| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
SpiritoftheTunA
United States20903 Posts
On February 02 2015 14:36 IgnE wrote: Plenty of point to the arguments though. would you like to elaborate on what these arguments have accomplished other than shift a few people's impotent opinions a few notches towards more informed? | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On February 02 2015 14:38 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: would you like to elaborate on what these arguments have accomplished other than shift a few people's impotent opinions a few notches towards more informed? Generally speaking, the intellectual enlightenment of a population occurs at the margins. Masses of people usually aren't going to be informed all at once. Information disseminates slowly from one person to another (or to a small audience) at a time. Get enough people on board with a particular opinion, and it is no longer impotent. | ||
|
SpiritoftheTunA
United States20903 Posts
On February 02 2015 14:53 xDaunt wrote: Generally speaking, the intellectual enlightenment of a population occurs at the margins. Masses of people usually aren't going to be informed all at once. Information disseminates slowly from one person to another (or to a small audience) at a time. Get enough people on board with a particular opinion, and it is no longer impotent. sure, but i'd just like to add the qualifier "right" to people... i'm not convinced anyone on this forum are members of that group. feel free to provide counterexamples. what started off this rant for me was drone's insinuation that caring about all the people who will be victimized by climate change is a superior position to not caring... i just wanted to provide the case for the reverse position, that not caring is the superior position for the simple reason that it wastes less of one's own time to not care i.e. it is a waste of time to care, unless you're in a position of power or close to it, which in itself is a position of power. i mean i used to share disdain for the politically apathetic, but i can see virtue in it in many cases now. go hard when espousing policy views by espousing them to the right people in the right places or don't go at all, all the in-between is just sad | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
SpiritoftheTunA
United States20903 Posts
On February 02 2015 15:11 IgnE wrote: You either do care or you don't. It's not like you have to run on a treadmill to show that you care. What it sounds like you are arguing in favor of is nihilism. to me, it's not a binary, it's a trinary: you care and can do something about it, you care and can't do anything about it, or you don't care. if you think finding the middle position useless and sad is nihilism, sure, call it that, whatever, people call all sorts of things nihilism. i guess you can further split not caring into being able to do something and not, and those who don't care but can do something meaningful are in an abhorrent position as well, especially to those who care and can't do anything. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28665 Posts
On February 02 2015 13:57 xDaunt wrote: I like honest sociopaths more than I like hypocrites. Happy Birthday, btw. Isn't an honest sociopath an oxymoron? Like a sociopath can of course be selectively honest, but only insofar as perceiving it as beneficial to himself? (honestly, sociopaths are rarely women.  ) Gotta agree with sub40 though.. | ||
|
Sbrubbles
Brazil5776 Posts
On February 02 2015 15:04 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: sure, but i'd just like to add the qualifier "right" to people... i'm not convinced anyone on this forum are members of that group. feel free to provide counterexamples. what started off this rant for me was drone's insinuation that caring about all the people who will be victimized by climate change is a superior position to not caring... i just wanted to provide the case for the reverse position, that not caring is the superior position for the simple reason that it wastes less of one's own time to not care i.e. it is a waste of time to care, unless you're in a position of power or close to it, which in itself is a position of power. i mean i used to share disdain for the politically apathetic, but i can see virtue in it in many cases now. go hard when espousing policy views by espousing them to the right people in the right places or don't go at all, all the in-between is just sad If you think you shouldn't care for people who will be victimized by climate change, fine, at worst you're being is an individualistic jerk. Why are you trying to convince people that is the superior way to live though? Is this some attempt at justifying yourself? | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28665 Posts
xDaunt's point about how information disseminates is a point I am completely on board with, but it's not an opinion that goes well with an apathetic attitude. (And even participating in this thread, even if it is to argue for apathy, isn't apathetic.) I really think the think globally act locally adage is well, unless you're able to act globally, the best way to go about creating world improvement, and it's certainly a whole lot better than thinking nothing matters. Yes, individual actions like recycling are virtually meaningless when you are one out of 7.5 billion people, but not when you realize that your behavioral patterns are reflected through the rest of the world - because it is influenced by those around you and further influences those around you. It's not that you are meaningless, it's that you matter less than you yourself is able to detect, but if enough particles of water decided that they didn't want to go that way because it prolly doesn't matter, then there would be no waves.. The more proudly you do nothing, the more you can expect others to do nothing. | ||
|
SpiritoftheTunA
United States20903 Posts
On February 02 2015 19:15 Sbrubbles wrote: If you think you shouldn't care for people who will be victimized by climate change, fine, at worst you're being is an individualistic jerk. Why are you trying to convince people that is the superior way to live though? Is this some attempt at justifying yourself? yeah? isn't everyone trying to justify their own viewpoints and point out the advantages of those viewpoints in this thread? like my whole point is while it seems "jerk"-ish to be individualistic in this instance, there is no practically better stance to take unless you actually are doing something about it. if you spend time talking about why you care and how you care but don't actually improve anything nor provide a logistical path to improve things, you're just wasting your own time and your audience's time. convincing climate change deniers that climate change exists is a mostly futile exercise, even when you succeed. any counterarguments to this? world keeps spinning, fossil fuels keep burning, and "awareness" isn't fixing any of it really | ||
|
SpiritoftheTunA
United States20903 Posts
On February 02 2015 19:33 Liquid`Drone wrote: Tuna, you were not arguing in favor of not caring due to powerlessness, you were arguing in favor of not attempting to get power due to carelessness. That might have been unintentional, but it's still how you worded it originally. i don't see how that's the case and it was certainly unintentional, i don't think anywhere did i say "attempting to get power and influence the right people to do the right things is a futile exercise," i was just pointing out certain exercises that are futile. another example off the top of my head is voting for president from a deep blue state... and a lot of american voting in general, with the illusion of choice and significance, when it really takes a lot more effort to do anything meaningful in the political sphere. merely voting is one of those false idols here, and i can't stand the type of people who say "if you don't vote you can't complain," especially when the object of complaints really could not have been changed by different ballot results, much less 1 different individual vote. i think awareness of what kinds of efforts are futile and what kind of efforts are actually meaningful and impactful to people is incredibly important. xDaunt's point about how information disseminates is a point I am completely on board with, but it's not an opinion that goes well with an apathetic attitude. (And even participating in this thread, even if it is to argue for apathy, isn't apathetic.) I really think the think globally act locally adage is well, unless you're able to act globally, the best way to go about creating world improvement, and it's certainly a whole lot better than thinking nothing matters. Yes, individual actions like recycling are virtually meaningless when you are one out of 7.5 billion people, but not when you realize that your behavioral patterns are reflected through the rest of the world - because it is influenced by those around you and further influences those around you. It's not that you are meaningless, it's that you matter less than you yourself is able to detect, but if enough particles of water decided that they didn't want to go that way because it prolly doesn't matter, then there would be no waves.. The more proudly you do nothing, the more you can expect others to do nothing. bringing recycling into this is a different matter... i recycle and encourage others to do so when i'm in a position to... but behavioral patterns reflecting through the rest of the world is only to an extent... and yea i am kind of rationalizing not being a super social advocate for good, but i'm not saying that's futile either when it's actually for tangible good, i've mainly been pointing at 1. arguing on internet forums and 2. convincing climate change deniers and/or supporting vague policy efforts regarding climate change as futile. you're the one generalizing my point to where i didn't mean it to be generalized. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28665 Posts
I mean, I'm not arguing for a constant state of despair caused by the realization that the world is a fucked up place and there's little we can do about it. But too often do I see apathy used as a justification for doing nothing, rather than as a justification for not feeling terrible about not doing everything. I mean, I recently met some doctor without borders girl who had gone to sierra leone to fight ebola. I'm not there and while she's somewhat of a hero, not everyone else is a villain. But there's a whole spectrum of positions between constant activism and apatheticness, and I'd strongly argue that it's much better the more people are on the activist side, and that holding a position of impotency pushes people towards apathy. | ||
|
Sbrubbles
Brazil5776 Posts
On February 02 2015 19:36 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: yeah? isn't everyone trying to justify their own viewpoints and point out the advantages of those viewpoints in this thread? like my whole point is while it seems "jerk"-ish to be individualistic in this instance, there is no practically better stance to take unless you actually are doing something about it. if you spend time talking about why you care and how you care but don't actually improve anything nor provide a logistical path to improve things, you're just wasting your own time and your audience's time. convincing climate change deniers that climate change exists is a mostly futile exercise, even when you succeed. any counterarguments to this? world keeps spinning, fossil fuels keep burning, and "awareness" isn't fixing any of it really "there is no practically better stance to take unless you actually are doing something about it" isn't necessarily true because in democratic (and non-democratic as well to a certain extent) regimes, political decisions rely on public opinion and public opinion isn't brought about overnight. Paying lip service at least allows the issue to remain in the limelight. If you're so disillusioned that you think public opinion has no bearing on what happens in politics, then you would be right, discussion by poor and disenfranchised is pointless. "you're just wasting your own time and your audience's time". I ask you to consider the possibility (just the possibility) that you're wrong about it being a waste. Just the possibility these "futile exercises" could yield fruit may be enough justification for people to go through with them. To say people should not engage in this (instead of simply not engaging yourself), you're fully commited that you're 100% right, which is not prudent behaviour. To me it sounds like "I don't want people discussing this because I don't want to do anything about it" disguised as "I don't want people discussing this because nothing will be achieved". | ||
|
SpiritoftheTunA
United States20903 Posts
if you ever feel like pointing at specific policy efforts or awareness efforts that are accomplishing meaningful things to actually curb the process of and fallout from man-made climate change, feel free to PM me. though be warned, i don't consider delaying the whole thing by anywhere under 1000 years too meaningful | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28665 Posts
I guess seattle is turning recycling into a law, but they could only do that when there's public support for it - caused by enough people being involved in the discussion and attempting to sway the minds of others. Anyway, I think public transportation rather than driving cars is much the same. I think reducing meat (especially beef) consumption and eating more vegetables is much the same. In both cases, your steak or your car will have pretty much no impact, however everyone turning into subway-using vegans would certainly make a difference. Which again - not what I advocate, I just advocate that everyone should be a bit more conscious. But that means that we need to collectively care, and it means that I need to try to convince those who don't care that they should care, and it means that I need to try to convince the people who have yet to form an opinion about whether they should care or not, that they should care. Honestly though, I don't even know to what degree you disagree with any of this. I think you went a little too far with your initial point, but I can certainly understand the sentiments you are sharing. I personally don't feel like I'm making any big sacrifices to combat global warming or inspire to global competence (but then, my political position on global warming is that we don't have to make big sacrifices, just that everyone has to make small ones, and I'm getting enjoyment out of posting/sharing ideas, so I don't think I'm particularly hypocritical ). | ||
|
SpiritoftheTunA
United States20903 Posts
i agree with your third paragraph for the most part, and i agree curbing agribusiness / meat consumption will likely make a sizable impact on methane emissions, and i have been eating meat less and less over the years... i think we mostly agree for the most part, i just have an overall more bleak view on the inevitability of the fallout of man-made climate change regardless of things going towards the right direction in the developed, comfortable world. i guess it's pointless to espouse this view however, so i concede that a general sense of optimism and efficacy is good where appropriate. | ||
|
Sbrubbles
Brazil5776 Posts
On February 02 2015 20:06 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: all right, you guys can keep generalizing this to the point where my argument no longer makes sense because it's not my argument, i will accept that. carry on. if you ever feel like pointing at specific policy efforts or awareness efforts that are accomplishing meaningful things to actually curb the process of and fallout from man-made climate change, feel free to PM me. though be warned, i don't consider delaying the whole thing by anywhere under 1000 years too meaningful Youre making the point that people should stop discussing because nothing meaningful has yet been acomplished, correct? Even if i were to agree, I dont think this is enough to guarantee 100% that nothing will ever be accomplished. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
u should describe your targets as tragically hopeful. except we've come a long way out of the stone ages on the useless ramblings of these useless squabblers as for gw and solutions i do think a world level authority is needed to equitably find resettlement, water resources etc but lol | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On February 02 2015 20:06 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: all right, you guys can keep generalizing this to the point where my argument no longer makes sense because it's not my argument, i will accept that. carry on. if you ever feel like pointing at specific policy efforts or awareness efforts that are accomplishing meaningful things to actually curb the process of and fallout from man-made climate change, feel free to PM me. though be warned, i don't consider delaying the whole thing by anywhere under 1000 years too meaningful SMAC policy option: Launch Solar Shade[edit] Prerequisite: Advanced Spaceflight Causes global cooling and makes the sea levels drop. If a solar shade has already been launched, this proposal will be called "Increase Solar Shade". Source If it can work on Planet, home to a sentient, God-like fungus, it can work in America damnit. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18826 Posts
The following is an excerpt from an interview with Scott Walker.RADDATZ: Let’s talk about some specific, and you talk about leadership and you talk about big, bold, fresh ideas. What is your big, bold, fresh idea in Syria? WALKER: Well, I think – I go back to the red line. RADDATZ: Let’s not go back. Let’s go forward. What is your big, bold idea in Syria? WALKER: I think aggressively, we need to take the fight to ISIS and any other radical Islamic terrorist in and around the world, because it’s not a matter of when they attempt an attack on American soil, or not if I should say, it’s when, and we need leadership that says clearly, not only amongst the United States but amongst our allies, that we’re willing to take appropriate action. I think it should be surgical. RADDATZ: You don’t think 2,000 air strikes is taking it to ISIS in Syria and Iraq? WALKER: I think we need to have an aggressive strategy anywhere around the world. I think it’s a mistake to – RADDATZ: But what does that mean? I don’t know what aggressive strategy means. If we’re bombing and we’ve done 2,000 air strikes, what does an aggressive strategy mean in foreign policy? WALKER: I think anywhere and everywhere, we have to be – go beyond just aggressive air strikes. We have to look at other surgical methods. And ultimately, we have to be prepared to put boots on the ground if that’s what it takes, because I think, you know– RADDATZ: Boots on the ground in Syria? U.S. boots on the ground in Syria? WALKER: I don’t think that is an immediate plan, but I think anywhere in the world– RADDATZ: But you would not rule that out. WALKER: I wouldn’t rule anything out. I think when you have the lives of Americans at stake and our freedom loving allies anywhere in the world, we have to be prepared to do things that don’t allow those measures, those attacks, those abuses to come to our shores. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV European League
PiGosaur Monday
OSC
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
Online Event
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
Online Event
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
