Newsom vs Deathsantis shadow debate; Thursday, Nov 30th

[Professor Emeritus]

These are relatively long articles. You didn’t read them.

I read every word of the entire first article top to bottom and then three more articles about the guy to make sure I had a nuanced view on what he was saying before I made a single reply to that post.

I'm not surprised, though, that you are basically admitting you're a slow reader and assume people can't read even rather simple stuff they respond to, because it's obvious that you don't.

I didn't open or address the second article because the first already proved what a dumbass you were.

Not to mention…these are LEFTISTS who are saying degrowthers are misreading the room.

There are internal debates in every movement and I fail to see why a random science journalist with no meaningful environmental background should be considered your trump card within it.

But some of his critiques of certain people who call themselves "degrowth" are perfectly fair. Others (from what I've seen of his writings outside that article) are poorly informed.

Fam. I don’t care. You reject the framing I’m grouping you under because you dont like being labeled what you are.

Yet you haven't been able to post the slightest evidence that the label fits me. Just like you falsely claimed I'm pushing absolute no oil production, when I never have. Just like the previous argument where you falsely claimed I'm a race reductionist, with zero such evidence. Just like multiple other such arguments we've had.

You argue based on catchphrases because you lack the capacity to read and understand positions and debate on honest terms. You only know your political slurs.

You’d argue with me for saying the sky is blue.

This is a classic bad faith argument. In fact, you should brush up on the bad faith argument list, because I think you've only used 6 out of 10 in this discussion so far and those other four are just waiting there for you to employ.

You fundamentally are skeptical of my intentions so you literally deny things I’m saying just for the sake of arguing.

Why not just admit that your outright lied about me pushing zero oil? It would waste less of your life time than all these deflections are.

Now youre an environmental expert. MMMMMk?

Hmmm....how do you define "expert"? I wouldn't claim that term for myself, but I could name a number of organizations and authors who would say otherwise.

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.

You're just repeating yourself, but notice how you still can't address or counter anything I've actually said.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

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.

Name ONE thing I have ever actually said, anywhere, that Leigh Phillips would disagree with. Use a quote this time so you can't just make up shyt like you've done all the previous times.

You just blindly applied a term to me, found someone who disagreed with that term, and failed to even check and notice that WE WERE ADVOCATING FOR THE EXACT SAME shyt.

If the person you apply the term to and the person you're using to attack the term are saying the same thing, maybe you're using the term wrong?

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I didn't open or address the second article

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Yet you haven't been able to post the slightest evidence that the label fits me. Just like you falsely claimed I'm pushing absolute no oil production, when I never have. Just like the previous argument where you falsely claimed I'm a race reductionist, with zero such evidence. Just like multiple other such arguments we've had.

If I’m lying, then what is this?

You’re a de-growther.

Did I get something wrong?

@voiture @Creflo ½ Dollar @invalid @Pressure @wire28 @ADevilYouKhow @88m3 @MeachTheMonster @Wargames @the cac mamba

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Did you read the 6 articles I linked on oil's problems before responding, you hypocritical dumbass?

At least I read an article in full and responded to that. You can't address a single point I make, but think I need to read every last thing you link.


You can't even address the clear statement, "I have never advocated for zero oil", yet you've lied three times and said that I did.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Did you read the 6 articles I linked on oil's problems before responding, you hypocritical dumbass?

At least I read an article in full and responded to that. You can't address a single point I make, but think I need to read every last thing you link.


You can't even address the clear statement, "I have never advocated for zero oil", yet you've lied three times and said that I did.

I called you a degrowther. You took offense.

Look, does the term bother you? I dont see the issue here.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

 

[Professor Emeritus]

If I’m lying, then what is this?

You’re a de-growther.

Did I get something wrong?

@voiture @Creflo ½ Dollar @invalid @Pressure @wire28 @ADevilYouKhow @88m3 @MeachTheMonster @Wargames @the cac mamba

You don't understand because of your failure to parse the EXACT distinction I already pointed out to you. Multiple of those quotes of mine, you can see that I was explicitly speaking of the context of capitalist growth. That's the same distinction made by the guy you quoted. From your OWN article which you used as support for your anti-degrowth:

Proponents of degrowth rightly argue that free market capitalism is threatening the planet.

First, any market actor that produces a commodity that is profitable but harmful to ecosystem services (such as coal, oil, or gas) has an incentive to continue production. This in turn spurs attempts by such companies to try and capture democratic decision-making — lobbying, bribes, corruption, and, as seen with Volkswagen, outright criminal activity.

A great example here is petroleum production. We need to sunset petroleum production for combustion purposes sometime in the next twenty to thirty years or so

Capitalist growth is amoral and anarchic, largely outside of democratic control, and produces inequality and servitude to bosses.

This assumes that there cannot be absolute decoupling, yet we already see decoupling in many sectors thanks to efficiency gains. A bit of clarification between relative and absolute decoupling is needed here: relative decoupling is where there is a reduction in the inputs per unit of production, but there is still overall growth in inputs, while absolute decoupling is where a sector has continued to grow without an increase in inputs.

His point in the article, that we should work to raise living standards while still reducing environmental damage, I agree with! His point in the article, that capitalist growth is not condusive to raising living standards in a consistent way and is completely environmentally unsustainable, I agree with!

To the degree which you can decouple resource extraction levels from growth in end user benefit, I support his agenda. And he absolutely admits that his agenda only works to the degree that those things are decoupled. We could talk about the nuance there, but you're not interested in that, because you've already proven that you have zero familiarity with his argument and are literally only using him for the slur.


The entire point of our argument was that you claimed Dems were saying we should reduce oil production, and you argued that that's wrong, and you tried to bolster your side with an article that explicitly says we should phase out all oil combustion within 20-30 years.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I called you a degrowther. You took offense.

Look, does the term bother you? I dont see the issue here.

Did I stutter?

You can't even address the clear statement, "I have never advocated for zero oil", yet you've lied three times and said that I did.


A normal human being would have found some way to admit a blatant error at this point, rather than allow me to keep bringing it up over and over. At least just say, "Okay, so I lied three times in a row, I was honestly mistaken" before your next deflection.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

You don't understand because of your failure to parse the EXACT distinction I already pointed out to you. Multiple of those quotes of mine, you can see that I was explicitly speaking of the context of capitalist growth. That's the same distinction made by the guy you quoted. From your OWN article which you used as support for your anti-degrowth:

His point in the article, that we should work to raise living standards while still reducing environmental damage, I agree with! His point in the article, that capitalist growth is not condusive to raising living standards in a consistent way and is completely environmentally unsustainable, I agree with!

To the degree which you can decouple resource extraction levels from growth in end user benefit, I support his agenda. And he absolutely admits that his agenda only works to the degree that those things are decoupled. We could talk about the nuance there, but you're not interested in that, because you've already proven that you have zero familiarity with his argument and are literally only using him for the slur.

Yeah. Because you’re a degrowther.

I guess you just don’t like the term.

The entire point of our argument was that you claimed Dems were saying we should reduce oil production, and you argued that that's wrong, and you tried to bolster your side with an article that explicitly says we should phase out all oil combustion within 20-30 years.

My argument, since we’re talking about comprehension, was that dems need to frame the oil discussion around emissions, not the uses of oil because its being interpreted as anti-oil, not anti-emissions

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Did I stutter?

You can't even address the clear statement, "I have never advocated for zero oil", yet you've lied three times and said that I did.


A normal human being would have found some way to admit a blatant error at this point, rather than allow me to keep bringing it up over and over. At least just say, "Okay, so I lied three times in a row, I was honestly mistaken" before your next deflection.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Guyana discovers oil and aims to use it to revitalize and change the country.

Here’s how @Rhakim responds; with fear, anger, and disgust

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Guyana discovers oil and aims to use it to revitalize and change the country.

Here’s how @Rhakim responds; with fear, anger, and disgust

You could also point out that I started out expressing a reason for hope that they'd work it out, and ended on a specific model that they could use with which do to so. But of course, you ignored that.

Just like you keep ignoring me every time I've called out your outright lies about my positions.



In terms of being skeptical of petrostates, do you have the slightest historical awareness? Like at all?

Here's an article written in the Harvard International Review, from September 2023. He hits every fukking point I make, all the way down to the need to emulate Norway's Sovereign Wealth Fund, to the point that it practically reads like he was using my post as his outline. And he wrote it 4 years after me.

A Path to Prosperity for Oil-Rich Guyana

Guyana's vast oil reserves could catapult the country to new heights of prosperity—or plunge it into poverty.

hir.harvard.edu

This is reality. Most petrostates have gone in a negative direction for the very reasons he mentions in the article.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

You could also point out that I started out expressing a reason for hope that they'd work it out, and ended on a specific model that they could use with which do to so. But of course, you ignored that.

Just like you keep ignoring me every time I've called out your outright lies about my positions.



In terms of being skeptical of petrostates, do you have the slightest historical awareness? Like at all?

Here's an article written in the Harvard International Review, from September 2023. He hits every fukking point I make, all the way down to the need to emulate Norway's Sovereign Wealth Fund, to the point that it practically reads like he was using my post as his outline. And he wrote it 4 years after me.

A Path to Prosperity for Oil-Rich Guyana

Guyana's vast oil reserves could catapult the country to new heights of prosperity—or plunge it into poverty.

hir.harvard.edu

This is reality. Most petrostates have gone in a negative direction for the very reasons he mentions in the article.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Where in there do you think anyone would find the false claims you made about me?

Here are your exact words:

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.

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.

You proved my point. You’re a degrowther that is autistically zero-tolerance on oil.

The quote you just posted from me EXPLICITLY contradicts the exact same claims about me that you're trying to defend.