Newsom vs Deathsantis shadow debate; Thursday, Nov 30th
- Thread starter the cac mamba
- Start date
This is why I had you blocked for years no matter how many times you kept begging me back. You were clearly wrong, now you ridiculously write "you proved my point" and then go on as if what I typed wasn't even there. From past experience, this can literally go on forever, there is no point at which you will concede anything or begin to look the slightest bit informed, just agenda-driven.
You could have been a spin guy on Crossfire, you would have fit right in.
You ignored everything I wrote about Russia, Saudi Arabia, terrorism, infrastructure, and oil spills to act as if oil has no part in that at all, focusing solely on the "emissions" part of the argument. You ignored the fact that California's scaledown in offshore drilling will have zero impact of the plastics industry, nor would a thousand other moves like it. You're also ignoring the serious environmental and health aspects of overproduction of cheap plastics, and the fact that we need higher prices in the plastics sector in order to actually embed the true social costs of such overproduction into the product, rather than the current model of the corporation gaining the profits from artificially cheap oil while society pays the major costs (access, spills, transport emissions, manufacture emmissions, and aftermarket waste) throughout.
You literally keep focusing on F150s…not…everything else. This what my entire point. I’m not talking about crude oil and oil spills and environmental impacts. I’m literally talking about this focus on oil singularly as a panacea that once it’s removed all the world’s ills are fixed. This is how you argue and continue to argue.
I’m literally saying more nuance is needed in the discussion, ESPECIALLY given the rough year EVs have had. Theres real world challenges moving to a post oil world that go beyond “black sticky stuff bad”.
This “we need NO oil” rhetoric you keep doing is equally dishonest because you’re intentionally essentially lying about the oil industry and its complexity.
I think you’re used to people being impressed by the length of your arguments not the content or substance of them. Thats why I find so many of them unpersuasive increasingly. Like, just admit that I was right to bring up theres more to oil than trucks and republicans.
You can admit that and move on. This doesn’t need to be an exercise for you to (and I hate this term) virtue signal that you know about the externalities of resource extraction. We know. Cancer allies and water table contamination. We know.
Liar. You're the one who brought up oil, not me, and on these boards I have repeatedly said that consumption overall is the problem regardless of what kinds of vehicles we drive.
You don't know what "literally" means, and your statement would be a lie even in the broadest sense of the word.
This is an outright lie. I have always argued that focusing on oil alone is not a solution.
From 2020:
From 2021:
From 2022:
From two months ago:
I have dozens more statements like that. I have NEVER said or suggested that oil is the main or only problem, I have NEVER said or suggested that divesting from oil is all we need to do, and I have NEVER made arguments that implied any such thing. I have been very, very strong and consistent in arguing that we need a comprehensive approach. You fabricated that bullshyt about me out of thin air.
Now that your entire point has been shown to be an outright lie, are you going to admit you were wrong, or are you going to keep deflecting as if it never happened?
It’s not though. Oil is never not going to be needed
Oh. I get it.
Youre a de-growth leftist.
Thats why I disagree. Yeah I get it.
Yeah, you’re wrong and theres plenty of left wing carbon skeptical views that dont require doomerism to maintain popular support or change to renewables.
The Left Did A No Growth
Degrowth isn’t just political poison, it is also based on faulty economics. The sooner we abandon it the better.
damagemag.com
Notice - he still couldn't admit he was dead wrong and that he had straight up lied. He never can. ALL he can do is deflect to a new argument.
Spidey Man
Superstar
LOL - that motherfukker you just quoted agreed with me throughout the article, dumbass.
You randomly tagged a word to me that I've never used myself, then randomly linked someone who argues against that word, and ignored that myself and the author basically share much of the SAME worldview that is OPPOSED to your worldview regardless of the tags you want to use. This is yet another example where you prove you neither read anything you post nor understand anyone else's argument. You just focus on keywords and quick internet searches.
This is from your OWN fukking article.
I would probably disagree with some of his overall arching points, because a great deal of his argument is undeveloped, but in terms of the path forward he puts forth in that article I AGREE with what he says, dumbass.
Capitalist growth is the problem, not ensuring that everyone in poverty gets a good future.
LOL - that motherfukker you just quoted agreed with me throughout the article,dumbass.
You randomly tagged a word to me that I've never used myself, then randomly linked someone who argues against that word, and ignored that myself and the author basically share much of the SAME worldview that is OPPOSED to your worldview regardless of the tags you want to use. This is yet another example where you prove you neither read anything you post nor understand anyone else's argument. You just focus on keywords and quick internet searches.
This is from your OWN fukking article.
I would probably disagree with some of his overall arching points,because a great deal of his argument is undeveloped, but in terms of the path forward he puts forth in that article I AGREE with what he says, dumbass.
Capitalist growth is the problem, not ensuring that everyone in poverty gets a good future.
Of course left wing media is going to be carbon skeptical. But your degrowth (funny how you’re so smart about the Just Transition and unaware of the term) rambling then admit that you yourself weren’t introduced to the arguments or the nuances around how to market clean energy.
You know I’m not against the Green Revolution, right? You fukking moron.
He did it again. 
Like I said, he doesn't read or understand anything he posts.
Like I said, he doesn't read or understand anything he posts.
What was I wrong about.
You proved my point. You’re a degrowther that is autistically zero-tolerance on oil. Thats fine. Not illegal, but own it. You went through your own post history to prove my point.
You didn’t know what the term “de growth” meant yet you’re enveloped in the latest on the Left wing discourse around the Green RevolutionHe did it again.
Like I said, he doesn't read or understand anything he posts.
Let's make a list. Every one of these statements that pertains to policy is wrong. Every one of these statements that pertains to a position you claim I hold is an outright lie.
* You claimed "Dems need to ease up on attacking oil tho…it’s a bit shortsighted."
* You claimed that when I said we should pull back on oil production, I had said to stop it entirely.
* You said, "I’m not talking about gasoline. I’m talking…plastics. Genius. this nikka @Rhakim dumbed out because I understand what oil is actually used for"
* You said, "Make it about emissions, not oil "
* You claimed I "literally keep focusing on F150s…not…everything else"
* You claimed "I’m literally talking about this focus on oil singularly as a panacea that once it’s removed all the world’s ills are fixed. This is how you argue and continue to argue."
* You claimed "This “we need NO oil” rhetoric you keep doing is equally dishonest"
* You claimed "Youre a de-growth leftist."
* You claimed "But your degrowth (funny how you’re so smart about the Just Transition and unaware of the term)"
* You claimed "You’re a degrowther that is autistically zero-tolerance on oil."
* You claimed "You didn’t know what the term “de growth” meant"
* You claimed "you’re enveloped in the latest on the Left wing discourse around the Green Revolution"
Is that a good enough list? Literally everything you say about me there is a lie AND you don't understand the bare basics of consumption and environmentalism on top of it.
Oh look, two more complete lies AND ignorantly using "autistic" as a middle-school insult on top of it.
No, I said in my history that capitalistic overconsumption could NOT continue. Which is the same fukking shyt the article you posted to attack me says.
Like I said, I would likely disagree with some of that author's other agendas and terms, but so far as that article goes, I agree with exactly what he was saying.
Last edited:
These are relatively long articles. You didn’t read them.
Not to mention…these are LEFTISTS who are saying degrowthers are misreading the room.
Fam. I don’t care. You reject the framing I’m grouping you under because you dont like being labeled what you are.
You’d argue with me for saying the sky is blue. Thats our dynamic between each other. You fundamentally are skeptical of my intentions so you literally deny things I’m saying just for the sake of arguing.
Now youre an environmental expert. MMMMMk?
LIke, you’ll live. You are pushing a de-growth narrative. It’s just this zero sum uneducated insight to how the larger productive economy works.
I get it. Climate change is TEH WURST but theres a political obstacle and an engineering obstacle to this.
Again. Because it’s clear oxygen must be low in the room you’re reading this in.
capitalism skeptics, like you, are saying that your anti-capitalist solutions to climate change suggesting reversing economic growth, are bad ideas.
