Culture War - who's waging it?

[indyblue]

The colors still have to be hand separated…

Not really:

Our glass sorting systems separate cullet to create high-quality single-color fractions out of mixed-color glass fragments. Even heat-resistant and special leaded glass can be safely and reliably removed. Sesotec glass recycling machines also remove all contaminants. Magnets and metal separators remove caps, closures and other metal pieces from the material flow. Using cameras, the glass sorting systems also identify and eliminate foreign materials, such as ceramics, stones and porcelain

 

[actaeon277]

Steel and aluminum doesn't need colors separated.
Just saying.

 

[KLB]

Probably, but I think that's what KLB was talking about. I still remember saving our pop bottles (and Dad's beer bottles) to take back for the deposit. When I was going to school in Michigan in the late 70's they had deposits on aluminum cans too IIRC.

Correct.

The original reply was to

Well, blow their minds when you tell them most 'recycle' just goes to the dump.
So, by separating it and then putting it in the same place is ACTUALLY contributing MORE to their global warming.

And, if they REALLY believed, they'd force everyone to go back to all aluminum, which IS recycled.

 

[Twangbanger]

Jamil, just tell your relatives conservatives don't want to change *anything*, so by definition, *all* politicization comes from the side of "progress." Say you'd be happy to outlaw politics, disband the legislature, finish your drink and move on.

Love to hear the response to that

 

[jamil]

Jamil, just tell your relatives conservatives don't want to change *anything*, so by definition, *all* politicization comes from the side of "progress." Say you'd be happy to outlaw politics, disband the legislature, finish your drink and move on.

Love to hear the response to that

Eh. Well I think we touched on that kinda. Maybe a year or so ago we had a discussion about the political divide and the causes of it. Basically, did the left get lefter or did the right get righter?

On the left side of the argument was that white nationalism is on the rise. They brought up Trump and the "not sending their best" comments. Charlottesville. Etcetera. My argument was that even if (and I'm not conceding such) there is a rise in white nationalism, it's nowhere near a scale where one could say it's all that impactful. The next annual unite the right had 20 people show up. The organizer was so distrought that eventually he stopped supporting Trump and said they can't make progress by supporting Trump. There is no new ground being broken on the right. It's not getting progressively further right. "The right" does not consider white nationalism mainstream. It's the fringe. If the right really is supposed to be Nazi's they're really ****ing bad at it.

Okay. Let's look at what has been mainstreamed on the left. Radical Feminism. Radical critical race theory. Primacy of social groups based on immutable characteristics. Mainstreaming rioting, destruction of property, murder, looting/theft, based on perceived but unproven racial injustice.

But you're right. That would be a good topic to broach next. The right does politicize stuff too. Usually it's in response to bat **** crazy things that the left politicizes. BTW, the response to all that was that the riots protests were mostly peaceful and that they did not condone the rioting, that it was people on the fringe doing that. Once your're in a cult any amount of reasoning won't pull them out. Whatever cultish problems there are on the right, it pales in comparison to the cult of wokeness.

 

[oze]

I made decent spending money in my youth looking for returnable bottles along the roadside.

A 6-pack of Pepsi bottles got ya 2 packs of baseball cards with 2 cents leftover.

 

[oze]

I wish I knew. I prefer the taste of soda/beer in glass bottles.

Glass here as well. But glassware; I never drink good beer from a bottle. And I only drink good beer.

 

[Tombs]

The people with the strongest political opinions seem to often be those who "hate" talking politics.

It's because they have no consistent or logical basis for their beliefs, and when they are questioned on it, they get very angry because they can't justify or explain their position. People who understand their positions and organically arrive at them usually will never say they dislike talking politics.

Overall, too many people take it as being more complicated than it actually is. The flashing picture box tells them to take X stance on Y issue, and that's the beginning and end of the majority of people's political views. Which is why democracy is dangerous and stupid.

 

[Tombs]

On the left side of the argument was that white nationalism is on the rise. They brought up Trump and the "not sending their best" comments. Charlottesville. Etcetera.

And this is exactly what I'm talking about in the above post. These people do not have a political view, they have programming from a flashing picture box. It begins and ends at the flashing picture box.

This is why I wish the right would abandon e-celeb worship, because it will lead to the same pitfalls as these people have succumb to. It may be easier to let someone else think for you, but it's going to lead you down the wrong path.

The modern "left" is just the most extreme example of what happens when you allow someone else to think for you.

 

[jamil]

The people with the strongest political opinions seem to often be those who "hate" talking politics.

It's because they have no consistent or logical basis for their beliefs, and when they are questioned on it, they get very angry because they can't justify or explain their position. People who understand their positions and organically arrive at them usually will never say they dislike talking politics.

Overall, too many people take it as being more complicated than it actually is. The flashing picture box tells them to take X stance on Y issue, and that's the beginning and end of the majority of people's political views. Which is why democracy is dangerous and stupid.

I dunno. On some topics I think they kinda do. The progressive family members aren't stupid. They have advanced degrees in STEM fields, so not some stupid sociology degree. They can justify and explain their positions just fine. They just usually have the facts wrong because they live in a bubble where their beliefs never get challenged.

For example. My niece who freaked out because the waitress brought a plastic straw with her soda. They believe straws make their way to the oceans from streat runnoff and end up in streams, and eventually into the oceans, and find their way up some sea turtle's ass. And that's nonsense.

They believe it because they only consume homogeneous information fed to them from the people they trust. Their logic isn't necessarily flawed. If I believed the same nonsense they believed about how straws get into the ocean, and I actually gave the same number of ****s about sea turtles, and I found that this gives me some kind of social virtue points that I actually valued, I'd probably switch to paper straws too. But also, it would help if they developed a better ******** detector so they'd know more instinctively when someone is filling them full of **** like that.

 

[Tombs]

I dunno. On some topics I think they kinda do. The progressive family members aren't stupid. They have advanced degrees in STEM fields, so not some stupid sociology degree. They can justify and explain their positions just fine. They just usually have the facts wrong because they live in a bubble where their beliefs never get challenged.

For example. My niece who freaked out because the waitress brought a plastic straw with her soda. They believe straws make their way to the oceans from streat runnoff and end up in streams, and eventually into the oceans, and find their way up some sea turtle's ass. And that's nonsense.

They believe it because they only consume homogeneous information fed to them from the people they trust. Their logic isn't necessarily flawed. If I believed the same nonsense they believed about how straws get into the ocean, and I actually gave the same number of ****s about sea turtles, and I found that this gives me some kind of social virtue points that I actually valued, I'd probably switch to paper straws too. But also, it would help if they developed a better ******** detector so they'd know more instinctively when someone is filling them full of **** like that.

They're repeating what they're told, as I already said. No they can't organically articulate their views.

If they could they'd be showing you how they arrived at those conclusions independent of popular think and media. Instead they repeat what they are told.

Has nothing to do with intelligence. I've heard some compelling theories about these people lacking souls. They do seem to function on an entirely autonomic, unthinking basis.

 

[jamil]

And this is exactly what I'm talking about in the above post. These people do not have a political view, they have programming from a flashing picture box. It begins and ends at the flashing picture box.

This is why I wish the right would abandon e-celeb worship, because it will lead to the same pitfalls as these people have succumb to. It may be easier to let someone else think for you, but it's going to lead you down the wrong path.

The modern "left" is just the most extreme example of what happens when you allow someone else to think for you.

I think that is true. I do think a lot of people just accept news as true, even commentary on what to think, when they trust the source. Lot's of studies in marketing psychology to support that.

They take in information from sources they trust. They're in an information bubble. My progressive family members only ever have their views challenged when they come visit us, or we go visit them. They trust CNN. They trust NPR. They don't know any other conservatives. Their friends, coworkers, etcetera, all believe the same things that they do. That kind of thing affects everyone. If you only get your information from homogeneous sources, you'll believe the same things. If you get your information from heterogeneous sources, you have a lot better chance at believing the truth.

But they do have a political view. It's not the case that if they just turned off the TV that they'd all be conservatives. People differ on outcomes they prefer based on a lot of things.

 

[Tombs]

It's not the case that if they just turned off the TV that they'd all be conservatives. People differ on outcomes they prefer based on a lot of things.

If everyone in those circles were unaffected by the news cycle, they may not be conservatives, but they might have some practical views and opinions that they actually understand.

Take for example, the straw thing. Do you think they'd have ever come to believe that had it not been planted in their head?

All of this stuff is a psychological cancer on society as a whole.

 

[jamil]

They're repeating what they're told, as I already said. No they can't organically articulate their views.

If they could they'd be showing you how they arrived at those conclusions independent of popular think and media. Instead they repeat what they are told.

Has nothing to do with intelligence. I've heard some compelling theories about these people lacking souls. They do seem to function on an entirely autonomic, unthinking basis.

They do repeat what they're told. Yes. They can organically articulate their views. They do describe how they arrived at those conclusions. It boils down to what they believe are the facts. If they believed the same facts that I believe, they might still disagree on policies or outcomes. They're not going to stop being progressive just because they learn new facts. But some things would change about their behavior.

For example, they'd probably not freak out about plastic straws anymore if they believed a different set of facts about where the straws came from that were found up turtles' asses. But they'd still favor progressive policies on ecology.

 

[Tombs]

They do repeat what they're told. Yes. They can organically articulate their views. They do describe how they arrived at those conclusions. It boils down to what they believe are the facts. If they believed the same facts that I believe, they might still disagree on policies or outcomes. They're not going to stop being progressive just because they learn new facts. But some things would change about their behavior.

For example, they'd probably not freak out about plastic straws anymore if they believed a different set of facts about where the straws came from that were found up turtles' asses. But they'd still favor progressive policies on ecology.

It isn't even about the facts, it's about how they'd never even come to such a belief organically.

Ever heard the phrase, "touch grass?" My point is that these people are detached from reality. The facts don't matter, what matters is that they'd never even be thinking about such a thing if it wasn't planted in them.

 

[jamil]

If everyone in those circles were unaffected by the news cycle, they may not be conservatives, but they might have some practical views and opinions that they actually understand.

Take for example, the straw thing. Do you think they'd have ever come to believe that had it not been planted in their head?

All of this stuff is a psychological cancer on society as a whole.

I'm not saying they're not affected by the news cycle. I'm saying that it's the belief about facts that has the biggest affect.

 

[jamil]

It isn't even about the facts, it's about how they'd never even come to such a belief organically.

Ever heard the phrase, "touch grass?" My point is that these people are detached from reality. The facts don't matter, what matters is that they'd never even be thinking about such a thing if it wasn't planted in them.

I agree to a large extent when it comes to wokeness. That's a mind virus and those people are indoctrinated by a cult. They are detatched from reality. They have no ability to reason except to justify their beliefs.

I'm talking more about traditional sorts progressive vs conservative subjects. Progressives are going to be amenable to the idea that humans are harming the earth, for example. And that's gonna have a deterministic outcome given the facts reported by crappy sources. When I hear that they found plastic straws affecting ocean wildlife, and that scientists and politicians think that straws got into the ocean through storm drains, sewers, streams, rivers, etcetera, call me skeptical. I'm reluctant to believe that at face value. I'm not predisposed to believe it.

I don't think it would occur to my niece to challenge the facts though, because she's amenable to believing that she's participating in harming ocean wildlife by using plastic straws. Different facts would change that outcome. For example, if she viewed a source that said straws are making their way through normal usage into the oceans, and then flipped the channel and heard two scientists debating it, and the scientist against made an irrefutable rebuttal, I have no doubt she'd not freak out over plastic straws. There isn't anything wrong with her reasoning skills. There's something wrong with her instincts about the facts.

 

[Ingomike]

There's something wrong with her instincts about the facts.

Yep, there is,

Progressives are going to be amenable to the idea that humans are harming the earth,

She has been programmed humans are harming the earth which then distorts her instincts…

 

[jamil]

Yep, there is,



She has been programmed humans are harming the earth which then distorts her instincts…

But humans have destroyed the earth? We've kinda turned that around. The Ohio river doesn't burn anymore. People were naturally skeptical of that change, and there were people amenable to the idea that pollution was causing harm. Thankfully the latter persevered. I kinda like clean water and air.

But the proclivity to believe every story about humans harming the earth I think is more temperament driven. Was the proclivity to disbelieve the complaints about polluted water and air--you know the people who turned out to be wrong on that--programmed by other humans? I think people who have certain proclivities can be exploited to get them to believe and support a lot of stuff that isn't true. Are you programed to believe everything GWP writes? Or do you just have a proclivity to accept news that fits your worldview? In both cases, left or right, it's the latter.

People with certain proclivities are vulnerable to being exploited with information they want to believe. Those are the people who join cults.

 

[Twangbanger]

I find a lot of this is about earnestness and passion. People who are earnest and passionate, are easy marks for other people who are (drumroll...) earnest and passionate.

The Bloomington Facebook Mob convinced one of my coworkers CO2 was destroying the Ozone layer. Now, that's not the chemical mechanism in play. But I had to dig out the CHEM 115/116 body of knowledge and prove to her that CO2 is essentially an inert gas in the atmosphere. I will credit her for being open to new knowledge. But you could tell, there was a real struggle in her mind, why those "other people" had misinformed her. She was like, "Then why did they tell me it's CO2 doing that?" Well hell, I don't know.

But those people are so earnest and passionate. It's just so hard to compete with that. "In a world of apathy and lack of compassion...why would the earnest people mislead me?"