Live data from Hacker News

Amazon deforestation: Brazil's Bolsonaro dismisses data as 'lies'

bbc.com

141–146 of 146 posts

Re: Amazon deforestation: Brazil's Bolsonaro dismisses data as 'lies'

#141
post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yeah, and no UKIP supporter would likely be able to describe any of it, except the bits on discriminating foreigners and closing borders. Because, frankly, that's pretty much the only thing they care about. Farage's latest outfit, the brexit party, smashes together old marxists and capitalist cronies, in single-minded pursuit of discrimination. Well you've just changed the goalposts again. After being quite clearly…

> I've spoken to UKIP when they knocked on the door and they seemed like pretty normal people. Yes, they are quite banal people, mostly. That means little - the worst political movements of the last century were full of very banal people, a certain Ms. Harendt even wrote a famous book about it. > but when asked for specifics it is too tedious I was explaining why most people in these debates cannot be bothered to go…

> Yes, they are quite banal people, mostly.

Another subjective ad-hominem attack on people you don't really know much about.

> That means little - the worst political movements of the last century were full of very banal people, a certain Ms. Harendt even wrote a famous book about it.

Dropping names of someone that wrote a book isn't an argument. Doesn't address the actual tenor of what I was saying.

I notice that you haven't addressed the fact that you were completely incorrect about Farage and his policies. Let me remind you what your claim was, you said he had no policies. I showed you the Manifesto of 2015 (which is as substantive as their rivals).

> I was explaining why most people in these debates cannot be bothered to go into detail. If we had to explain every term in the book, we'd end up reciting the opus of Bertrand Russell at every meeting.

This is a ridiculous. You have spent more energy telling me why you won't do something than actually doing it.

Re: Amazon deforestation: Brazil's Bolsonaro dismisses data as 'lies'

#142
post #71
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dismissing facts as lies is just... something to say. Bolsonaro and his followers know this is true but they simply don't care. Which is a reasonable political stance I reckon.

"Which is a reasonable political stance I reckon" Run that by me again. How is denying something you know to be true a reasonable stance. How is taking (or actively not taking) a course of action you know will harm the people you've been elected to serve, a reasonable stance. This is pretty basic stuff for a democratically elected official.

Because it works.

:(

Re: Amazon deforestation: Brazil's Bolsonaro dismisses data as 'lies'

#143

You can put the blame for Trump, Brexit, Bozo-naro and other populists squarely at the feet of the previous administrations. The political elite alienated the population. By spying, failing to prosecute financial criminals that decimated economies, stealing several billion dollars, failing to pro-actively prevent a human calamity in the Russia x US proxy wars in Syria, squabbling amongst themselves as the non-politic…

The people responsible for the machinations (loosened regulations, underfunded financial oversight agencies, underfunded consumer protection, etc) are now/still in power.

Blaming the elites of old is a fallacy, because the elites of old are the elites of new. Brexit is a conservative issue, due to conservatives underfunding education, healthcare, fire brigades and the police and blame it on the EU and immigrants.

Trump is put in place by the same party that caused the GFC.

And Bolsonaro is probably even more corrupt than Dima et al. Yet people voted for him.

How, why? Because they were not aggressively authoritan. Trump openly flouts with totalitarianism. Let's see how Bolsonaro will fare.

(And I'm not trying to somehow wash the previous administrations clean. Clinton loosened the financial rules, he could have vetoed it, but I don't think that would have mattered, the lack of funding for competent oversight is the main point, and that was under Bush.

Similarly I don't have any love for the Labor govs in UK, but fiscal responsibility aka. let's underfund the stuff that only poors use is a classic conservative trope.)

Re: Amazon deforestation: Brazil's Bolsonaro dismisses data as 'lies'

#144
post #143

You can put the blame for Trump, Brexit, Bozo-naro and other populists squarely at the feet of the previous administrations. The political elite alienated the population. By spying, failing to prosecute financial criminals that decimated economies, stealing several billion dollars, failing to pro-actively prevent a human calamity in the Russia x US proxy wars in Syria, squabbling amongst themselves as the non-politic…

The people responsible for the machinations (loosened regulations, underfunded financial oversight agencies, underfunded consumer protection, etc) are now/still in power. Blaming the elites of old is a fallacy, because the elites of old are the elites of new. Brexit is a conservative issue, due to conservatives underfunding education, healthcare, fire brigades and the police and blame it on the EU and immigrants. Tru…

I don’t blame the elites. I blame the people who were in place with the power to restrict the elite’s behaviour.

Corrupt, incompetent or inconsequent politicians can not be rewarded with re-elections they need to be voted out. However when the population stops believing that any political party presents a credible choice we get populists. We get the “non-politicians”.

Of course they solve nothing. They’re worse than the established politicians.

Re: Amazon deforestation: Brazil's Bolsonaro dismisses data as 'lies'

#145
post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's perfectly reasonable to complain about the government banning incandescent bulbs. For a drop in the bucket of energy savings, they took away a choice that many people preferred in favor of mainly fluorescent bulbs which are an environmental hazard. Thank God for decent LED lights in the last few years or the irony would still be pretty thick. It's a great example of poor environmental policy and you dismiss crit…

> For a drop in the bucket of energy savings Incandescent bulbs last months, LEDs last years and use 5x less energy. > Thank God for decent LED lights in the last few years or the irony would still be pretty thick. Do you think we would be better off using incandescents? I think the main thrust of your point is that you don't think the government should be able to tell folks they can't use crappy bulbs. I think witho…

It's still a drop in the bucket compared to, for instance, closing the SUV "light truck" efficiency loophole. Which one was more politically palatable? The one with the grand gesture and minor actual savings of course. Forgive me for getting a little cynical about government policy, it must be that weird anxiety creeping up again.

Also you need to take into account the total manufacturing cost of the light. I believe that only recently have some LEDs (and not good ones with a decent spectrum) reached parity with incandescents in terms of TCO.

Finally, I would look at the market for computers and find how much government intervention it took to advance the technology in that industry. Why would the market for light bulbs be any different? Businesses had already switched to fluorescent for cost savings, why can't consumers be allowed to make similar cost/benefit choices?

Re: Amazon deforestation: Brazil's Bolsonaro dismisses data as 'lies'

#146
post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people responsible for the machinations (loosened regulations, underfunded financial oversight agencies, underfunded consumer protection, etc) are now/still in power. Blaming the elites of old is a fallacy, because the elites of old are the elites of new. Brexit is a conservative issue, due to conservatives underfunding education, healthcare, fire brigades and the police and blame it on the EU and immigrants. Tru…

I don’t blame the elites. I blame the people who were in place with the power to restrict the elite’s behaviour. Corrupt, incompetent or inconsequent politicians can not be rewarded with re-elections they need to be voted out. However when the population stops believing that any political party presents a credible choice we get populists. We get the “non-politicians”. Of course they solve nothing. They’re worse than…

There were ... really no one to reign in the elites. That's why they are the elites. Only a subgroup of them can meaningfully challenge a different subgroup of elites. (Not counting revolutions, and other serious regime changes.)

Alas the re-election rate is astoundingly high. There's no consequence for being a sellout. Populism thrives on these imbeciles.

Post reply on HN