Big Oil has landed: Hugo Chávez in Copenhagen
What do you think would happen if the head of one of the world's five largest oil companies started lecturing the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen about the evils of global warming?
How do you think the most esteemed delegates to the world's premier forum on the pressing issue of our time would react if a man who's leveraged his control over hundreds of billions of dollars worth of oil rents into a spot in Forbes' list of the world's 100 most powerful people started to tell them what they need to do to save the planet?
Why, they'd fall all over themselves cheering him, obviously.
It's insane. Cheering Chávez as he lectures you on climate change is like cheering Joseph Fritzl as he lectures you on fatherhood.
Hugo Chávez’s Copenhagen speech today was such an event, though on its face, the speech itself was boilerplate. The Venezuelan strongman delivered his usual twenty-minute anti-capitalist tirade, full of quasi-religious rhetoric about saving the world and such. Developing world delegates ate it up with mustard, spiraling into rapturous applause each time he blamed the rich countries for "destroying the planet."
As far as Chávez can tell, it's not CO2 that's changing the climate, it's "capitalism." The specific mechanism through which this happens, the whole pesky issue of the actual fuel that generates all that carbon, the bucketfuls of petrodollars he makes out of the whole dirty business...the less talked about such things, the better.
Chávez’s green-standing, echoed by his hapless delegation and the minions in his vast media empire, stands in sharp contrast with the actual policies Venezuela has put in place.
Instead of taxing oil consumption, Chávez has spent a decade subsidizing it, making Venezuelan gasoline the cheapest in the planet. In fact, in real terms, gasoline is 85% cheaper in Venezuela today than it was when Chávez came to power ten years ago. The price of a liter of gas has not moved in ten years, while accumulated inflation is 655%.
This is a leader who subsidizes not just gas but car sales, a man whose idea of foreign aid is giving cut-price fuel oil to people in Boston. A gallon of fuel in Caracas costs less than a lolly-pop, a policy Chávez has no intention of relenting on. The man responsible for feeding oil junkies the world over - that's the guy who brought down the house in Copenhagen?
Talk about a real climate scandal.
In the days leading to the Summit, some in Venezuela wondered what the country's position would be. Chávez has rarely discussed the complexities of how climate change and the policies to stop it can affect Venezuela. You wouldn't expect him to: any decision that seriously cuts demand for oil at Copenhagen would directly undermine the whole material basis of his power.
Although Chávez has famously adopted every third-world, anti-imperialist, "us vs. them" pose in the book, it's not like the developing world was coming to Copenhagen with a unified voice. The Chinese and Indians do not want to sacrifice their development, the Africans are desperate for action sprinkled with a little bit of cash, and the Saudis would prefer the status quo. Countries like Bolivia have a real interest in curbing greenhouse emissions, which is causing melting glaciers. Bolivia’s vast reserves of lithium, which can be used to power the batteries in hybrid vehicles, mean it is poised to reap the benefits of a green economy.
Yet, Venezuela's position was a big question mark.
Chávez’s speech cleared up it up. He embraced the environmental movement and gleefully served as a spokesman for countries such as Cuba and Bolivia, highly vulnerable to changing weather patterns.
But the world would be foolish to confuse rhetoric with values.
Chávez knows the end of the oil era would kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. He will peddle his oil while denouncing everyone else for burning it. He will demand a binding agreement but will not tolerate any imposition on his insane environmental policies.
This gasp-inducing pileup of ironies and contradictions can only be interpreted as a joke. Hugo Chávez came into the global warming summit and made a big hot mess of it. Thankfully, at least some of the world’s newspapers took note and shunned him.
The rest of the delegates - at least the ones looking for progress on this issue - should do the same.
Kepler
Francisco Toro
lgg.jpg)
.gif)
What an idiot
Old Hugo has no idea what he's talking about and what he will be up against.
When the world agrees on the new regulations for global warming, Hugo's oil empire will have to comply with the fugitive emissions rules and regulations.
The cost to bring his refineries within the 500ppm limit is going to cost him hundreds of millions.
Idiot?
Do you really think Chavez will allow anyone to monitor Venezuela's compliance? Not likely! He will simply lie and claim that he is complying and everyone else is lying.
Idiot ??
You're right Roy. He will lie about it and claim he is in compliance.
But, he can only lie to the people of Venezuela.
He will need a compliance certification to sell his oil on the world market.
I guess he can get around that by selling/trading his oil with Libya, Iran, Cuba, etc.
That's what you get when a
That's what you get when a serious scientific problem becomes a right/left wing point of contention. We're back to the "we'll love you as long as you hate Bush" days. People blinded by ideology will make strange bed fellows.
Isn't it ironic?
Paco and formerly-known-as-Katy: "This gasp-inducing pileup of ironies and contradictions can only be interpreted as a joke."
Sometimes, I dream of a world where people who make their living out of writing have learned the difference between irony and hypocrisy. In case you're wondering, the Alanis Morissette song isn't a good guide for what qualifies as ironic. When referring to someone's speech, irony only occurs when it's done intentionally. When I say: "wow, Chavez is such a clever, coherent thinker." That's irony. I said the phrase, but I meant the exact opposite, and it was clear I meant the opposite. The other definition of irony occurs when something happens unintentionally. E.g., I find a quarter, pick it up and say "this must be my luckiest day!" and then I get run over by a bus.
If, on the other hand, I say: "Capitalism is evil!" while 99.9% of my subsistence, well-being, and position in life are clearly caused by and dependent on capitalism and I have no intention of changing that (socialism is for "The People"(tm), not for Chavez), that's not irony, that's hypocrisy.
Remember, words are your friends. Annoying, duplicitous friends who never call and leave giant turds on your toilet, but friends nonetheless.
By the way, we're about seven months away from the start of World War III. Don't say I didn't warn you. Have a happy end of the world :)
irony and sarcasm
sorry to nitpick put but you say the opposite on purpose that's sarcasm not irony, what would be ironic is me lecturing you on grammar and semantics but making a studip errore
hmm
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irony
1.
the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, “How nice!” when I said I had to work all weekend.
2.
Literature.
a.
a technique of indicating, as through character or plot development, an intention or attitude opposite to that which is actually or ostensibly stated.
b.
(esp. in contemporary writing) a manner of organizing a work so as to give full expression to contradictory or complementary impulses, attitudes, etc., esp. as a means of indicating detachment from a subject, theme, or emotion.
3.
Socratic irony.
4.
dramatic irony.
5.
an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.
Synonyms:
1, 2. Irony, sarcasm, satire indicate mockery of something or someone. The essential feature of irony is the indirect presentation of a contradiction between an action or expression and the context in which it occurs. In the figure of speech, emphasis is placed on the opposition between the literal and intended meaning of a statement; one thing is said and its opposite implied, as in the comment, “Beautiful weather, isn't it?” made when it is raining or nasty. Ironic literature exploits, in addition to the rhetorical figure, such devices as character development, situation, and plot to stress the paradoxical nature of reality or the contrast between an ideal and actual condition, set of circumstances, etc., frequently in such a way as to stress the absurdity present in the contradiction between substance and form. Irony differs from sarcasm in greater subtlety and wit. In sarcasm ridicule or mockery is used harshly, often crudely and contemptuously, for destructive purposes. It may be used in an indirect manner, and have the form of irony, as in “What a fine musician you turned out to be!” or it may be used in the form of a direct statement, “You couldn't play one piece correctly if you had two assistants.” The distinctive quality of sarcasm is present in the spoken word and manifested chiefly by vocal inflection, whereas satire and irony, arising originally as literary and rhetorical forms, are exhibited in the organization or structuring of either language or literary material. Satire usually implies the use of irony or sarcasm for censorious or critical purposes and is often directed at public figures or institutions, conventional behavior, political situations, etc.
According to definitions #1 and #5, what Chavez did qualifies as an irony.
I like how he ended his
I like how he ended his speech with: "Buen Provecho".
Relevant, very relevant and profound.
Irony vs hypocrisy
Chavez was all about pure hypocrisy and always is.
Now when, where, how and why will WWIII start?
He's no idiot - unfortunately
If Chavez's performance induced gasps you haven't internalized that he's not playing by the same rules, not working from anything like the same intellectual framework. Seeing him as a joke or an idiot or illogical or non-democratic or lacking in economic understanding is missing the point. He's never taken his eye from the prize and moves relentlessly forward. Anarchy, chaos and "big hot mess(es)" are part of his game plan. As Venezuelan's are numbed daily by his incomprehensible tactics he moves forward. It's a debate with two separate sets of rules. One team has both rule books and can predict how the others will act or react. The other team doesn't have much of a clue. They have no idea what he will try next. They keep trying to get the Chavistas to play nice, accusing them of breaking rules that just aren't in their play book.
Chavez intervention could not come at a more apropriate time
I am in full agreement with Chavez intervention yesterday. In this climate change business one has to separate between the science that is far from being settled whatever a majority of people who don't know any better think and the politics of the IPCC that basically consist of a bunch of lies meant to transfer your hard won money from your pocket into theirs. The Copenhagen process needs to go down ignominiously in history for being an outright fraud and I thanks my President Comandante Chavez who did everything possible yesterday to undermine the credibility of this process just by opening his mouth.
Charly
So how do you reconcile that
So how do you reconcile that Venezuela is a major oil producer, subsidizes gasoline internally and externally like no one's business, has no emissions regulations to speak of and Chavez' assertion that it's Capitalisms fault. What, Socialism is somehow greener?
Frankly, he comes across as a major hypocrite.
We should get one thing straight
I can't tell if you mean everything you just said, if you just mean the "Copenhagen is a fraud" thing or what.
In any case, the European Academy of Sciences and Art;, InterAcademy Council; International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences; the national science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Ghana, Germany, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, New Zealand, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Sweden, Tanzania, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Zambia, and Zimbabwe; Network of African Science Academies; Royal Society of New Zealand; and dozens more established scientific institutions all agree that humans are likely to be responsible for the current rate of climate change.
Not political institutions, scientific institutions. You must agree that there is room for debate in favor of the point that humans are responsible for climate change to some degree. Unless you are aware of some new data that these institutions aren't.
Check out the wikipedia article on scientific consensus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
What have you got straight?
Dear Nacho:
1. I don't think this is the proper place to debate AGW., I was simply congratulating my President to help me undermine a fraud by putting his foot in his mouth. No more no less. There are plenty of good blogs for AGW debate.
2. When someone quotes Wikipedia, he/she is already on shaky grounds.
3. Having lived 8 years in Zambia, I am impressed to learn that the country has a National Academy of Science. Sure is a great help. You might be interested to learn that Mr AGW, the IPCC Chairman, Dr Pachauri is a Railway Engineer (Tchoo-tchoo) who, like Mr Gore, is full of conflicts of interest between the science he pushes and his business interests mainly with Tata conglomerate.
4. Already in 1967, I was personally already dabbling in watershed water balance models and continental hydro-climatological statistics when the majority of AGW proponents were still in their nappies. So I am not really impressed by doom and gloom about the hockey stick, the general circulation models ("gigo", garbage in - garbage out) and so on and so forth.
5. At my age, emergency takes a bit of a setback. So relax and lets try to get the science right. The end of the world can wait a few more years.
Charly
George
So is it irony or hypocrisy when Chavez denounces imperialism while at the same time acting more and more imperialistic himself?
It's hypocrisy.
It's hypocrisy. Irony would be Chavez forcing Bolivia to denounce imperialism.
PR maneuver
This new really, really depressed me: Having the environment movement to embrace Chavez as poster boy would be a crass error.
We should never understimate Chavez skill for public relations: He is posing as "the voice os those without voice", the "David" of the poor against the big, evil, polluting capitalist Goliath... and a lot of people buy that crap...
And I say crap because, not only is Bolivarian govenment environmental record extremely poor, but linking capitalist to environmental problems is a very big lie. Just as an example, from the ten most polluted cities on the world, six belong to former or current socialist states, and none of them belong to "capitalist" cities. And there are a lot of examples along that line.
Watch for yourself at http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/244 and follow the references if you like.
It is very importat that we keep exposing Chavez hypocrisy and that we acknowledge and fight his Propaganda machine. Chavez is lying. Again and again, Chavez is lying.
They are not really socialist
China is more capitalist than most countries even if it has the communist party as only p arty in power, etc. It is just a farce of "communism". It is only a one-party system. They could call it the "Pinky Party". It is good to be rich there, there are loads of very rich but also more poor people and the environmental disaster in that country, as opposed to in Russia, started rather when markets became free and all.
But it is crap that environmental groups may embrace Hugo as a new heroe. Still, I don't think many did so.
China's environmental problems started long ago
A very brief history of China's environmental problems may be found at:
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/43135/story.htm
China's production of GHG is not its only (nor more pressing) environmental problem:
http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/plan_b_updates/2001/update1
A brief list of chinese environmental problems. Some are industry-related, other are related to population growth, and others are old and plain mismanagement:
http://matadorchange.com/10-environmental-atrocities-in-china-that-you-didnt-know-about/
Still: this no communist-capitalist debate
and I am a capitalist.
This has to do with social awareness about environmental problems.
Environmental problems are no new either, just look at what Mayas did to their environment or people plus other factors to the Palestine-Iraq region for millenia
Not communist-capitalist, but yes authoritarian-democratic
I agree it's not really about communism, but it IS about democratic accountability.
Societies with a healthy public sphere, where environmental outrages can be written about freely, discussed publicly, and where those responsible are liable to have real pressure - social and/or legal - brought onto them are certainly going to be cleaner than societies with a controlled press, a public sphere where reasoned debate is shut out, and one where favored links with the autocrat are enought to trump any attempt to hold polluters accountable.
Wrong
This is flat wrong. Most of the countries that you consider to be "democratic" actually pollute MUCH MUCH more than countries like Cuba and China, which you would characterize as "authoritarian".
Once again, you forgot to check if your bogus idea is supported by the facts.
hm..
Actually... let them embrace Chavez.
The environment movement is a fraud, too many different agendas and conflicts of interest... don't think it'll get anywhere for a very long time.
Some comments on CO2 reduction
I like a lot the table compiled by the BBC at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8345343.stm. It provides some widely known facts (like who are the biggest CO2 producers) and it adds some interesting new information.
I specially like the "Amount of GHG emitted per $1m of GDP" item. I believe it is very important because it tells about the efficiency of each economy related to the ammount of Greenhouse Gasses generated.
We can see, for instance, that while USA stands as the second GHG producer, its efficiency is almost 3 times better that China. Telling it other way, when the americans resort to producing GHG, the produce almost 3 times less than chinese for the same final result.
USA still has room for improvement (look at EU and Japan efficiency figures, for instance), and I guess a lot is due to its car-dependent society, but make no mistake: There is not a big room for improvement, just about a third it they reach japanese efficiency figures.
Bottom line: Even when USA finally commits to big GHG reductions, there would still be A LOT of work to do on this issue from the other parties.
Adding nothing to the debate
Chavez doesn't care whether we are discussing drug trade, climate change, or the latest Caracas-Magallanes.
As long as he has an audience, he will go on with his Antiimperialist tirade. It reminds me of the old joke about Jaimito and the Phoenicians.
Perspective
As long as he has an audience, he will keep blowing hot air...
At "Imperialism" if it's international, at the opposition and the escualidos if it's domestic.
I really wonder, what kind of audience he expects if he repeats the drill enough times, if he cares what kind of audience. Or if he always expects to have an audience by default, because he controls Venezuelan oils.
If we are supposing that Hugo Chavez has something akin to ideas and a message that are independent of his narcissistic needs for audience and uncontested power...
CO2
Quico and Juan, it's CO (subscript)2, not CO square.
Thanks
I left it at CO2, could not find the subscript button.
The grammar police has come out in full force today...
The Dutch and Hugo: I think Hugo was expecting more attention
and because he did not get it, he decided to say the Dutch are concocting something against him together with the US Americans:
http://www.noticias24.com/actualidad/noticia/130061/chavez-y-evo-llegan-...
British TV reports that Iran (gasp!) cheated in their elections.
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/world/middle_east/iran+basij+membe...
Te la comiste
I was going to write a long post about this, but you short circuited me, so I will mostly quote you and show a quantitative graph about Chavez' anti-green (What's the opposite of green?) record if Christmas parties stop at some point this weekend.
just like the stoplights
well the red/green pair is used frequently for contrast... so I guess you can say that he has, in fact, a rojo-rojito record.
^^
Jumping Jack Flash it's a gas, gas ,
It is a hoot to have someone who has set the price of gasoline in Venezuela at ~ 12-25 US Cents per gallon at the pump present himself as a Savior at the Copenhagen conference. Too bad he didn't suggest to the conference that the rest of the world follow Venezuela's pricing scheme. "Comrades, our prices in Venezuela for gasoline are a model for social justice. The whole world should follow our lead." And the hall breaks out into a standing ovation.
Woody Allen or Groucho couldn't have done it better.
Boludeces
AGW
AGW.........let me guess, Al Gore Warming?
Also looks like Bush did not take the sulfur with him when he left the White House. Chavez got worldwide notice for that comment about Bush and he's only playing for the same affect.
Obama Eclipses Bush's Achievements
Think about it...
It took George W. Bush four whole years in office before being branded a "warmonger" by Hugo Chavez. Obama managed to achieve that in less than one year. At this rate, I predict that Chavez will will be call Obama "the devil" by April or May.
Que payaso!
Te quedaste corto, Roy
April or May? Guy said Copenhagen still smells like sulfur...this morning!
Yeah, I know...
That's the problem with making predictions. I really thought he would hold off on the "sulfur" comments regarding Obama for a few more months. At this point, if Little Orphan Annie were elected president of the U.S., Chavez would tell us she is the devil incarnate.
More must be done - regardless
The short term outcome of the Global Warming (sorry, Climate Crisis) issue, given that a majority (?) of the world population believes it, will be:
1) A couple of years from now, should the earth continue it’s present cooling cycle, the Global Warming crowd will take credit for the cooling, and claim that whatever idiotic measures were agreed upon in Copenhagen actually worked and therefore, they will argue that more must be done.
or
2) The present trend will reverse and the (cheating) scientists in cahoots with the wealth distribution agenda driven UN will again “proof” Global Warming as an indisputable fact / settled science, the Global Warming crowd will affirm that whatever idiotic measures were agreed upon in Copenhagen weren’t enough, therefore, they will argue that more must be done.
And Chavez couldn't care less, because it assures him a stage and audience to blubber his nonsense for a looooong time.
More must be done - regardless
More must be done - regardless
The short term outcome of the Global Warming (sorry, Climate Crisis) issue, given that a majority (?) of the world population believes it, will be:
1) A couple of years from now, should the earth continue it’s present cooling cycle, the Global Warming crowd will take credit for the cooling, and claim that whatever idiotic measures were agreed upon in Copenhagen actually worked and therefore, they will argue that more must be done.
or
2) The present trend will reverse and the (cheating) scientists in cahoots with the wealth distribution agenda driven UN will again “proof” Global Warming as an indisputable fact / settled science, the Global Warming crowd will affirm that whatever idiotic measures were agreed upon in Copenhagen weren’t enough, therefore, they will argue that more must be done.
And Chavez couldn't care less, because it assures him a stage and audience to blubber his nonsense for a looooong time.
OK Kepler, use another one of your goody 2-shoes tokens and shut me up again. Just like your president, when it comes to free speech.
Kolya, not Kepler
Mike E., I was the person who demoted your comment. Kepler had nothing to do with it. No big deal to be demoted. Two or three of my own comments were demoted, probably because whoever did it found them irrelevant.. So it goes. It would be silly of me to cry censorship over it.
justice Kolya
Kolya,
It is not a matter of crying it is a matter of putting up with such a stupid and wasteful system.People playing God instead of commenting on ideas.
Wow, just wow
This comment probably deserves to be demoted, but I cannot resist: it is either hysterical melodrama or sheer stupidity to claim that to demote a comment is "playing God." And yes, I do see it as crying or whinning. Who is "forcing" you? Nobody. Moreover, to demote a comment is not censorship. No comments are deleted . All comments are available for people to read (including the hidden/demoted ones.)
(In any event, the system is not perfect and like with any new online endeavour there are a few glitches. The owners of this site are the first to admit it. And in their FAQ, posts and comments the owners explained more than once what is their intent and what is their system.)
Kolya
Actually, this little exchange does bring up some very interesting things. The internet is full of debate forums where plainly obnoxious posts like Mike E.'s are given exactly equal weight to measured and serious comments and, perhaps not coincidentally, the internet is also full of flame wars and troll wastelands and spaces where real debate can't flourish because it's systematically shortcircuited by people with no interest in that sort of thing.
Lets not mince words here: protecting sane debate from the influence of commenters like Mike E. is exactly what this software sets out to do, so I have no compunctions at all about saying that if the system is hiding his comments and he's finding that intensely irksome, that's a feature, not a bug.
The thing I'm still trying to work through is your response, though, Kolya.
Lets look at what happened dispassionately: you got goaded into responding to Mike E., but of course that meant that your comment was off topic and didn't add much value to the discussion. Of course, as a result, people started voting you down, so your comment is already grayed out. That's good, in that the resulting thread doesn't get very much visibility. But at the same time, notice what's happening: each time somebody votes you down your reputation score suffers. This hurts your chances in the race for Trusted User Status next week, and means that YOUR ratings get less weight and YOUR posts get lower default visibility.
Maybe that, too, is a feature, not a bug: the system is going to shortcircuit flame wars, in part, by making even reasonable posters who engage in them lose out on their reputation scores. Which, actually, is maybe as it should be.
I realized this contradicts what I told you via email, but I just hadn't thought it all the way through when I wrote that. The funny thing is that I designed this system, and I'm still in the process of working through all of its implications.
Short circuiting flame wars
Quico, thanks for your comment. I'm not whinning over my demotions, nor do I think, as someone ridiculously put it, that such actions amount to "playing God."
Among other things you wrote:
"the system is going to shortcircuit flame wars, in part, by making even reasonable posters who engage in them lose out on their reputation scores. Which, actually, is maybe as it should be."
I have no problems with that.
freedom of speech
This is exactly the type of freedom of speech that Chavez allows:
'freedm of speech' that is hidden from a large percentage of people.Freedom of speech but limiting access and influence of what is spoken so that in the end there is no free dialogue among most people.
Flame wars can still be had on this system but there is a strong attempt by the system to limit influence of dissident thinking.
Even what is obnoxious is thought of as an objective quality on this blog when in reality it is mostly defined by the blog owner and those he likes or agrees with.It is as simple as that: mutual admiration society.The new M.A.S.
All of us have the right to create the blog we like but not to call it what it is not.This is NOT democratic discourse.
The internet does not need yet another troll wasteland.
First off I'd note that this site is very specifically designed to prevent groupthink: your comments are getting hidden not because people disagree with them, but because they don't add any value to the debate. Your failure to grasp or acknowledge that difference - which is spelled out clearly in the FAQ - is, I'm sure, one of the reasons the community has taken such a dim view of your contribution so far.
The other thing I'm sure is not helping your posts is your plainly silly Freedom of Speech Martyr pose. There are 10,000,000 sites devoted to pointless flame wars on the internet, Mike. And you're absolutely free to go participate in any of them. What you're not allowed to do is turn this site into the 10,000,001st one. Not because I say so, but because the community does.
Quico's contradiction
Quico,
How do you vouch for the fact that' Trusted Users' are penalizing contributions for " not adding value to the debate" instead of just not agreeing?
To me this is an artificial distinction, or just a pretension to a superior level of impartiality.
Your contradiction:"
1.you say: "this site is very specifically designed to prevent groupthink"
2. then you say :"I'm sure, one of the reasons the community has taken such a dim view of your contribution so far."
SO basically you apply groupthink and call it "community viewpoint"
What I'm saying is that most
What I'm saying is that most reasonable people can distinguish between a comment that's designed to inflame and a comment that's reasonable and carefully thought out but that they happen to disagree with. Many of the comments that add most value to a debate - in my view - fall in the latter category.
This site asks people specifically to make the distinction between what they agree with and what adds value to debate. It rewards people who are conscientious about making that distinction, because it treats the ability to make that distinction as a mark of intellectual maturity, not to mention one of the foundations of a democratic public sphere.
This site is not designed to stifle dissent. It's designed to stifle flame wars. If you can't recognize that distinction as real and relevant, then yes, I think there's a very good chance it'll end up stifling you.
Quico ,
You apparently are
Quico ,
You apparently are the one who cannot make this distinction which is why the comments that are hidden are disagreements and NOT flames.You attempt to turn disagreements into flames wars precisely by censorship( hiding comments)
Intellectual maturity cannot be asked for, it is trained through age, emotional maturity,and contemplative endeavours.
Exactly right. Quico simply
Exactly right. Quico simply tries to justify censorship with this elaborate word game. And, coincidentally, most of the hidden or censored comments are simply people who disagree with Quiico and gang's group think.