Yet more problematic stuff

[Cunt]

I'm sorry, I just can't believe you really need an explanation of white supremacy or nationalism to understand what I'm saying. And feigning ignorance doesn't provide the wiggle room you're obviously angeling for here.

I need you to identify who you're talking about, because I don't presume that you and I are operating under the same definition of who fits the defition of white supremacy or white nationalism.

I haven't angled for wiggle room. You have. You won't be specific. Where are your limits? What's the perimeter around your definition of white supremacy? Is Tucker Carlson inside the set, or outside? Sarah Sanders? Trump? Is he a "white supremacist?" Who are the people, specifically ,within the set of white nationalists and white supremacists or your even more vague term of "ardent nationalist" -- who deserve to be harassed in restaurants with namecalling and vulgar epithets to "call them out?"

Let's have another look at the comment you chose to dispute. This followed an exchange in which it was implied that we should 'call out' those who 'call out' white supremacists and ardent nationalist in public, and that supporting the 'calling out' white supremacists etc in public was an example racism against whites. Now you're shifting the goalposts by imposing a discursive requirement, to wit, a condition of specificity, one which was not there to begin with. You and President Trump might have a problem 'calling out' nazis and bigoted race-hate mongers but fortunately I'm not obliged to labour under that burden. If you'd like to dicuss what white supremacy, Nationalism, fascism, or hate-mongering bigotry etc does and doesn't entail then start a thread and tell us what you think - but that has little to no bearing on whether 'calling out bigoted race-hate mongers' is something you agree with or condone, or not.

i.e., Brian, you know full well that people get called racist, white supremacist, etc., when they are not that. So, using those terms doesn't allow us to understand whether we are defining them the same, unless we both clarify what we mean (who we include in those terms). That's what I'm saying. That ought to be clear enough. If you're not willing to specify, fine.

Indeed, the views of some people might be misunderstood or misscharacterised, sometime by accident or ignorance, and sometime maliciously or for opportunistic reasons, but does that really have an impact on what white supremacy etc is? Is there really any doubt about what it actually is? i.e. Are you actually in any doubt about what white supremacy entails, or only about whether it's morally justifiable to 'call it out' so to speak?

All you're saying here is that white supremacists are white supremacists

Lots of words, but it looks like evasion and obfuscation.

It reminds me of those brave young noodle-armed kids, growling about how they would 'punch a Nazi', but never going to find one.

It probably feels good to say you would oppose 'white nationalists', especially if you never have to back it up with anything real.

[Forty Two]

I'm sorry, I just can't believe you really need an explanation of white supremacy or nationalism to understand what I'm saying. And feigning ignorance doesn't provide the wiggle room you're obviously angeling for here.

I need you to identify who you're talking about, because I don't presume that you and I are operating under the same definition of who fits the defition of white supremacy or white nationalism.

I haven't angled for wiggle room. You have. You won't be specific. Where are your limits? What's the perimeter around your definition of white supremacy? Is Tucker Carlson inside the set, or outside? Sarah Sanders? Trump? Is he a "white supremacist?" Who are the people, specifically ,within the set of white nationalists and white supremacists or your even more vague term of "ardent nationalist" -- who deserve to be harassed in restaurants with namecalling and vulgar epithets to "call them out?"

Let's have another look at the comment you chose to dispute. This followed an exchange in which it was implied that we should 'call out' those who 'call out' white supremacists and ardent nationalist in public, and that supporting the 'calling out' white supremacists etc in public was an example racism against whites. Now you're shifting the goalposts by imposing a discursive requirement, to wit, a condition of specificity, one which was not there to begin with. You and President Trump might have a problem 'calling out' nazis and bigoted race-hate mongers but fortunately I'm not obliged to labour under that burden. If you'd like to dicuss what white supremacy, Nationalism, fascism, or hate-mongering bigotry etc does and doesn't entail then start a thread and tell us what you think - but that has little to no bearing on whether 'calling out bigoted race-hate mongers' is something you agree with or condone, or not.

You ignore the context of the discussion about "calling out." The "calling out" was about Tucker Carlson getting "called out" by having people yell "Fuck You" at a restaurant. That's what I took issue with - because that's profanely screaming at someone who harbors a different political view. I have clearly juxtaposed that against someone who actually is a "white supremacist" (like the KKK grand poobah I mentioned). So, there was that specificity to begin with. It started with calling out Tucker Carlson, and then after back and forth you mentioned that you "must have missed the memo" about how calling out WHITE SUPREMACISTS and ardent nationalists is a bad thing.

It is, after that exchange, fair to ask you if you think Tucker Carlson is that, or ask you to clarify just who it is you think fits that description. If you don't want to, fine.

We can leave it at the fact that we both agree that calling out "white supremacists" in the form of arguments and counterargument, and even possibly protesting them by chanting and screaming at them, is "o.k." -- however, beyond that, I have no idea what you mean, because if you think someone like Tucker Carlson is a "white supremacist", well, then we have another debate to resolve, which is "on what basis do you claim that - how are you defining white supremacist and what do those folks do that make them that?"

I agree with you - white supremacists and white nationalists are bad -- not sure at all what you mean by "ardent" nationalist, and I don't agree that all nationalism is bad. But, certainly I believe racism, racial supremacy ideas, and racial nationalism are all bad ideas. I agree with you there. What I am not clear on is who you think fits those descriptors in any useful sense. I think I gave you my lines -- I'll clarify again - I think KKK members are white supremacists -- avowed Nazis too, I'll add - Nation of Islam members --that kind of thing -- and I'm happy to clarify if you would like me to relative to any other person or group. I don't think any Fox News pundits are "white supremacists." Do you?

i.e., Brian, you know full well that people get called racist, white supremacist, etc., when they are not that. So, using those terms doesn't allow us to understand whether we are defining them the same, unless we both clarify what we mean (who w e include in those terms). That's what I'm saying. That ought to be clear enough. If you're not willing to specify, fine.

Indeed, the views of some people might be misunderstood or misscharacterised, sometime by accident or ignorance, and sometime maliciously or for opportunistic reasons, but does that really have an impact on what white supremacy etc is? Is there really any doubt about what it actually is? i.e. Are you actually in any doubt about what white supremacy entails, or only about whether it's morally justifiable to 'call it out' so to speak?

All you're saying here is that white supremacists are white supremacists

Yes, there is doubt, because there are people who would categorize all white people as white supremacists, simply because of their race.

I'm not in doubt about what white supremacy is. I'm in doubt about whether you agree with me on that definition. White supremacy is the belief that white people are superior to those of all other races, especially the black race, and should therefore dominate society. I don't think Tucker Carlson is that, do you? That's who the discussion was focused on before you chimed in.

No, you didn't miss the memo that calling out WHITE SUPREMACISTS in public (by yelling "fuck you1" at them - because that's the "calling out" that was being talked about). But, maybe you did miss the memo that calling out Tucker Carson in a restaurant by yelling Fuck You! at him and his family while they're trying to eat a nice dinner is sort of not cool. Maybe you didn't miss that memo, I don't know. You tell me.

[Brian Peacock]

I didn't miss that memo, I just didn't forward or progress my point on the basis that that's what I was talking about. Neither did you, to begin with.

[Seabass]

White nationalists are vilified regularly, in media anyway. Why do you suppose the same isn't done to black nationalists? Or brown nationalists? Or yellow?

Is there something better about being racist against whites?

Can't tell if serious or trolling...

[Seabass]

I can ignore the daily deluge of blatant white nationalist bile, but this makes me want to yell "fuck you" at him in a restaurant.

How well is wind power going to heat your house when it's 30 below?

Does he think wind doesn't blow in cold weather? Does he think wind power is colder than power from other sources? Perhaps our resident defender of white nationalists and climate deniers can explain just what the hell this racist buffoon is talking about...

[Forty Two]

I can ignore the daily deluge of blatant white nationalist bile, but this makes me want to yell "fuck you" at him in a restaurant.

How well is wind power going to heat your house when it's 30 below?

Does he think wind doesn't blow in cold weather? Does he think wind power is colder than power from other sources? Perhaps our resident defender of white nationalists and climate deniers can explain just what the hell this racist buffoon is talking about...

Can you start by citing any examples of anything racist or white nationalist Tucker Carlson has uttered or done?

But wind does tend to blow slower in colder weather, because of the slow moving high pressure systems at play. Wind blows seasonally. So demand for electricity goes up, but power generation goes down. Also, additional issues arise, such as accumulation of ice on wind turbine blades resulting in reduced power output and increased rotor loads, cold weather shutdown to prevent equipment failure; and limited or reduced access for maintenance activities. Some solutions presented are for manufacturers to include cold weather packages for their turbines, which heat the blades and turbines, gear boxes, batteries, yaw and pitch motors, etc. Severe cold is a real issue. Storing power for when winds are low is not yet feasible on a scale level.

[Seabass]

Can you start by citing any examples of anything racist or white nationalist Tucker Carlson has uttered or done?

Why would I waste the effort? You'd just dismiss all of it out of hand with asinine rationalizations like you do with everything else that doesn't support your worldview.

Actually, though I won't waste time citing examples of his white nationalism, I will cite the fact that white nationalists, Klansmen, and Nazis fucking LOVE him. Coincidence?

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jo ... ite-pundit

An analysis by an independent researcher, who requested anonymity because he feared retaliation from Anglin and other neo-Nazis, found that Carlson had been featured in 265 articles on the Daily Stormer between November 2016 and November 2018.

By way of comparison, Sean Hannity, considered President Trump’s most rock-ribbed supporter on Fox News, was featured in 27 articles in the same time period; Laura Ingraham, another Fox News host, in four; and Lou Dobbs, whose Fox Business show frequently focuses on the alleged dangers posed by immigrants, two. The researcher used subject tags, created by Daily Stormer to categorize topics on its site, to arrive at the above numbers. BuzzFeed News was able to independently verify the researcher’s work by using the same method.

Most, but not all, of the stories feature clips from Carlson’s show. A typical story seizes on a confrontation between Carlson and a guest — usually a Jew, a racial minority, or a woman — and attaches a disturbingly violent headline. An April 2018 segment in which Carlson debated a Cuban American news analyst over so-called cry closets for students at the University of Utah to de-stress during finals became, on the Daily Stormer, “Tucker RAPES AND IMPREGNATES Crazy Eyed Whore in a COLLEGE CAMPUS CRY CLOSET.” A February 2018 debate over gun control became “Tucker FILLS Liberal Kike with LEAD for Demanding Gun Control.” A January 2018 Carlson interview with a DACA recipient became “Tucker Carlson FORCES Fat Beaner Whore to CHOKE to DEATH on GREASY TACOS.” There are dozens more stories along the same format.

In the stories themselves, Daily Stormer writers, who are anonymous except for Anglin, repeatedly characterize Carlson as a publicly cautious ally in an approaching race war, in which whites will be forced to defend the United States from racial minorities, immigrants, and Jews. “We meme a lot about how Tucker Carlson is a violent hero of neo-Nazi White supremacists, but he is likely actually /ourguy/,” reads the dek of a story about Carlson tweeting a link to Red Ice TV, a Swedish white nationalist website. “Tucker confirmed for reading Daily Stormer for talking points,” is the dek for a 2017 story about Carlson’s claim that Moonlight — a film about a gay black man — only won a Best Picture Oscar because of political correctness. And a clip of an interview with the Jewish conservative pundit Ben Shapiro led to a story earlier this month speculating that Carlson had fully converted to a blood and soil nationalist. “Tucker has clearly become the fully awakened White man,” the story reads. “Only the welfare of his folk concerns him … He’s articulate, coherent and clearly stands on a solid bedrock of folkish fundamentalism.

Carlson has rarely addressed his racist fandom, which includes former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke and Mike Peinovich, host of the white supremacist podcast The Daily Shoah.”

[Seabass]

[pErvinalia]

Impossible. Wind doesn't blow when it's cold.

[Jason]

The air is denser when cold. This means the wind carries more energy to move wind turbines at lower speeds when it's cold.

[Hermit]

Impossible. Wind doesn't blow when it's cold.

And the ice stops the blades from rotating when the wind does blow.
And even when the blades rotate, the ice prevents the correct yaw and pitch being set, so there'll be no electricity production.
And what's the point of wind turbines reducing fossil fuel usage some of the time if they can't reduce it all of the time?

[pErvinalia]

Not to mention their effect on polar bears. They chop them into little bits.

[jamest]

Nationalism is the advocacy of the interests of a nation over that of other nations. There isn't anything inherently wrong with it. Irish nationalism, for example. Scottish nationalism. The fight of any nation for independence is nationalism.

It gets dicey when combined with other things, like race. So "white nationalism" and "black nationalism" is not nice, because they are racist terms, suggesting that a nation should be comprised of members of a certain race, to the exclusion or detriment of other races.

Meh, Nationalism is an impoverished political viewpoint that presumes that the declared 'nationals' of a nation either accrue, or are bestowed with, default virtue not present in outsiders, and/or that so-called 'true' nationals do, should, or must express, reflect, or otherwise conform to a particular racial group or political ideal. It's intent is fundamentally exclusionary, that is; it is an ideal which seeks to exclude those who don't conform to the declared qualifying criteria.

To state that Nationalism is an impoverished viewpoint in this time is a bit like stating that money is an impoverished means of achieving anything in this time. Both statements are true imo, yet neither are going to be acknowledged by 99% of the population at this moment in time.

There's no point in trying to transcend Nationalism in isolation. You must either go the whole hog, or take back your pearls from the pigs.

[pErvinalia]

.

[Cunt]

I can ignore the daily deluge of blatant white nationalist bile, but this makes me want to yell "fuck you" at him in a restaurant.

How well is wind power going to heat your house when it's 30 below?

Does he think wind doesn't blow in cold weather? Does he think wind power is colder than power from other sources? Perhaps our resident defender of white nationalists and climate deniers can explain just what the hell this racist buffoon is talking about...

I don't know, cause I am not keen to watch a video, but it is pretty rough to try to run anything at -30C. Hard on equipment.

I'm going out to run through an extreme cold weather warning. Don't want to break anything on my truck...

I think water stacking into ice crystals pushes really hard. If you guys were machine-smart, maybe you could turn that into energy production...