Business & Finance Economic Fallout: Pandemic, Brandon, Money Printer Go Brr, Ukraine.

[Robovski]

Energy crisis: Plan for three-hour power blackouts to prioritise heating in event of gas shortages - as EU agrees to cut electricity use

It is hoped that the lure of money back for households under an energy-saving scheme will help prevent the prospect of blackouts during the cold winter months ahead.

news.sky.com

"National Grid's Electricity System Operator (ESO) warned that planned three-hour power blackouts could be imposed in some areas, in the "unlikely" event supplies of gas fall short of demand.

It revealed the measure in an update on the UK's state of energy readiness for the cold months ahead but it said that the risk of temporary power cuts could be avoided with help from the public."

 

[Cherico]

Energy crisis: Plan for three-hour power blackouts to prioritise heating in event of gas shortages - as EU agrees to cut electricity use

It is hoped that the lure of money back for households under an energy-saving scheme will help prevent the prospect of blackouts during the cold winter months ahead.

news.sky.com

"National Grid's Electricity System Operator (ESO) warned that planned three-hour power blackouts could be imposed in some areas, in the "unlikely" event supplies of gas fall short of demand.

It revealed the measure in an update on the UK's state of energy readiness for the cold months ahead but it said that the risk of temporary power cuts could be avoided with help from the public."

I predict the UK will do better than Germany

 

[PsihoKekec]

UK could in theory be self-sufficient when comes to oil and gas, it's North Sea oil and gas fields produce enough, but due to invisible hand of market it has no control over where the produce goes and under what price. Most of the electricity in UK is produced via nukes and coal though, as far as I know, most of the coal is imported from Indonesia.

 

[Captain X]

if its a binary choice pick Jesusland your chances of survival will be much higher.

Not really.

 

[Cherico]

Not really.

Communism has killed more people than any religious group in known history. So yes between two shitty options Jesus land is the far better choice. Communism is that bad.

 

[Skallagrim]

Not really.

You really think that if, say, the most conservative 10% of Americans ran the country, it would be worse than if the most communist 10% did?

Only people who haven't witnessed communism can think that. Conservative governments can be unpleasant, to be sure, but they don't generally have a death toll in the tens of millions.

Basically, compare Pinochet to Pol Pot and draw your conclusions.

 

[Captain X]

You really think that if, say, the most conservative 10% of Americans ran the country, it would be worse than if the most communist 10% did?

Only people who haven't witnessed communism can think that. Conservative governments can be unpleasant, to be sure, but they don't generally have a death toll in the tens of millions.

Basically, compare Pinochet to Pol Pot and draw your conclusions.

Please, I'm just as likely to end up imprisoned or dead living in Jesusland and as I am in commieland. The only people who would for sure be better off in Jesusland are Christians, and even then that isn't guaranteed due to the way the different denominations like to clash with each other over who has the "right" version of Christianity. I want a secular state based on the Constitution. It's not a matter of either-or.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

Please, I'm just as likely to end up imprisoned or dead living in Jesusland and as I am in commieland. The only people who would for sure be better off in Jesusland are Christians, and even then that isn't guaranteed due to the way the different denominations like to clash with each other over who has the "right" version of Christianity. I want a secular state based on the Constitution. It's not a matter of either-or.

If it's run by true followers of Jesus everyone will be loved, and we will be held accountable for our sins.

 

[Skallagrim]

Please, I'm just as likely to end up imprisoned or dead living in Jesusland and as I am in commieland. The only people who would for sure be better off in Jesusland are Christians, and even then that isn't guaranteed due to the way the different denominations like to clash with each other over who has the "right" version of Christianity.

I don't see the really conservative Republicans mudering each other, or anyone else. In fact, although not very "open-minded", these people are generally the most civilised and dignified segment of a society. Show me the mass graves of Jesusland, please. Point out where the Jesusland concentration camps were.

The commies had these things, and used them eagerly. Millions, tens of millions, died. If you want to pretend there's some kind equivalency between conservatives and communists, you're either deluding yourself, or lying to others. There is no such parity. Communism is the most murderous ideology in human history.

 

[Bear Ribs]

Please, I'm just as likely to end up imprisoned or dead living in Jesusland and as I am in commieland. The only people who would for sure be better off in Jesusland are Christians, and even then that isn't guaranteed due to the way the different denominations like to clash with each other over who has the "right" version of Christianity. I want a secular state based on the Constitution. It's not a matter of either-or.

We've had dozens of Christian nations existing for hundreds of years. By the numbers, do their atrocities compare with the handful of countries for a few decades we've had practicing communism?

 

[Skallagrim]

We've had dozens of Christian nations existing for hundreds of years. By the numbers, do their atrocities compare with the handful of countries for a few decades we've had practicing communism?

By the numbers, are long timespans and short timespans a false equivalency? (And by your good sense, don't you damn well know it?)

Calculate it on a year-by-year basis. You can even go by percentages of the population. If you tally up the victims of state violence, you'll arrive at the conclusion that even Genghis Khan was mild, compared to communism. (His conquests were brutal, but once that was done, his reign wasn't that bad. By comparison, communism is like a waking nighmare that doesn't ever stop. It keeps going until the regime finally falls.)

 

[Bear Ribs]

By the numbers, are long timespans and short timespans a false equivalency? (And by your good sense, don't you damn well know it?)

Calculate it on a year-by-year basis. You can even go by percentages of the population. If you tally up the victims of state violence, you'll arrive at the conclusion that even Genghis Khan was mild, compared to communism. (His conquests were brutal, but once that was done, his reign wasn't that bad. By comparison, communism is like a waking nighmare that doesn't ever stop. It keeps going until the regime finally falls.)

Of course not, but the difference between Christian and Communist nations is so extreme I can afford to spot him an extra century or two and still come out ahead.

Honestly the idea that he'd be in just as much danger living in, say, highly Catholic Italy compared with North Korea or China is just crazy.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

If it's run by true followers of Jesus everyone will be loved, and we will be held accountable for our sins.

That's the thing though, 99.99999% of true Christians aren't looking for a physical crown here on earth. It is written "
Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. 9 And he said to Him, “All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me.”

Most true Christians are like Janitors. When they are doing their jobs right you don't really notice them, but you'd certainly notice if they weren't there or doing their jobs wrong. But if Someone is making a big show of themselves and going all "Follow me and I will reestablish a kingdom that will survive a thousand years...yeah run."

There is no such parity. Communism is the most murderous ideology in human history

By that logic, Opioids are statistically far bigger killers than meth so we should legalize meth instead of opioids because your odds of getting and dying from a meth overdose is nothing compared to opioids. Communism may be the worst but let's not pretend it invalidates every other game in town. National socialism Fascism, Islam, all these things have body counts in their own right.

Bloody Political conflicts that I can think of right off the top of my head that had "Christian" trappings: every crusade after the 3rd the Rose Wars The Salem Witch Trials, The Troubles. Those are just the ones from the top of my head at this moment. heck, even Hitler had his supporters within the catholic church. Likewise, Russia had people within the Orthodox church.

Now do any of these guys compare to the communist regimes in Asia (China Korea Vietnam ect?) no but does that mean I want to invite these other guys to my home and play Russian roulette with them? Heck no. Especially when I'm one to hash my fair share of criticism when I think it's warranted, and I've found there are few things unity hates more than a dissenting voice.

 

[Skallagrim]

By that logic, Opioids are statistically far bigger killers than meth so we should legalize meth instead of opioids because your odds of getting and dying from a meth overdose is nothing compared to opioids.

Well, we should legalise both, I think. And if you want to be stupid, tha's your business. But that's my innate anarchism speaking.

Anyway, here's a more relevant comparison: if someone puts a gun to your head and tells you to take either drug A (which kills 95% of the time) or drug B (which kills maybe 25% of the time)... which do you choose? You have to choose, or he shoots you!

You'd prefer to take neither, but the premise dictates that you don't get that option. You must choose. Well, then youy choose the lesser evil. Which, in political terms, means "basically anything that's not communism".

Communism may be the worst but let's not pretend it invalidates every other game in town. National socialism Fascism, Islam, all these things have body counts in their own right.

Bloody Political conflicts that I can think of right off the top of my head that had "Christian" trappings: every crusade after the 3rd the Rose Wars The Salem Witch Trials, The Troubles. Those are just the ones from the top of my head at this moment. heck, even Hitler had his supporters within the catholic church. Likewise, Russia had people within the Orthodox church.

Now do any of these guys compare to the communist regimes in Asia (China Korea Vietnam ect?) no but does that mean I want to invite these other guys to my home and play Russian roulette with them? Heck no.

You're missing the point. You're saying "both are bad!" -- okay, sure. And then you say "I want a third option!" -- again, sure.

But that's not what we're discussing. The post that started this discussion was about "if you have to choose between X and Y". I don't think you do have to choose between those two, exactly, but that's the premise here. And if you have to choose, then communism is by far the worse option.

This was disputed, and I've attempted to illustrate why it's a mistake to try and equate conservative Christian government with communist government. Because, as I've pointed out: one has bad sides to be sure, but the other is all bad.

So it's fine if you want to discuss third options and how you like neither X nor Y, but again: that's not the point of discussion.

I've found there are few things unity hates more than a dissenting voice.

Interestingly, history doesn't support that thesis. Unity tends to be secure in its position, and therefore feels unthreatened. Paranoia and a crack-down on dissent tend to occur when unity is lost. In the middle ages, there were loads of weird Catholic (or even non-Catholic) groups with really wacky ideas, and they typically just did their thing. You know when the Catholic Church got really repressive? During the Counter-Reformation. And that name kind of implies why they were acting like that, doesn't it?

When things are well in order, there is no need for rigid repression, because rigid repression is a response to something threatening the established order. Times of cultural unity are typically times of a generally permissive attitude, whereas times of division are times of harsh repression on all sides.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

You're missing the point. You're saying "both are bad!" -- okay, sure. And then you say "I want a third option!" -- again, sure.

But that's not what we're discussing. The post that started this discussion was about "if you have to choose between X and Y". I don't think you do have to choose between those two, exactly, but that's the premise here. And if you have to choose, then communism is by far the worse option.

This was disputed, and I've attempted to illustrate why it's a mistake to try and equate a conservative Christian government with the communist government. Because, as I've pointed out: one has bad sides to be sure, but the other is all bad.

So it's fine if you want to discuss third options and how you like neither X nor Y, but again: that's not the point of discussion

Well then I'll just leave this part of this discussion by saying I think it's a useless discussion based on a false premise that while may provide relief in the relatively short term but provides no real solutions in the long term.

Interstingly, history doesn't suport that thesis. Unity tends to be secure in its position, and therefore feels unthreatened. Paranoia and a crack-down on dissent tend to occur when unity is lost. In the middle ages, there were loads of weird Catholic (or even non-Catholic) groups with really wacky ideas, and they typically just did their thing. You know when the Catholic Church got really repressive? During the Counter-Reformation. And that name kind of implies why they were acting like that, doesn't it?

When things are well in order, there is no need for rigid repression, because rigid repression is a response to something threatening the established order. Times of cultural unity are typically times of a generally permissive attitude, whereas times of division are times of harsh repression on all sides.

ok I'm curious then. Why was there no dialogue between the two groups? For lack of a better term, which side fired on fort sumpter? who felt threatened first?

 

[LordsFire]

Please, I'm just as likely to end up imprisoned or dead living in Jesusland and as I am in commieland. The only people who would for sure be better off in Jesusland are Christians, and even then that isn't guaranteed due to the way the different denominations like to clash with each other over who has the "right" version of Christianity. I want a secular state based on the Constitution. It's not a matter of either-or.

Okay, let's go with theoretical 1:

'Jesusland' is a land ruled by what Jesus actually taught. In this land, those who are not Christians are left to go their own way so long as they aren't predating upon others, they simply will not be welcomed into church fellowship.

Then we have theoretical 2:

'Jesusland' is a land ruled like how America has been historically when Christianity was culturally dominant. Those who are not Christians are left to go their own way so long as they aren't predating upon others for the most part. See what the Mormons did, see how religious minorities were treated. The 'not for the most part' comes to things like anti-sodomy laws, which were a state by state matter, and very rarely enforced even in states that had them.

No federally-run mass-arrests for lack of religious compliance, no nationwide pogroms against religious minorities. Some states and some communities did some ugly things, but for the most part that was 'run them out of town!' not 'Kill them all' or 'send them off to the gulag!'


And you say one of these is actually comparable to Communism?

What koolaid have you been drinking?

 

[Skallagrim]

ok I'm curious then. Why was there no dialogue between the two groups?

What makes you think there was no dialogue? The Reformation didn't come out of nowhere, and it wasn't a uniform event that happened all at once, or the same way everywhere.

For lack of a better term, which side fired on fort sumpter? who felt threatened first?

The fledgling Protestants started the whole thing, obviously. But as I said: they didn't just emerge out of nowhere. Tension had been building for a long time. Chances for much-needed reform had been squandered, and there was very real corruption in the existing order. (Sometimes exaggerated after the fact by Protestant propaganda and historiography, but nonetheless: there was a problem.) We must understand early Protestantism, at its core, as a reactionary movement that wanted to purify Christendom of the corrupt establishment.

But then things escalated, and the Protestant movements diverged rapidly into various strains, some of which were very radical and strange. From "remove corruption and go back to the (supposed) old ways", it bacame many different flavours of "re-invent the doctrine as it was always supposed to be".

Surprise! Everybody disagreed on how it was "always supposed to be"! So Protestantism rapidly changed from reactionary to radical-reformist (and also splintered into rival factions).

This, hilariously, achieved what the proto-Protestants had said they wanted. It purified the Church! The Catholics turned reactionary, got rid of the really bad corruption, and started "laying down the law". That is: they became intensely doctrinaire, and began suppressing the Protestant heresies.

So we might say that Catholic corruption and licentiousness caused the reactionary Protestants to emerge, but the inherent lack of unity that comes with Protestantism turned most Protestants into radicals very quickly, and then Protestant radicalism caused the Catholics to become arch-reactionary.

 

[Cherico]

By the numbers, are long timespans and short timespans a false equivalency? (And by your good sense, don't you damn well know it?)

Calculate it on a year-by-year basis. You can even go by percentages of the population. If you tally up the victims of state violence, you'll arrive at the conclusion that even Genghis Khan was mild, compared to communism. (His conquests were brutal, but once that was done, his reign wasn't that bad. By comparison, communism is like a waking nighmare that doesn't ever stop. It keeps going until the regime finally falls.)

I don't think you get what a mammoth task it is to truly comprehend just how evil communism is and was. And how hard that realization hits and what it means.

Because once you admit it is and was that bad then a whole lot of things that were done to stop it become justified. It means that a whole lot of people who were vilified deserve apologies, and in some cases deserve to be called heroes. and it opens up a whole lot of obligations and responsbilities.

This is a very massive mindshift because once you admit just how bad it is, then your left looking at the people who are still its champions and your left knowing exactly what they would do if they had any actual power, and you have to ask yourself what your willing to do to stop that.

Because when your up against something that heinously evil a whole lot of options are going to be on the table that a lot of people are going to be very umcomfortable with, and those options are not nearly as bad as living in a communist state.

 

[Captain X]

Getting hit by a semi is a lot deadlier than getting hit by a car, but that doesn't mean I want to get hit by a car, or even to pretend it is only a choice between the two.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

The fledgling Protestants started the whole thing, obviously. But as I said: they didn't just emerge out of nowhere. Tension had been building for a long time. Chances for much-neded reform had been squandered, and there was very real corruption in the existing order. (Sometimes exaggerated after the fact by Protestant propaganda and historiography, but nonetheless: there was a problem.) We must understand early Protestantism, at its core, as a reactionary movement that wanted to purify Christendom of the corrupt establishment.

But then things escalated, and the Protestant movements diverged rapidly into various strains, some of which were very radical and strange. From "remove corruption and go back to the (supposed) old ways", it bacame many different flavours of "re-invent the doctrine as it was always supposed to be".

Surprise! Everybody disagreed on how it was "always supposed to be"! So Protestantism rapidly changed from reactionary to radical-reformist.

This, hilariously, achieved what the proto-Protestants had said they wanted. It purified the Church! The Catholics turned reactionary, got rid of the really bad corruption, and started "laying down the law". That is: they became intensely doctrinaire, and began suppressing the Protestant heresies.

So we might say that Catholic corruption and licentiousness caused the reactionary Protestants to emerge, but the inherent lack of unity that comes with Protestantism turned most Protestants into radicals very quickly, and then Protestant radicalism caused the Catholics to become arch-reactionary.

Sound like it may have been better had the reformation just quietly left and then talked to people over time. you are right about one thing. history does rhyme.