EPTIf you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23228 Posts
On May 24 2019 10:51 Jockmcplop wrote: 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. It's both. I would hope the threat of extinction would wake people up to the reality that their political systems will in fact continue to lead them toward their own slaughter. That rather than hopelessly focus on trying to save themselves they instead join the side that wants to avoid catastrophic climate change and is willing to do what is necessary to achieve it. Granted it's a "shade of a tree I won't sit under' position, I could much more easily (and to the appeasement of many here) argue we should instead focus on legislation that protects my position in the system. Then consign myself to focusing on how I can make sure me and those I care about are best able to use the exploitative system to ensure there are as many victims between my family line and extinction as possible. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12172 Posts
This isn't about who is bad or who isn't, including business. This is about the drive under capitalism being profits. That's an amoral state of things. This isn't about bad people, this is about a bad system; more specifically, a system that is badly designed to face the specific challenge that it is facing right now. You then revert back to the liberal idea of personal responsibility, which you are entitled to I guess. But I'm not sure how you reconcile this idea that it's all about people being reluctant to do the right thing with the notion that we've just explored, that just 100 companies are responsible for 71% of emissions? Don't you think that this is perhaps a larger problem than people not being willing to do the right thing? | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12172 Posts
On May 24 2019 11:12 JimmiC wrote: I would love a simple solution but what you are talking about is not revolution in the sense of traditionally but a revolution in the sense of globally changing a huge % of peoples psychology. So Im all for it, now how do you do it? What are you talking about? | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9647 Posts
On May 24 2019 11:02 GreenHorizons wrote: It's both. I would hope the threat of extinction would wake people up to the reality that their political systems will in fact continue to lead them toward their own slaughter. That rather than hopelessly focus on trying to save themselves they instead join the side that wants to avoid catastrophic climate change and is willing to do what is necessary to achieve it. Granted it's a "shade of a tree I won't sit under' position, I could much more easily (and to the appeasement of many here) argue we should instead focus on legislation that protects my position in the system. Then consign myself to focusing on how I can make sure me and those I care about are best able to use the exploitative system to ensure there are as many victims between my family line and extinction as possible. This is just a really sad statement in alot of ways. I dunno I kind of agree with this post to a point. I do think people need to wake up and completely change the world, and fast. In the meantime we shouldn't sacrifice personal safety for a crazy lack of gun laws. I don't see the two as being as related as you seem to. imo there are plenty of other ways to characterize normal life in our system than the bolded part there. Sure, you can say that kind of thing and it has a truth to it but life is so much more than that no matter what system we are in, for everyone - pretty much. ^^ I'm aware how privileged that statement would sound to some people in the world. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23228 Posts
On May 24 2019 11:12 JimmiC wrote: I would love a simple solution but what you are talking about is not revolution in the sense of traditionally but a revolution in the sense of globally changing a huge % of peoples psychology. So Im all for it, now how do you do it? I think Neb and I would agree that raising class consciousness is key. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23228 Posts
Using the methods outlined in the relevant material and customized by folks like yourself once you join us. Some I've (and others) brought to the attention of this community would be Marx, Castro, Freire, and others. If you haven't read any of the related material it's hard to sum up in a, or even a series of posts. Particularly to a hostile audience. EDIT: Neb provides you some of the basics. One of the reasons I want to just ignore you is that you make me want to agree with Neb that we're f'd. And you seem unbothered to offer a counter to that. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12172 Posts
On May 24 2019 11:24 JimmiC wrote: Im asking how do you think you implement your system? And how in practice does this system work? Elect the most leftwing candidates in the countries that matter so that the Overton window gets pushed to the left as much as possible, be openly criticial of liberalism, not only of conservatism, so that we stop accepting liberal framing of economic issues and it stops being easier to envision the end of humanity than the end of capitalism, use a strategy that as much as possible includes rational points rather than moral points; probably some violence at some points. But mostly I don't think we're going to make it, for the record. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12172 Posts
The US is definitely the place to start in my view, yes. Because of the power it holds internationally but also because if the change starts elsewhere the US has historically shown that it will do everything in its power to oppose the effort, and we can't afford that. Can't do it by force now because of where the Overton window is at the moment, there will be too much opposition (also because it's wrong but remember, we're trying to make rational arguments not moral ones). So we're going to try and be convincing. And most likely fail. Depends why they don't agree. Are they irrational? Am I wrong? | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23228 Posts
On May 24 2019 12:07 JimmiC wrote: Im not against anything you wrote sadly I completely agree with the most likely to fail. Rational arguements almost always lose to emotional ones. Grasscycling, how rare it is and how long it has been pushed is a great example. And this is something that will save money, effort and help the enviroment. It is also a minor change. My system would be to try and improve on what is going well in the western and northern europe. As well as improving what isnt working. Changing foreign policy of coutries like the US Rusia, so on and try to export aid and education instead of violence. It is not as exciting as revolution, but your chance of the wrong person taking absolute control. That sounds like the status quo that is leading to extinction according to the scientific community. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23228 Posts
On May 24 2019 12:30 JimmiC wrote: And around and around we go. We are not standing still, and Im actively working to move us forward as best I can. But Im not being real edgy and bold spouting revolution on a gaming message board. That's nonsensical. You're defending the status quo that's leading us toward extinction and we're wondering when you're going to recognize that's not a sustainable position. You're unintentionally doing your best to demonstrate it's too late. You'll maybe never recognize the error of your position and we'll have condemned future generations to irreversible climate catastrophe and likely extinction before you do for sure. EDIT: I felt like this was more obviously apparent than the discussion indicates so I'll say it more explicitly. Any remotely sustainable environmental policy will put gun manufacturers out of business. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5281 Posts
On May 14 2019 08:29 Danglars wrote: first, i didn't have to prove anything and second, you don't have an argument. Good luck proving I wouldn't accept a constitutional amendment. It's just sour grapes from kids that like to think evil of their rivals. I don't have to say one word about your argument, because I think you're a bad person and wouldn't comply if I won legislatively! It's also involves a generous helping of projection from the side that denies the 2nd amendment means what it says. Leave the prophesy of future sore losers to deities and prophets. i needed to make a case on your credibility(since you're using bad faith logic/morals, dipping into self-deception+ Show Spoiler + Self-deception is a process of denying or rationalizing away the relevance, significance, or importance of opposing evidence and logical argument. Self-deception involves convincing oneself of a truth (or lack of truth) so that one does not reveal any self-knowledge of the deception. the first part can be easily made to be statistically relevant(psychological studies + psychological archetypes + behavioral proclivities/degrees of predictability in humans + statistics/studies on the (kind of)people that double down on <issues(from vaccines to liberals and whiteness)> + your own words in these here forums), but the second part can not be argued against and everyone knows it: - hmmm, how about those guns... - i plead the 2nd. - the end. predictions these days are made by statistics and it has no person-hood for you to attack. Human behavior is 93 percent predictable, a group of leading Northeastern University network scientists recently found. Distinguished Professor of Physics Albert-László Barabási and his team studied the mobility patterns of anonymous cell-phone users and concluded that, despite the common perception that our actions are random and unpredictable, human mobility follows surprisingly regular patterns. The team’s research is published in the current issue of Science magazine. sure, that's barely tangential here but i can't see how that comes from "deities and prophets".“Spontaneous individuals are largely absent from the population. Despite the significant differences in travel patterns, we found that most people are equally predictable,” said Barabási, who is also director of Northeastern’s world-leading Center for Complex Network Research. “The predictability represents the probability we can foresee an individual's future whereabouts in the next hour based on his or her previous trajectory.” ... In earlier research on human mobility patterns, published in a 2008 issue of Nature magazine, Barabási and his team studied the real-time trajectory of 100,000 anonymous cell-phone users (randomly selected from more than 6 million users) and found that, despite the diversity of their travel history, humans follow simple reproducible patterns. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
| ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5281 Posts
declaring opponents all the worst sort of people and rebellious types that's giving to much credit; meaning, you're implying premeditation or/and intent where there shouldn't be one. one can just react(often in a defensive manner) to surprise stimuli. shock, fight or flight, immediate(quasi-instinctual) figuring out, reasoned figuring out, mediating/negotiating the outcome of the figuring out within the (societal)context, are steps that could be done entirely mechanically/instinctively. there's no need for morals(worst of) nor hipster epithets(rebellious). faith, good or bad, has nothing to do with stats but, from my side, i've seen no intention from you to even conceive of a world in which you don't/can't own a gun; that gives you no credentials based on which i could "show a little good faith". (or: a valid, rational stance on <issues>, is negotiated between two sides, and you're missing one side; the one you can't envision). labeling has merits as long as the label is used in a positive manner: to overcome it, outgrow it, cure it, work on it/fix it ... etc.(ex: you're an alcoholic. ok, i'll go to AA. labeling is fine) Edit: things like: “Cultural cognition” refers to the unconscious influence of individuals’ group commitments on their perceptions of legally consequential facts. We conducted an experiment to assess the impact of cultural cognition on perceptions of facts relevant to distinguishing constitutionally protected “speech” from unprotected “conduct.” Study subjects viewed a video of a political demonstration. Half the subjects believed that the demonstrators were protesting abortion out side of an abortion clinic, and the other half that the demonstrators were protesting the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy outside a military recruitment center. Subjects of opposing cultural outlooks who were assigned to the same experimental condition (and thus had the same belief about the nature of the protest) disagreed sharply on key “facts”—including whether the protestors obstructed and threatened pedestrians. Subjects also disagreed sharply with those who shared their cultural outlooks but who were assigned to the opposing experimental condition (and hence had a different belief about the nature of the protest). These results supported the study hypotheses about how cultural cognition would affect perceptions pertinent to the speech-conduct distinction. We discuss the significance of the results for constitutional law and liberal principles of self- governance generally are preemptively valid and usable. | ||
| ||
