Azulito

This was obvious. It’s exactly why no one takes the VMAs seriously anymore.

She was only going to shoot for a few days at most. Her tour dates got rescheduled which is what caused her to not be able to make the filming dates.

This account is based in the US, so it really just sounds like she doesn’t wanna be personally affected by a boycott… Tourism is around 13% of the UAE’s GDP. That’s not a small number but it’s also not like their entire economy depends on it. The tweet mentions canceling vacations or choosing different airlines, but you can literally do the same thing in the US? The idea that the US is somehow just too big to boycott at all is crazy

She’s on a stadium tour in the US right now and will be touring stadiums in Europe next year. This “local” drag just doesn’t work

Love her but she is way too old to be acting like this

This is very car-brained and more evidence of the hypocrisy I'm talking about... urban highways destroyed poor black and brown neighborhoods across the country, but according to you that's fine because they allow rich people to get to work 15 minutes faster. And no, they are not necessary; we could've invested in public transit systems that benefitted everyone. A data center built on isolated farmland has way less negative externalities. I genuinely believe if they were built 30+ years ago no one would be complaining about them today and simply accepted them as a way of life, just like you've accepted that highways polluting inner-city neighborhoods is fine because they allow people to get to work.

I support YIMBYism because it's the only policy that's been proven to lower housing prices. California has rent control, inclusionary zoning, etc and prices are still rising. The far-left tries to have a moral justification for this but like... it's clearly not working. That is an objective policy failure, and at this point it's a deliberate choice when so many studies have shown that the own way to solve the housing crisis is by making it easier, cheaper, and faster to build. There's also the urbanist angle where YIMBYism allows cities to be much more dynamic and walkable instead of forcing everyone to live in car-centric suburbs (also better for the environment!)... but I won't get into that right now. I've said this before but I don't think we should embrace bad policy just because it's popular. I support universal healthcare because it makes sense economically and morally. It's simply good policy. Same with raising the minimum wage, having a strong social safety net, free education, etc. But banning data centers? Economically, it makes no sense. The moral argument falls flat when we ignore so many other industries that harm the environment. And most of the environmental concerns regarding data centers can be addressed... Data center NIMBYism is still NIMBYism at the end of the day, which I've always been against. Should the government not build train lines because one community doesn't want them, despite them benefitting an entire region? Should apartments not be allowed in a neighborhood because rich homeowners think they're ugly? One could argue "that's different!" but it's all a part of the same problem where a small group of people have too much power to stop projects that benefit everyone.

Unpopular opinion but they should stop trying to be a global award show and just focus on the US. You'd never see something like this from the BRITs, Junos, etc.

I also think it's disgusting how we continue to grow almonds in the desert

Ignoring the advancements that AI has made (especially in the medical field) due to a few malicious users is certainly a choice. That's like saying the internet shouldn't exist because bad people use it as well. Yet here you are... Growing pecans and almonds in the desert literally use 100x more water than data centers, but that's fine because they provide physical nourishment? Again, you can't claim to care about the environment while ignoring industries that are much more irresponsible with their water use. Can we please stop with these myths? The noise issue is valid, but like... urban highways are just as loud and no one says anything. And no, urban highways are not a necessity. A simple solution is making sure the data centers are located away from residential areas. Also not true I've already posted examples of towns that have benefitted from them due to the tax revenue they provide. If you need more power, build more power plants. I actually work in a field that's been (negatively) affected by AI I try to avoid AI and think it's directly contributing to the growing literacy crisis. But personal feelings should not be a reason to ban an entire industry. It should just be regulated like any other industry. We have to stop letting NIMBYs think they have the right to control everything, especially with these fake environmental concerns. We grow crops in the desert, build highways through cities, and fly from New York to DC, but we care about the environment? I have to laugh.

Data centers should be regulated. I've never said the opposite. The money they generate should be used to improve the communities they're in. I just don't buy the environmental concerns that people are citing, especially from a candidate that also supports suspending a gas tax

If you claim to care about the environment, what's happening in Big Bend would be way bigger conversation. It doesn't surprise me though because I've said before that Americans largely don't actually care about the environment and the poll posted yesterday supported that. That's why the whole data center outrage just feels... overblown. Data centers don't even come close to a bunch of other industries that are way more harmful to the environment. You're advocating for a data center moratorium to save the water, but completely ignore growing agriculture in the desert? And um... if you knew anything about the YIMBY movement you'd know that one of the biggest proposals is making it easier to build housing in cities and suburbs so rural areas (including state/national parks) can remain free from development

Btw, the "pro-affordable housing leftists" are saying San Francisco has built too much housing, despite rents increasing 15% in one year Literal NIMBYism. But calling this out makes me a right wing neoliberal

Just because you call you everyone disagree with right wing doesn't make it true. No one has mentioned anything about this and yet their are constant posts in here about data centers. The hypocrisy is just a bit too much.

Where are all those people protesting data centers? I thought they cared about the environment

I would say this is more of a far-left issue than it is for progressives overall. Mamdani has pivoted a lot on some of his past stances and seems open to ideas even if they're not embraced by the far-left.

I just think a moratorium is the wrong solution to the problem. Why not just regulate and tax them? Force all details of the deals to be available to the public. We should be investing more into our power grid anyway, regardless of the data centers. Most people wouldn't have a problem with data centers if they weren't raising electric bills, and that wouldn't be happening if we just built more power plants. That's all I'm saying. Wisconsin closed two of its nuclear plants decades ago, and NIMBYs want to block a new natural gas plant. A moratorium does nothing to remedy this. If we want communities to grow, we have to accept new development.

The way there’s no argument here because you don’t have one

The true villain is actually the government for giving NIMBYs the power to control everything. We should making it easier to build homeless shelters, data centers, AND power plants (all within necessary regulation of course). We'd need a lot less homeless shelters if we just built more housing, but yeah... Nuclear power is also slowly starting to be discussed again, so clearly the public opinion doesn't matter too much. The same thing will happen with data centers.

How many people want to live near a power plant? Most Americans claim to hate traffic or care about the environment but continue to buy big cars and big homes far away from cities. The media just want to capitalize on something new. No one will care about data centers in 10 years (assuming they are regulated).

And what do you think happens with the revenue generated from data centers? The point was that there will always be someone out there ready to oppose new development. That doesn't mean we should listen to them.

This is NIMBYism just wrapped in a different package. I could also post tweets of people opposing apartments, trains, power plants, etc. Does that mean we shouldn't build them? Agreed, but in the meantime I don't think states should put themselves at a disadvantage by outright banning them. Create a set of regulations and let each community decide.

I mean, none of this is really enough of a reason to outright ban data centers imo. They should just be regulated (that permit should be denied) and forced to invest in the power grid if they want to build in a community. Why would a town refuse millions in revenue just because of NIMBYs?

Tyla has her own image/sound also. It's not Tyla's fault that the media wants to compare her to the retired singer.

AIPAC support gets much more backlash and news coverage than anything regarding data centers. Same goes for "billionaires are bad" (aka taxing the rich), which ironically Crowley didn't support either. Hong's strategy to focus on these issues was clearly not enough to win. Like... you can personally support Hong's policies while also recognizing that maybe she just ran a bad campaign or couldn't connect with voters. Just a few weeks ago you were claiming that voters were massively rejecting data centers, and today it's "well, 40% did!"