Comments by "Martin Maat" (@MartinMaat) on "Martin DeCoder" channel.

@NoNameNumberTwo Like war, poverty, climate change, failing education, voter depression and gerrymandering, harm being done to the environment, a mass shooting occurring more than once a day, fascists taking over states, tax evasion, billionairs buying politics (dark money and corruption), the economy, to name but a few issues they could be talking about.
21
I assume there is some planning involved and there are supporting entities behind her. But, does it matter? Would it make the message less valid or the cause less urgent? For all I care she can use every rethorical trick in the book if it helps save the planet. She is the mascot we desperately need.
8
@mingledorff Fascism is not a buzz word. It is a real thing, it has been for quite some time. Please look it up and find how bashing minorities and raising imaginary threats fit in.
5
For the vast majority of sports events there are no trans woman competitors. Having more than one would be even more rare so a separate category would be quite pointless. This is largely a non-issue. It would be nice if in the rare event of a trans woman competing in a sports event people would be a little forthcoming rather than making a fuss about it. Sports isn't fair, period. Some have long legs, others don't. You don't hear people complaining in basket ball that one player is taller than the next one. Either way, let the organizers decide. Fighting this is unpleasant and a slippery slope.
2
@teekay_1 Climate is not weather, it is measurable over time and has been measured. Results show it is changing quickly, along with the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere. We know we are adding CO2 and how much. That is a pretty solid causality. If you want people to believe the change would have happened anyway you must deliver and alternative explanation and point out how 1. The amount of CO2 we added does not have this much of an impact and 2. What does explain the sudden global temperature rise. Mind we would still have the same problem so an alternative solution would be nice too. Once you have this down we can start addressing the problem in the alternative way too. In the meantime CO2 output reduction and saving trees is all we have.
2
@joanofarcxxi What is your point? That no one should be critical about matters they were born into? She says "We are doing all these unsustainable things, I think we should reconsider and work on non-destructive alternatives". And then you go nah, move to the moon first, maybe then I will listen. None of the damaging behavior is a given. I believe she is doing what she can, perhaps we could join her trying?
2
@ZombieSnail.. I am saying it is nothing for the general public to get worked up about. In any sport there is some body that sets the rules, they can deal with it if it ever comes up. In some sports trans people may get a pass, in others maybe not, it could depend on the case. It is nothing I feel qualified to cast a general verdict about. Anyone not close to a particular case who does has questionable motives in my book.
1
The interviewers prepared for an actual interview, not for the struggle it became. Which was probably naive with these subjects. Both Musk and Tate sabotaged the interview because they did not want to talk about the critisism brought to them. That is also acting in bad fate. Neither of them was interested in informing the viewer.
1
They both wound up in positions they were unfit for but I don't think they are the first to blame. They were just too unexperienced and stupid to see it until it was too late which is not a crime. The ones that put them there used their names to forward a cause, which backfired misserably. These women are merely symptoms of a failing system. I didn't know the BudLight lady. She did not come across as a corporate executive, more like a teenage school girl or a YouTube influencer. Most striking to me was her eagerness to go public with her job. Marketing people try to build an image of a brand. The last thing they want is the public associating the brand with the face of the person behind the brand, this will inevitably hurt the brand's credibility (unless you're Steve Jobs, there are exceptions, but a girly face definately does not sell beer). So they will typically keep a low profile. She seemed to have no idea.
1
@MilwaukeeF40C Now you're talking. That didn't take long. Connect the dots folks. "Just too many of them". How do we fix that? Hmmm... Are you listening, Christopher?
1
@teekay_1 Rather than speculate on my (mis)understanding of fascism, can you point out where I am off based on my comments please? I see no surprises on the wikipedia page.
1
The problem is not witnesses taking too much time, the trouble typically is that members of congress are not interested in answers in the first place. They use hearings to make statements, not to learn anything.
1
That's a terrible idea. Privatization of public services never went well, anywhere. Furthermore, what would it add? You already have commercial radio and television. The BBC's motive is not merely to attract a particular set of viewers. Could they have done better here? Sure. People fuck up, also in commercial media.
1
Analysing her rethoric is one thing but what's the point of bashing her (primarily in the comments)? She is a much needed symbol in the fight to stop climate change (which yes, is a thing). Wtf does it matter if some people feel rubbed the wrong way? Grow up and get worked up about the problem rather than Greta's form.
1
@joanofarcxxi Minimize eating meat, particularly beef (meat production is awful in terms of efficiency, you lose most of the nutrients in the process); not going on holiday anywhere that requires stepping on an airplane (I once heard I can drive my car for a year before I equal the carbon pollution of a foreign vacation); I have solar panels; my house is well isolated and I don't let the shower run for no reason (I hardly use any gas as a result). Most things you do for the environment are also saving you money, it is kicking bad habits more than anything. And last but not least: I vote for a party that is serious about the transition and willing to invest in it, by building wind farms, solar parks, taxing plane fuel, doing all sorts of things that stimulate good behavior and discourage bad behavior. I am a calculating citizen, I need to be pushed into doing good.
1
@granitesevan6243 No. What makes you suspect I am?
1
@granitesevan6243 Yeah, well... Stating one agrees with the message expressed in the video doesn't seem productive to me. When I write I want to bring something new to the table. I was trapped here on the premise that this channel was about language and communication only to find it was really just another reactionary right wing outlet with the sole purpose of discrediting anything progressive. While I am here I might as well set the record straight.
1
@granitesevan6243 Political characterizations are still meaningful. Reactionary is basically "nothing to see here, let's continue on this path and preferably move back a couple of decades" (not a good idea when climate change and the environment or social economic issues are concerned) and progressive means "we have problems, now let's fix them", meaning get off fossil fuels and fix the increasingly unequal distribution of wealth. It is hard for me to grasp why anyone, especially people at the bottom, would want to be in the first camp but this actually appears to be a thing. Claiming "Oh, it's just words" is false. These words have meaning and elections have consequences.
1
@granitesevan6243 First you've got the literal words: progressive, conservative and reactionary. Those do align with the typical left to right political spectrum. Of course I welcome any right wing politicians that wants to spend money on wind mills but I don't see many, particularly not in the US, the vast majority of them are pro fossil and anti anything "green". What I know about Greta is that she rants about policies and the lack of action on a governmental level, not so much against poor people not doing enough. Furthermore, being green is cheap: eating less meat, no flying, not driving a fuel hungry car, saving on your energy bill, that doesn't sound like forcing normal people into more expensive living. OK, if the government invests in the energy transition that will cost tax money but most countries have a progressive tax system so that seems fair to me. It needs to be done, I will be glad to pay taxes for it.
1
@granitesevan6243 The terms progressive, conservative and reactionary are international. I am not an American, here in Europe the same nomenclature is used for the same political views. The only difference is that here the entire spectrum is shift to the left. What Americans call liberal is considered right wing here. The republican party is off the charts as far as we are concerned. Our right wing parties also claim to be green because it sells but when push comes to shove they typically choose "the economy" over the environment, choosing short term gains over getting ahead as a nation. And no one is advocating to shut down conventional energy production before the alternative is operational. We do set targets and build sustainable sources so we can gradually move away from the industry that has served us well for 150+ years and got us into this mess. I don't see a reason to preserve that, jobs will gradually move to new industries. Coal mines have been closed, that's not a bad thing, they were quite unhealthy to work in.
1
@granitesevan6243 "One cannot sustain billions on plants alone". Of course one can, meat production is utterly wasteful in terms of nutrients. You only get a fraction out as meat compared to the plants you need to put in. Until recently my house was surrounded by corn fields. All cattle food! Now one side is meadow with meat cows. Acres of land wasted that could be used for vegetables or potatoes or whatever for direct human consumption. I don't see how the energy transition is going to make things worse for the working class. Industries come and go, that is just progress, the fact that we now see some dirty industries being replaced with less dirty industries does not make it different. Of course people with a stake in old industries will try to make you believe it's going to be bad for you. I don't believe them.
1
@granitesevan6243 I am telling you that if you feed a pig potatoes and then eat the pig, that would be bad economy with nutrients. You would last longer eating the potatoes straight away. You lose nutrients in meat production, like a lot. Why do I need to explain that evolving industries are bad for laborers? I am not in favor of getting rid of industries and that is not a thing. It is a thing that industries move to other countries or foreign companies by companies in your country but that is a whole different topic. I challenge you to explain how it is bad for workers if say, a GM plant is closed and a Tesla factory is opened. Or when VW stops making diesel cars and starts making electric cars. They're just shifts. I do different work than my father did, my job did not exist when he entered the market. I am not complaining.
1
@granitesevan6243 This is interesting... Any of my followup messages get removed.
1
@granitesevan6243 I posted at least 5 messages that disappeared which initially made sense because I included a url and often these won't pass for spam control. I then obfuscated the url, voiding dots and slashes, using just words and finally left it out all together, just giving search terms. And they all disappeared. I can only guess why. Maybe the similarity between the initial message and the subsequent tries was enough for the algorithm to catch and dismiss it. So maybe this will work. Please Google the words pnas, meat and 1713820115 to find an input/output analysis of meat production. The essential part is in the first two minutes of reading.
1
@granitesevan6243 Then I stated I found it remarkable you were so worried about industry workers while I was supposed to be the leftist. The right is not going to be your friend here, they just keep the minimum wage (if any) as low as possible and suppress unions. You need leftists to empower workers and "green" parties are typically left leaning . It seems to me you are the bigger socialist here, you just haven't connected the dots yet.
1