157
In other news, bullet manufacturer calls gun control ‘irresponsible.’
Yeah god forbid his net worth go down by a few tenths of a percent.
We need to seriously, as a society, treats this level of greed as a serious, in patient, mental illness that requires treatment.
Friend, you're absolutely correct. And while I love punctuation as much as the next person, you need to ease up on the commas almost as much as we need to ease up on fossil fuel consumption.
It’s grammatically correct.
No it's not.
We need to seriously, as a society, treats this level of greed as a serious, in patient, mental illness that requires treatment.
- "As a society," could be placed at the beginning of the sentence instead of as an interjection, which eliminates the need for one comma.
- The verbs are conjugated incorrectly; "treats" should be in the infinitive, since "need" is the active verb.
- "In patient" should be hyphenated.
- "In patient" should not have a comma after it, since it is the last adjective in a list. "Mental" is not an adjective in this instance, because it is part of the noun.
- Using "seriously" and "serious" in the same sentence is repetitive and unnecessary.
- "That requires treatment" is redundant, as OP already said "treat " and "in-patient," which implies "that requires treatment." Personally, to clear things up I would uncouple"in-patient" from "serious mental illness," which takes care of several of these issues.
- If you ever see four commas in a non-compound sentence, it's almost certainly done incorrectly. At the very least, the structure could probably be cleaned up.
Here's what the sentence could look like:
As a society, we need to diagnose this level of greed as a serious mental illness requiring in-patient care.
See? Cleaned it right up. Now it's down to fewer words and fewer commas while conveying the exact same information.
Remember folks: "when in doubt, leave it out."
I just meant the commas, which are placed correctly as they are. The only thing I’m unsure of is if “seriously” should have a comma before it, too. Anyway, I also enjoy pedantic arguments.
Remember when everyone got together online and decided that we love people who point out grammatical errors in social media?
It's a good thing that I don't comment on social media in order to feel loved.
No, Just need to kill them and process the remains into fertilizer. Then seize their wealth and use it to fund counters to climate change.
Not just greed, but the sheer level of sociopathy you have to possess to be a CEO. That level of "don't give a fuck about anyone except shareholders" will be the downfall of humanity.
But the leopard said it doesn’t like eating faces
He meant it would be irresponsible because his compensation package would suffer. (https://apnews.com/article/shell-ceo-pay-energy-prices-record-profits-3f9b9bb08d1cd88a11d0ab550ffdc053)
Shell supports Russia in their aggression on the people of Ukraine. I already have a personal boycott against them. Like Unilever, they're making MORE profits than ever from their operations in Russia in spite of making noises about curtailing business there.
If anyone doubts their thirst for blood money that's just another data point.
It would be irresponsible, to their stock prices and executive bonuses.
I mean, he sucks, but I also don’t disagree that having a bridge solution during OPEC fuckaround times is a good idea. Supply cuts aren’t fun, period, especially when we can’t influence them whatsoever (since it seems dollar hegemony is going bye-bye at some point):
There’s probably a decent solution to temporarily boost and maintain domestic oil production while also feeding green R&D, whether that’s in the form of a tax, credit, government package, or full-blown turn-Shell-into-an-SOE; all of its years vs. months, I think. Bottom line, I think it’s a more complex solution than “fuck this guy”.
My idea was a mandatory investment in green energy. Like, if you want to extract X barrels of oil, fine but you have to put up Y new windmills. You want to burn X tons of coal? OK that’ll be Y new solar panels please. It’s different from a carbon tax since the energy company can still own the windmills and whatever and of course sell the electricity from them. One day they’ll look around and realize most of their profits now come from green energy, might as well spend some lobbying money on that.
This is actually a proven idea in net new real estate development involving wetlands and protected acreage; you can build on wetlands, but for every acre you displace, you have to create two acres, and both the plan and results are audited.
To your point, the end result of this - in many cases - is to simply build elsewhere due to the considerably higher costs. I think a model similar in energy would pay dividends rather quickly - most likely, we’d see Shell, EM, CP, etc. rapidly transition to renewables from an imposed cost perspective.
You bring up lobbying - definitely the major hurdle. Fortunately, if you go read these guys 10k’s, I think the shift is inevitable, they’re just artificially pumping the brakes to adhere to some kind of amortisation timeline of investments they’ve already made… which unfortunately, is super frustrating.
I find it very responsible.
Won’t somebody think of the poor CEOs?
Y'know what else is irresponsible? Funny story.
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2023
157 points (100.0% liked)
politics
24733 readers
2686 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS