General Politics Three: But what is left/right?

Hu, no. It would take 10-100 to "put human race in peril". That's a veeeeeeeeeeeeeeery long call from "ending life on Earth".
That's not really a meaningful distinction in this context. Again:
who has "more" is trivial at this point.
The bottom line is that numerous countries have enough nukes to end life on Earth. So who has "more" doesn't mean jack ****.

If there is a global nuclear war, the Superbowl is cancelled and so is the Taylor Swift concert tour... and my browsing history is meaningless, TikTok or no TikTok.
The discussion of nukes came from the question of why we should care about TikTok. One answer was, (paraphrasing) "cause China has nukes"

What does your hair-splitting about how many deaths we can fit on the point of a nuke have to do with that?

Also, what is you point in distinguishing "human life" and "all life" on Earth in terms of TikTok? Obviously rats and roaches and amoebas aren't going to be using TiKTok right? Especially when humans aren't maintaining the cell towers anymore right?... Your post was just... I guess, I'll just say its really disjointed from the overall discussion and I'm not following what your point is.
 
It was an intensifier of the point that who does something matters.

I'm thinking the quibbles to that are mostly just playing around BS.
 
What does your hair-splitting about how many deaths we can fit on the point of a nuke have to do with that?
Pedantic nitpicking about how "human race" is extremely far removed from "all life on Earth".
What can I say, I'm fun at parties :dunno:
 
Is it a nitpick for a conservationist?
 
In a hypothetical nuclear war started by something China got from TikTok? What's that? More nitpicking? Again:
I'm giving a mulligan to "Mad Max and the Thunderdome conditions". The argument that "Well, every single living thing wouldn't die (in a nuclear war)" doesn't make me anymore afraid of TikTok... or any less pessimistic about the results of nuclear war.
 
I've clarified it isn't a causal point. It's a motivation of actor point. But by all means. I'm rolling with the aside.
 
Neville isn't satire. And I'm not being facetious. He was quite sane. Almost certainly a good man.

The popular meme version of Chamberlain is wrong; without his policy of rearmament Britain would have been completely unprepared for war in fall 1939.
 
Right. That indeed is part of the story.
 
I've clarified it isn't a causal point. It's a motivation of actor point. But by all means. I'm rolling with the aside.
I got that and responded to it directly.

To recap... On the issue of data collection, I asked why I should be more worried about China than AMAZON and your response was "nukes". My response to that was 1) "BigCorp" has more control over the US than you think; 2) nukes are irrelevant; and 3) China secretly controlling TikTok (while also having nukes) is less important to me than AMAZON, Google, etc., reporting my data to the US government.
 
There is a difference of malice and indifference in the structure of the things. Particularly as applied to different peoples. One doesn't need to be "good" anywhere about it.

But one place has plenty of porn, so long as they aren't women who matter.
 
Okay so what I'm taking from this is the funny dancing app should be nuked by no more than 100 nuclear weapons
 

The US just announced an asbestos ban. What took so long?​

The US has announced a ban on the only form of asbestos currently used or imported into the US, decades after most developed nations began phasing out the cancer-causing raw material.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) move comes after it failed to ban asbestos over three decades ago.

The carcinogen has already been banned by more than 50 countries.

It is linked to around 40,000 US deaths every year from lung cancer, mesothelioma and other cancers.

Use of the carcinogen has gradually declined over the years, but it still lingers as a construction material in millions of homes and buildings throughout the US.

Linda Reinstein, an anti-asbestos advocate for the last 20 years after her husband died following repeated exposure to the substance, says she broke down in tears after hearing about Monday's ban.

The US has for many years been "the poster child for not doing the right thing" when it comes to asbestos, she told the BBC.

She noted that the UK passed a ban on asbestos a quarter of a century ago.

Mrs Reinstein says the US ban is more limited than anti-asbestos measures passed by all other countries.

"We're the only Western industrial nation not to completely ban asbestos," she told the BBC.

"What does that say about us as a country?"

On Monday, EPA Administrator Michael Regan said the ban applied only to chrysotile asbestos, also known as "white asbestos", the only type known to be imported for use in the US.

Industries still using white asbestos will have up to 12 years to phase it out of use.

White asbestos is resistant to fire and is still used by companies in the US to manufacture vehicle brakes, according to the EPA.

Some chemical companies also use it to make chlorine, which is in turn used to purify drinking water.

But one expert told the BBC that several other types of asbestos are not covered by Monday's ban.

Brenda Buck, a professor of medical geology at the University of Nevada, told the BBC that the EPA announcement was a "bit of a baby step" in the effort to rid the US of asbestos.

White asbestos is "in general less hazardous" than five other types, she said.

Dr Buck said her fear now is industries will switch to the other forms of asbestos that have not yet been banned by the EPA rules.

The movement against asbestos picked up steam in the 1980s, as schools across the US began to remove it from buildings amid health fears.

In 1989, the EPA attempted to ban asbestos after finding conclusive evidence of its dangers. But two years later a federal court struck down the prohibition.

The ruling found the EPA had failed to find the "least burdensome alternative" for firms that rely on asbestos, as required under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

In 2016, Congress overhauled the TSCA to remove the "least burdensome" language, paving the way for the EPA ban unveiled on Monday.

The US effort to ban asbestos stalled after President Donald Trump came to office in 2017, with his administration overseeing the EPA.

In 2005 testimony to Congress Mr Trump, a real estate developer, had described asbestos as "the greatest fire-proofing material ever made".

In a 1997 book, The Art of the Comeback, he said the movement against the substance was being led by the Mafia, "because it was often mob-related companies that would do the asbestos removal" work.

In 2012, he tweeted that the World Trade Center would not have "burned down" in the 11 September 2001 attacks if its "incredibly powerful fire ******ant asbestos" had not been removed.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68602748
 
Ok, lol. Musk is a d-bag, but what on earth is up with the full court press on him right now for saying he thinks there is a political motivation to allow more immigration from people who expect that those immigrants will vote or reside in a manner that electorally benefits them. That's literally Remedial American History 90* from Ellis Island and everywhere else. He directly disavowed "replacement theory" which idiots are then calling this. We can't be this learning disabled, right?

*
below 100, as in not a collegiate level course
 
Top Bottom