174
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2025
174 points (93.1% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5461 readers
407 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I mean, she was floundering and he did an excellent job in rebutting her lies. He laid out his case first, succinctly, and when she tried the two methods to rebuff him “you’re hurting jobs” and “renewables aren’t ready,” he had the ammo ready to point to his earlier statements that clearly laid out the bare truth. When her nonsense proved way too weak for his calm demeanor, you can tell she had people in her ear telling her to tow the line and she stumbled over her words and couldn’t answer a simple, straightforward question that would proved his entire case. Simply because it proved his entire case. And he brought the data and the quote from the coal industry itself to cut her entire bullshit out at the knees. It was truly a concise and simple dissection of the insane bullshit these people are less and less able to say they don’t have a mandate to push out every night and day.
It was beautiful and fuckin satisfying. To her credit (I guess), I’ve seen much more abrasive and simply idiotic floundering in the form of US broadcasters who get angry and end the segment. She didn’t, so she had to struggle against someone who was ready and successful in laying out his case.
I watched the video.
Which is not panic.
I mean, it’s relative, isn’t it? An anchors job is to remain composed and in control, leading the show. When they lose that control and a guest is making them look like a fool because they can’t hold the basic position they’re taking in a discussion, panic realistically sets in. She looked panicked to me. Because she was clearly getting bested in a discussion, and her hypocrisy was laid bare. When it’s apparent she’s being spoken to in her ear about her performance (which I would say was very apparent), and she’s looking all over the studio as this guest concisely dismantles what she’s said? And she couldn’t answer a simple question—and that question was very much the punctuation on his entire argument, and she tripped over it and landed on her face—I’d say that shows panic.
“Panic” for an anchor doesn’t look like panic in a burning building. Panic for an anchor is being flustered, having that turn into cascading failure, tripping over your words, having zero conviction in your voice because your entire argument has been torn apart, having nothing to say but the clearly two pronged offense (which has already been dissected and laid bare) so when stumped, clearly only going back to repeating the same question even though it was shot down the first time?
That’s panic in an anchor.
No.
She never looked panicked to me.
I disagree. I would say that panic for an anchor is being in a state of panic, as for anyone else. I'm not sure why you're moving the goal posts just because the person in question is a TV news anchor.
lol that’s not “moving the goalposts,” that’s discussing an amorphous impression being relative. Because it is. Emotions are relative. I can’t believe I’m having to explain that. And expressions are relative. When you’re anxious at home, you pace, maybe cry, try to shake your arms to let out your anxious energy. If you’re on stage, waiting to give a presentation in front of an auditorium full of people and you’re anxious, you’re sitting there, trying to remain outwardly composed, but you’re probably looking around, fidgeting, all while trying to remain presentable.
So you’re saying the latter can’t be anxious because they’re not pacing around, crying?
Absolutely ridiculous logic.
I'm not saying that.
Indeed.
So you’re not making any other point because you realized you’re wrong now, right? Because if you realized the latter can be anxious while not showing the same signs as the person in private, you’re basically saying an anchor can be panicked by showing the much more subtle signs I pointed out before. And that’s the entire point of the conversation.
No.
lol