|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On May 24 2019 08:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2019 02:13 Sermokala wrote:
I don't believe you guys haven't been around long enough to understand GH's shtick. He doesn't really care for the causes or effects of anything he talks about or advocates for. He believes that the act of advocating for it and talking about it is the beginning and the end of his responsibility. Its just yet another of his "abolish the police" bullshit line of arguments. He doesn't understand the chaos that canceling police service one day would cause, but that doesn't really matter to him because he doesn't care about that he only cares about having better police and sees restarting the whole thing as the most direct path.
I could armchair general about how the small arms revolution works and how its legitimate if thats what you want. This is how it usually happens. Someone distorts or completely fabricates a position and then argues against that and laughs at how stupid it is even though it's a position they've made up, not one I've presented. It's remarkable really.
To be fair GH you present arguments like a dog chasing cars. You really wouldn't know what to do with one if you caught it you just chase.
You don't get to just forsware the consequences of what you advocate just because your morally correct for advocating them. Politics isn't just about having ideas its about the followthrough and result of those ideas.
A revolution in the united states wouldn't solve the issues we face today with climate change. It would only cause cascading wars across the earth only after recovering from which will people change their focus to the issues at hand.
A better argument would be about gun buybacks disarming predominantly black and other minority groups for some imaginary race war.
|
On May 24 2019 08:31 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2019 08:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2019 02:13 Sermokala wrote:
I don't believe you guys haven't been around long enough to understand GH's shtick. He doesn't really care for the causes or effects of anything he talks about or advocates for. He believes that the act of advocating for it and talking about it is the beginning and the end of his responsibility. Its just yet another of his "abolish the police" bullshit line of arguments. He doesn't understand the chaos that canceling police service one day would cause, but that doesn't really matter to him because he doesn't care about that he only cares about having better police and sees restarting the whole thing as the most direct path.
I could armchair general about how the small arms revolution works and how its legitimate if thats what you want. This is how it usually happens. Someone distorts or completely fabricates a position and then argues against that and laughs at how stupid it is even though it's a position they've made up, not one I've presented. It's remarkable really. To be fair GH you present arguments like a dog chasing cars. You really wouldn't know what to do with one if you caught it you just chase. You don't get to just forsware the consequences of what you advocate just because your morally correct for advocating them. Politics isn't just about having ideas its about the followthrough and result of those ideas. A revolution in the united states wouldn't solve the issues we face today with climate change. It would only cause cascading wars across the earth only after recovering from which will people change their focus to the issues at hand. A better argument would be about gun buybacks disarming predominantly black and other minority groups for some imaginary race war.
Maybe revolution is hopeless (this is kwarks position) but folks should recognize the alternative isn't "a better buyback program" it's human extinction and the correct course is to save yourself for as long as you can.
It's like people want to have that position without owning it's implications.
I should point out that even if people think guns are pointless to the cause (I think thoroughly refuted by history), we still need a revolution. Our politicians are undeniably letting the climate (and related fallout) destroy humanity starting with the most marginalized and defenseless.
So keep shitting on revolution if one must, but recognize that it's a selfish position that only portends disaster.
|
|
|
On May 24 2019 09:25 JimmiC wrote:
We are still waiting on how a revolution fixes the problems and how it happens with out accelerating climate change.
My position is that we should have world peace, share everything and make love the new currency.
If you'd actually like to know I suggest you read the plethora of literature/history on the subject. Marx articulates the basic framework and the Russian revolution the example to learn from though if you want an idea of where to start.
|
The empire is falling with or without revolution. Might take a decade or two but it's going to happen.
It won't be good for the climate either.
|
|
|
On May 24 2019 09:48 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2019 09:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2019 09:25 JimmiC wrote:
We are still waiting on how a revolution fixes the problems and how it happens with out accelerating climate change.
My position is that we should have world peace, share everything and make love the new currency. If you'd actually like to know I suggest you read the plethora of literature/history on the subject. Marx articulates the basic framework and the Russian revolution the example to learn from though if you want an idea of where to start. Technology and the world haa changed mightly since then.
Duh.
And the USSR was the opposite of good for the environment, way worse then even the US.
Based on...?
Hell if people didnt act against the goverment the whole continent might already be extinct. Democracy has its faults no doubt, but the other option is far worse.
Uhhh... what? I'm arguing in favor of a communist revolution, you may not be familiar, but democracy is integral to that.
|
On May 24 2019 08:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2019 08:31 Sermokala wrote:On May 24 2019 08:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2019 02:13 Sermokala wrote:
I don't believe you guys haven't been around long enough to understand GH's shtick. He doesn't really care for the causes or effects of anything he talks about or advocates for. He believes that the act of advocating for it and talking about it is the beginning and the end of his responsibility. Its just yet another of his "abolish the police" bullshit line of arguments. He doesn't understand the chaos that canceling police service one day would cause, but that doesn't really matter to him because he doesn't care about that he only cares about having better police and sees restarting the whole thing as the most direct path.
I could armchair general about how the small arms revolution works and how its legitimate if thats what you want. This is how it usually happens. Someone distorts or completely fabricates a position and then argues against that and laughs at how stupid it is even though it's a position they've made up, not one I've presented. It's remarkable really. To be fair GH you present arguments like a dog chasing cars. You really wouldn't know what to do with one if you caught it you just chase. You don't get to just forsware the consequences of what you advocate just because your morally correct for advocating them. Politics isn't just about having ideas its about the followthrough and result of those ideas. A revolution in the united states wouldn't solve the issues we face today with climate change. It would only cause cascading wars across the earth only after recovering from which will people change their focus to the issues at hand. A better argument would be about gun buybacks disarming predominantly black and other minority groups for some imaginary race war. Maybe revolution is hopeless (this is kwarks position) but folks should recognize the alternative isn't "a better buyback program" it's human extinction and the correct course is to save yourself for as long as you can. It's like people want to have that position without owning it's implications. I should point out that even if people think guns are pointless to the cause (I think thoroughly refuted by history), we still need a revolution. Our politicians are undeniably letting the climate (and related fallout) destroy humanity starting with the most marginalized and defenseless. So keep shitting on revolution if one must, but recognize that it's a selfish position that only portends disaster.
You never state how revolution will solve anything. We keep telling you how it will not solve anything. Yet you keep insisting that revolution is the only option.
You need to acept that we're not good people. We're all just monkeys and deserve to die as monkeys.
|
On May 24 2019 09:59 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2019 08:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2019 08:31 Sermokala wrote:On May 24 2019 08:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2019 02:13 Sermokala wrote:
I don't believe you guys haven't been around long enough to understand GH's shtick. He doesn't really care for the causes or effects of anything he talks about or advocates for. He believes that the act of advocating for it and talking about it is the beginning and the end of his responsibility. Its just yet another of his "abolish the police" bullshit line of arguments. He doesn't understand the chaos that canceling police service one day would cause, but that doesn't really matter to him because he doesn't care about that he only cares about having better police and sees restarting the whole thing as the most direct path.
I could armchair general about how the small arms revolution works and how its legitimate if thats what you want. This is how it usually happens. Someone distorts or completely fabricates a position and then argues against that and laughs at how stupid it is even though it's a position they've made up, not one I've presented. It's remarkable really. To be fair GH you present arguments like a dog chasing cars. You really wouldn't know what to do with one if you caught it you just chase. You don't get to just forsware the consequences of what you advocate just because your morally correct for advocating them. Politics isn't just about having ideas its about the followthrough and result of those ideas. A revolution in the united states wouldn't solve the issues we face today with climate change. It would only cause cascading wars across the earth only after recovering from which will people change their focus to the issues at hand. A better argument would be about gun buybacks disarming predominantly black and other minority groups for some imaginary race war. Maybe revolution is hopeless (this is kwarks position) but folks should recognize the alternative isn't "a better buyback program" it's human extinction and the correct course is to save yourself for as long as you can. It's like people want to have that position without owning it's implications. I should point out that even if people think guns are pointless to the cause (I think thoroughly refuted by history), we still need a revolution. Our politicians are undeniably letting the climate (and related fallout) destroy humanity starting with the most marginalized and defenseless. So keep shitting on revolution if one must, but recognize that it's a selfish position that only portends disaster. You never state how revolution will solve anything. We keep telling you how it will not solve anything. Yet you keep insisting that revolution is the only option. You need to acept that we're not good people. We're all just monkeys and deserve to die as monkeys.
If people are willing to take the position that we're f'd regardless and they are worried about preserving as much of their own security as possible I can grapple with that. I'm arguing against the empirically wrong idea that were not heading to extinction without a revolution. We are.
How a revolution solves it is up to all of us, but as I said, there's a litany of literature and historical documents, the example of the USSR, Cuba, and others to learn from (note I didn't say copy exactly). Then it's on us to prevent our arrogance from condemning humanity (countless other species too fwiw).
|
WE ARE ALL LEMMINGS
some of us build ladders
others lay bricks
eventually we all follow one another off the cliff of inevitable ecological disaster.
In the meantime though, can we at least find a way not to shoot each other to death??
|
On May 24 2019 10:17 Jockmcplop wrote:
WE ARE ALL LEMMINGS
some of us build ladders
others lay bricks
eventually we all follow one another off the cliff of inevitable ecological disaster.
In the meantime though, can we at least find a way not to shoot each other to death??
I hold humanity in higher esteem despite it's relentless efforts to convince me otherwise lol.
|
|
|
On May 24 2019 09:59 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2019 08:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2019 08:31 Sermokala wrote:On May 24 2019 08:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2019 02:13 Sermokala wrote:
I don't believe you guys haven't been around long enough to understand GH's shtick. He doesn't really care for the causes or effects of anything he talks about or advocates for. He believes that the act of advocating for it and talking about it is the beginning and the end of his responsibility. Its just yet another of his "abolish the police" bullshit line of arguments. He doesn't understand the chaos that canceling police service one day would cause, but that doesn't really matter to him because he doesn't care about that he only cares about having better police and sees restarting the whole thing as the most direct path.
I could armchair general about how the small arms revolution works and how its legitimate if thats what you want. This is how it usually happens. Someone distorts or completely fabricates a position and then argues against that and laughs at how stupid it is even though it's a position they've made up, not one I've presented. It's remarkable really. To be fair GH you present arguments like a dog chasing cars. You really wouldn't know what to do with one if you caught it you just chase. You don't get to just forsware the consequences of what you advocate just because your morally correct for advocating them. Politics isn't just about having ideas its about the followthrough and result of those ideas. A revolution in the united states wouldn't solve the issues we face today with climate change. It would only cause cascading wars across the earth only after recovering from which will people change their focus to the issues at hand. A better argument would be about gun buybacks disarming predominantly black and other minority groups for some imaginary race war. Maybe revolution is hopeless (this is kwarks position) but folks should recognize the alternative isn't "a better buyback program" it's human extinction and the correct course is to save yourself for as long as you can. It's like people want to have that position without owning it's implications. I should point out that even if people think guns are pointless to the cause (I think thoroughly refuted by history), we still need a revolution. Our politicians are undeniably letting the climate (and related fallout) destroy humanity starting with the most marginalized and defenseless. So keep shitting on revolution if one must, but recognize that it's a selfish position that only portends disaster. You never state how revolution will solve anything. We keep telling you how it will not solve anything. Yet you keep insisting that revolution is the only option. You need to acept that we're not good people. We're all just monkeys and deserve to die as monkeys.
Well here's one anyway: you know that study that says 71% of global emissions are done by 100 companies, and we can't do anything about it because they have too much power for us to oppose under capitalism?
That's one situation regarding climate change that a leftist revolution would definitely improve. Is it enough? I imagine it's not. But in the meantime, we're just staring at this 71% and shrugging.
|
United States24768 Posts
On May 24 2019 10:27 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2019 09:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2019 09:48 JimmiC wrote:On May 24 2019 09:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2019 09:25 JimmiC wrote:
We are still waiting on how a revolution fixes the problems and how it happens with out accelerating climate change.
My position is that we should have world peace, share everything and make love the new currency. If you'd actually like to know I suggest you read the plethora of literature/history on the subject. Marx articulates the basic framework and the Russian revolution the example to learn from though if you want an idea of where to start. Technology and the world haa changed mightly since then. Duh. And the USSR was the opposite of good for the environment, way worse then even the US. Based on...? Hell if people didnt act against the goverment the whole continent might already be extinct. Democracy has its faults no doubt, but the other option is far worse. Uhhh... what? I'm arguing in favor of a communist revolution, you may not be familiar, but democracy is integral to that. Chernobyl. If you could point me to a communist democracy Id be interested to see it.
Chernobyl was bad for people, and bad for the animals that were chilling there at the time, but really the environment is doing better off now than it was before. In the long-term people are much worse for the environment than Chernobyl.
A somewhat related, somewhat interesting topic is the environmental impact (or lack thereof) of depleted uranium munitions.
|
|
|
On May 24 2019 10:27 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2019 09:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2019 09:48 JimmiC wrote:On May 24 2019 09:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2019 09:25 JimmiC wrote:
We are still waiting on how a revolution fixes the problems and how it happens with out accelerating climate change.
My position is that we should have world peace, share everything and make love the new currency. If you'd actually like to know I suggest you read the plethora of literature/history on the subject. Marx articulates the basic framework and the Russian revolution the example to learn from though if you want an idea of where to start. Technology and the world haa changed mightly since then. Duh. And the USSR was the opposite of good for the environment, way worse then even the US. Based on...? Hell if people didnt act against the goverment the whole continent might already be extinct. Democracy has its faults no doubt, but the other option is far worse. Uhhh... what? I'm arguing in favor of a communist revolution, you may not be familiar, but democracy is integral to that. Chernobyl.
Okay, that was a terrible incident, that has devastated the local landscape for decades, but that's not worse than the US's global environmental impact by a longshot based on the US's carbon footprint, catalog of ecological disasters, and leading role in pushing us toward extinction through hubris.
If you could point me to a communist democracy Id be interested to see it.
Show me an existing "democracy" of any type and I'll show you a oligarchy that generally agrees with your sensibilities.
|
|
|
On May 24 2019 10:38 JimmiC wrote:
Capitalism is a very broad term, not all those companies are from capitalist countries. We cant stop it because there is always a country corrupt enough to let them. We require global cooperation, getting a city to cooperate is hard enough.
Do you think socialism will solve these problems? Where has it? What socialist nation is doing good things for the environment?
If we get global cooperation under capitalism, how is that going to help us solve problems that are demonstrably caused by capitalism?
I don't know if socialism will solve these problems. I like to have a fighting chance though, so that's something. Remember that the only other people who have a working solution for climate change are the fascists.
|
|
|
On May 24 2019 10:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2019 10:17 Jockmcplop wrote:
WE ARE ALL LEMMINGS
some of us build ladders
others lay bricks
eventually we all follow one another off the cliff of inevitable ecological disaster.
In the meantime though, can we at least find a way not to shoot each other to death?? I hold humanity in higher esteem despite it's relentless efforts to convince me otherwise lol.
I don't know that you do GH.
Frankly I think you're using the climate stuff to promote your belief in revolution, not using a revolution to fix climate change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
