatever it wants? I don't want to compete with foreign firms who can hire foreign labor to compete with me and sell on my territory, but do I simply have no choice?
That's very nice but to people middle class and lower, it's not about paying a higher price, it's being able to buy what is needed to live at all. I still don't see what is wrong with capitalism. It did show that many self proclaimed advocates of capitalism were liars and changed to hardcore communist economics and became sore losers when they felt "someone else" is "winning".
What are you talking about? I haven't said anything against capitalism. If anything, the problem with the current scenario is that there's not _enough_ capitalism.
How do you propose to compete with foreign workers when the government prevents you from matching their employment conditions within your own company?
- The massive regulatory burdens on American businesses are dissolved in order to permit genuine competition with the globe
- Economic protectionism is applied so that the heavily regulated American business can compete on price with less-regulated foreign businesses
In both cases, the prices of goods would increase--in the first case, less than the second. But both would be better than the current status quo, in my opinion.
I don't want to live in a country where I have to pay American prices for goods and services, but the owner class only has to pay foreign prices for labor and supply. I have no desire to be outcompeted by foreigners while my hands are tied by local laws.
I think all of your points are valid and I can't really see any part if your argument that isn't at least directionally correct. But then I'm left wondering:
Okay, I'm really talking out of my ass, but my very uninformed take is:
Protectionism is "working" for China because it's still a poor country, it was much poorer only a generation ago, and when you have no industry, it's easier to deliberately keep people poor for a little longer in exchange for more jobs. Once the pipeline is built, it's just societal inertia.
But I have to wonder how much it working out for China is just "China is still poor, so people have little choice." Among millions of Americans decrying outsourcing of American jobs, how many are willing to work under an average labor condition of China if they were given the opportunity?
That's a critical question that isn't being asked enough.
Americans aren't allowed to compete like that; there are too many labor and environmental protections in place to experience "Chinese working conditions" even if they wanted to. We legally can't work Chinese hours or affect the environment like the Chinese.
So while it's true that Americans aren't really willing to work hard enough to compete on price with the Chinese, it's also literally impossible.
And many outsourced jobs are like this. Americans can't compete because it's illegal to compete. Our hands are tied. We can't bend the local laws to make life cheaper for ourselves, and most of our products are sold to us by people who can and do.
I would be curious what would happen if in order to sell to American workers, you had to meet American environmental and labor conditions. I think that's a total non-starter, but it's a hypothetical that may cause the ponderer to address the huge gap in how competitive other countries are allowed to be to sell to Americans, vs. how Americans aren't really allowed to compete with them.
> I would be curious what would happen if in order to sell to American workers, you had to meet American environmental and labor conditions. I think that's a total non-starter, but it's a hypothetical that may cause the ponderer to address the huge gap in how competitive other countries are allowed to be to sell to Americans, vs. how Americans aren't really allowed to compete with them.
This plus capital controls would reduce a lot of economic inequality between countries. It would be super, super rough in the short-term but probably globally beneficial in the long term. I believe Bernie Sanders was proposing this back in 2016.
I think you need to look at the data before making assertions like this.
> People don't buy American cars
53% of cars sold in the US are assembled in the US versus 18% assembled in Mexico.
> things get more and more expensive. And not by a few percent, more like by 50% or more.
The total cost of manufacturing wages only account for 5-15% of the MSRP of a vehicle. So moving manufacturing from an expensive country to a cheap country only changes the price by maybe 10% due to the impact of wages.
What happens when you remove the velocity of money from the economy and replace it with companies that count on their employees receiving government assistance in order to be able to live? Are things actually cheaper for the average worker long term in our current scenario? Or is it a temporary affordability in exchange for a worse economic future? It seems like things still have to keep getting worse and worse to be financially viable in our current cycle (clothes are Kleenex quality like sci-fi books joked would be issued in a UBI future, enshitification is in everything).
When a system takes the money from the economy and delivers it to the capital class and foreign workers, what happens to that economy? We don't know. We're gambling it will somehow be ok. We are also losing the 50% of taxes that comes from individual workers, so add in losing that velocity of money vector going through the government as well.
It doesn't seem like a sustainable system, nor a cheaper system. Only a very risky short term gamble.
Things may get more expensive, but if more Americans can live a middle class life even accounting for the inflation of consumer goods I think that is a good tradeoff.
Savings are literally being passed onto the consumers. The #1 reason people buy imported goods is that they are cheaper: if they're the same price as domestic goods then there will be little incentive to buy imported goods and domestic jobs won't be going away.
In other words, the only reason foreign industry threatens domestic jobs is because it's cheaper to produce the same thing in these countries and the cost savings are being passed on to domestic consumers.
Sometimes I wonder if we're simply living in different realities. You may claim it's not worth it, but you can't claim it's not happening. Just go to grocery and see the prices of Mexican avocados and everything.
If you are a US citizen, voting Trump out might be unironically the most significant decision your country could make for the next 100 years of mankind.
Not because the alternative is so great, but because Trump is so horrible that it's not even a question. We really don't need someone who doesn't even acknowledge climate change in charge of the world's biggest economy.
...and look at some comments here, every day I get confirmation that Trump supporters will defend everything, there's no coming back.
Thankfully they are <40% of US voters now. Yes, that's a depressingly large number but having a ~40% core group of MAGA and everyone else being thoroughly disgusted by Trump means the bottom is falling out for Republicans.
Recent Texas Senate election (SD-9) saw Democrats winning by 17 points (Republicans won the district in 2022 by 60-40). Abolishing ICE is now the more popular opinion (46 to 43 in some poll).
We'll see how much damage the beast will inflict before it's finally slain.
Well, when I hear "people have personae" I'd imagine something like "This person is an esteemed professor at MIT but he's also a regular in erotic fanfiction forum," not "he's friends with a child sex trafficker."
... it does sound like an online harassment campaign.
reply