SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In a recent interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network, Scott Pruitt, EPA Chief, said that the Bible tells people to use all the resources available to us, including fossil fuels:
"The biblical world view with respect to these issues is that we have a responsibility to manage and cultivate, harvest the natural resources that we've been blessed with to truly bless our fellow mankind".
According to Vox: "But as far as his biblical assertion goes, Pruitt's words reflect a wider trend among American evangelicals, who largely have not embraced scientific thought on environmentalism or global warming."
The Trump administration has used a variety of excuses to legitimize its record-setting rollbacks on environmental protections: calling global warming a hoax, or arguing that the economic consequences of increased regulation would outweigh their benefit.
The latest justification? The Bible.
In an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network, a media outlet that also seems to double as a propaganda arm of the Trump administration, Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt said his Christian convictions led him to conclude that America should use gas and coal freely because natural resources exist purely for man's benefit.
[...] That's why evangelical groups have, therefore, been historically resistant to environmentalist causes. Creationist lobbying groups frequently fund initiatives like the Louisiana Science Education Act, which mandates a "balanced" (and climate change-denying) approach to teaching environmental issues in public schools.
Please read the linked article as it explains the connection between contempt for science and protecting the environment and the beliefs of evangelicals.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday February 26 2018, @02:56PM (17 children)
The fascists usually portrayed themselves as a necessary response to Soviet communism. The argument amounts to: "You tolerate our atrocities, or Stalin will get to commit his atrocities." Stalin, for his part, justified his atrocities on the grounds of "You tolerate our atrocities, or Hitler will get to commit his atrocities."
This is of course false dichotomy at its worst. Atrocities are wrong, period.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by VLM on Monday February 26 2018, @03:40PM (16 children)
Yet the total number of independent leftist atrocities, aside from uncle joe, over the course of the century is staggering; I don't know, hundreds of millions killed at least?
And to this day the standard reply to any right wing response against leftism is a rather tepid "remember that one time the right tried to fight back, and we who won then wrote the history books made them look bad? That's why we should not oppose leftism that leads to atrocities as a general life rule, because that one time someone tried we made uncle adolf look bad and all those people ended up just as dead anyway."
The modern version is something like "Your people should not speak up against being yet another atrocity victim, or you'll die anyway and then we'll victim shame you on twitter, and since your side is politically censored you won't even be able to argue back oh wait you'll be too dead to twitter reply anyway even if you were alive ha ha" is not very convincing.
Also this fits the weak argument pattern analogous to "I anecdotally know someone who did or did not die of influenza therefore the influenza epidemic this year is or is not fake news" Yes same topic but talking at different scales.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday February 26 2018, @04:08PM (13 children)
It's hard to gauge exact numbers when it comes to this sort of thing, but I'm guessing part of why you think that is that you aren't recalling many of the rightist atrocities. I'm not talking about just Adolf & company, there are such incidents as:
- The Armenian Genocide
- The many atrocities of Francisco Franco and the other Spanish fascists (the Spanish Republicans weren't much better, but the Nationalist side was definitely bad)
- Japan's invasion of China
- The US actions in southeast Asia which routinely attacked civilian targets in neutral countries like Laos and Cambodia
- The Nicaraguan Contras
- The Chilean coup and subsequent "disappearances"
- The Rwandan genocide
- The "ethnic cleansing" campaigns of the Balkans Wars of the 1990's
All of these were carried out by right-wing leaders and governments. For an example of some of what I'm talking about, read through Christopher Hitchens' "The Trial of Henry Kissinger", where he makes the case of how much destruction that 1 right-wing person has caused.
My basic opinion: Once you get the idea in your head that the right way of dealing with people who disagree with you is to kill them, atrocities will follow. It doesn't matter whether you're right-wing or left-wing, that's an inevitable consequence. And as soon as you start thinking "Well, but these ones are/were necessary", you've become exactly the sort of person who would follow the order to send Jews to the gas chambers.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday February 26 2018, @04:47PM (8 children)
Some I won't contest but the numbers are still lower; order of magnitude lower. Many in your list are apolitical. The remainder are mostly civil wars and those are historically bloody regardless of politics because they often turn, if not racial, into regional battles.
Come on man, racial to the core. No way possible those were going to be called off if the victims had merely elected the "correct" political people to office.
Curious interpretation of "civilian" and "neutral". For that matter, again, if some politician on the other side of the world or hundreds of miles away switched sides, its not like the bombing raids would have been called off on the logistics trails purely for political reasons. You locally and actively participate in an enemies military logistics system, you kinda have to expect some incoming rounds, regardless of which side of the aisle both sides far away politicians may or may not sit.
I think your list of right wing atrocities is entirely actually motivated solely by race war or civil war and it was a mere coin flip as to dear leader being right or left at that time. Surely there must be some right wing govt other than uncle adolfs who did something really really bad once for purely political reasons, but I'm having trouble thinking of one at this instant?
I actually agree with your basic opinion with the minor addition that it doesn't matter if the genocide is hard core (dead today) or soft core (dead ASAP).
was hyperactive with a large standard deviation in his results. Lots of very good and very bad results. So its easy to find "right wing" stuff he screwed up, much as its easy to find "left wing" victories. He gets accused of a lot of "to form a right wing dictatorship you gotta break some eggs" by leftists with axe grinding hardware, but the guys total overall life was more like "when you enter an egg delivery truck in the Indy 500 you gotta break some eggs". Same dude did Paris peace accords, China, détente with the Soviets, the dude was like everywhere from the 60s to the 80s to some extent and level of influence. And in those decades yeah sure "everywhere" includes some interesting genocides and civil wars and race wars. Its like I can't apologize for the guy because there's nothing to apologize for; he was everywhere, and some places on earth are occasionally not vacation paradises, as the God Emperor himself recently observed, some countries are shitholes. Like seriously, if you're in power and a man about town, during the Bangladesh War it was impossible to do anything, including doing nothing at all, without looking terrible in the infinite monday morning quarterbacking. Vietnam as a long overarching multi decade event was kinda like that too. He's like sending in the Delta force or a SEAL team. One way or another things are going to turn out really good or really bad, but its not his fault someone decided to deploy him.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Monday February 26 2018, @05:42PM (7 children)
Racism is a right-wing idea. That's why people like Richard Spencer don't describe themselves as "alt-left". Hence why I described those genocidal attempts, explicitly justified by racist ideology by leaders who self-identified as conservative or right-wing, as right-wing.
And if you don't think Kissinger doesn't have anything to apologize for, then it's pretty clear you don't mind a little genocide as long as it's the people who are dying aren't on whatever side you've decided is yours. And if your reference to the American president as "God Emperor" is meant as anything other than jest, then I'd say you're basically exactly the sort of person Il Duce would have been happy to have on board.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 26 2018, @06:38PM (2 children)
Does make you wonder how many left-wings are actually right-wings in disguise. Racism seems very common across what we think of as the political spectrum.
It might not be the best idea ever to delegate the definition of racism to Richard Spencer.
Woosh. Even I saw that one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 26 2018, @10:10PM (1 child)
1. You're a moron trying to equate movements for racial justice with racism. Yes there are a ridiculously small number of liberals who have embraced hatred but that is not the same as racism and is statistically insignificant anyway. Sorry bub, false equivalence for the looooose.
2. No one delegated you're just being stupid again.
3. So it was in jest? You mean the whole "And if..." was pointless? Failed reading comprehension for the looooose!
Khallow everybody! Don't forget to pick up your crosses and gasoline on the way out!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 27 2018, @02:09AM
What does "racial justice" mean? For example, the ACLU says [aclunc.org]:
I have no problem with that. But when people assume that you're enjoying "privilege" merely because you're part of a particular ethic group, demand reparations from people of particular ethnicities for wicked deeds that were committed by long dead people, or simply excising a double standard and excuse some racism based on the ethnicity of the believer, they aren't engaging in racial justice. All those behaviors are often exhibited on the left-leaning side (in particular, concepts like "check your privilege", "microaggressions", and the myth of the helpless disadvantaged).
Yes.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday February 27 2018, @01:56PM (3 children)
Let me guess, races don't exist?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday February 28 2018, @10:33PM (2 children)
Haplogroups and such do exist. This has implications for diet, medicine, and so forth.
The races as most people think of them, though, don't. And don't think I and everyone else with at least half a brain doesn't see what you're trying to do here, you disingenuous little shit. Peddle your divisive nonsense elsewhere. And remember: the elite won't let you into their club no matter how much water you carry for them.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday February 28 2018, @11:03PM (1 child)
Oh, please, enlighten us. This should be good...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 01 2018, @02:54AM
> Oh, please, enlighten us. This should be good...
It is correct. There is no genetic basis supporting claims for the existence of race. See books like "Genes, Peoples, and Languages" by Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza or his other works for a starting point if it is interesting. He did real groundbreaking work in mapping the human genome and the geographical distribution of phenotypes and their frequency of occurence. The conclusion even back then when his first major work was complete was that there are no races. Subsequent work by him and others reinforces that. There are clusters where some subsets of phenotypes occur with higher frequency, but its not really possible to say there are races.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/02/07/meet-cheddar-man-first-modern-britons-had-dark-skin-and-blue-eyes/ [washingtonpost.com]
http://afritorial.com/black-people-with-blue-eyes/ [afritorial.com]
Despite being no genetic basis for race, I might say there is a psychological basis but there I think that crosses fully over into what we'd call culture with language as a subset.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 26 2018, @05:38PM (1 child)
The two leading genocides by far - exceeding 20 million each - were the USSR and China. No righties have had their act so together as those two.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 26 2018, @10:44PM
USSR and China
Do attempt to be the slightest bit specific.
exceeding 20 million each
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by Burz on Monday February 26 2018, @08:40PM
And just about every policy decision made by Victorian Britain can be considered right-wing, which perpetrated a whopping load of atrocities.
This was an empire that outlawed (blockaded) famine relief to India and Ireland expressly to maintain ideal free-markets.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 27 2018, @04:46PM
Not true. I had exactly that idea in my head at one time.
Atrocities did not follow.
What actually followed was my 6th birthday.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 26 2018, @05:34PM (1 child)
I believe the total of all genocides from the 20th century amounts to approximately 120 million people. The USSR and China run a very close first and second, exceeding 20 million each. Nazi Germany lagged behind in third place. Japan's atrocities have had far less publicity in the Western World, but China will never forget the Rape of Nanking. There is a video on Youtube, that sets the total at 170 million, but I've never attempted to verify that number. It begins it's list with Turkey's act's against the Armenians, during World War One. Let me find that - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVs9psi_G5k [youtube.com] The people they mention don't quite tally up to 170 million, but they never make any mention of the various indigenous peoples around the Americas, or Asia, or the Pacific.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 26 2018, @11:15PM
Not to worry, Runaway! Your reputation for historical scholarship precedes you! A video on Youtube, yeah. You racist!