EPTIndividual actions and individual consumption are not the complete solution. That is true. But it is the one thing that you can actually individually effect. It does not mean that you should not try to push society towards being more eco-friendly. Usually this argument only leads towards "X is a bigger problem, thus i personally should just do nothing and wait for someone else to solve X". Which clearly doesn't work.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1819
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11507 Posts
Individual actions and individual consumption are not the complete solution. That is true. But it is the one thing that you can actually individually effect. It does not mean that you should not try to push society towards being more eco-friendly. Usually this argument only leads towards "X is a bigger problem, thus i personally should just do nothing and wait for someone else to solve X". Which clearly doesn't work. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28665 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18826 Posts
| ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28665 Posts
On September 24 2019 21:07 farvacola wrote: Normatively situating personal consumption choices is one thing, but wrestling with how they affect average people and their willingness to do more is another. The idea that folks are more likely to abdicate further advocacy for fighting climate change if they do not make various personal choices that fit with the contemporary environmentalist aesthetic simply does not square with the converse, that folks are just as likely to forego pushing on the powers that be precisely because they already make personal sacrifices that are ostensibly aimed at addressing climate harms. I strongly dislike South Park's take on political advocacy, but their concept of San Francisco smug hits the nail right on the head, there are millions of folks who are all to happy to eat their impossible burgers and drive Prius's instead of joining political movements that seek to do the violence necessary to fight those who make billions off of the mechanisms that are harming this planet's climate. I'd assume there's a fairly strong correlation between eating impossible burgers and 'voting environmentally', and an opposite one for highlighting ones personal carnivorousness and SUV-love..? It is most definitely my impression that the people who make personal choices favoring the environment are also the ones voting for politicians who want to make drastic, revolutionary changes.. The issue that some of the messaging from these groups is really off-putting for people who aren't as able to make more environmentally friendly choices (public transportation and meat-free alternatives are both significantly less available the more rural your area is) is definitely true, and we need to bring these people on board without shaming them for their personal choices, but that's a separate issue. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11507 Posts
For example, there are very annoying vegans. But there are also very annoying people who show off how non-vegan they are. This is just societally far more accepted. When a vegan tells someone that they should not eat meat, that is seen as a major intrusion, while if someone who is hardcore carnivore tells people how silly it is to not eat meat, and that everyone should really be eating meat, that is seen as normal. I agree that we should favor effectiveness over signal value in our actions. But this does not mean not taking actions. It just means actually decreasing your own consumption, rather than constantly posting images of you doing something flashy which roughly fits into the "environmental" theme on instagram. Basically, do stuff that actually helps rather than stuff that allows you to brag and sneer at people not doing the same thing. Do it for yourself rather than show off. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4726 Posts
Greta Thunberg isnt helping, she is epitome of the problem. A massive histeria which leads to emotion based policies failing to adress real issues in rational and scientific way. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28665 Posts
Like honestly the statement that Greta Thunberg is the epitome of the problem is such a massively ridiculous statement that it seriously makes me question whether you've ever heard her speak (at least for more than a 10 second soundbyte). | ||
|
farvacola
United States18826 Posts
On September 24 2019 21:12 Liquid`Drone wrote: I'd assume there's a fairly strong correlation between eating impossible burgers and 'voting environmentally', and an opposite one for highlighting ones personal carnivorousness and SUV-love..? It is most definitely my impression that the people who make personal choices favoring the environment are also the ones voting for politicians who want to make drastic, revolutionary changes.. The issue that some of the messaging from these groups is really off-putting for people who aren't as able to make more environmentally friendly choices (public transportation and meat-free alternatives are both significantly less available the more rural your area is) is definitely true, and we need to bring these people on board without shaming them for their personal choices, but that's a separate issue. There are two distinct problems with this take that come from a materialist standpoint imo, and a third that is more a general political problem. The first is that class analysis is practically never a separate issue, as it lies at the crux of how society functions. A focus on personal consumption choices will always place an inordinate burden on those least able to change the circumstances surrounding those choices, meaning that as long as there is an increasingly large number of lower class folks who must devote a large proportion of income to daily consumption, there will be environmentally unfriendly consequences that dwarf the impact of any choices of the well-off and enlightened. The second is a qui bono problem; personal consumption choices are ripe for neoliberal cooption. In other words, any solution to climate change that shows itself amenable to capitalism will find itself turned into yet another profit making venture for those with the capital to do so. This is why the vast majority of supposedly environmentally friendly consumer items implicate a host of beneath the surface environmental costs that are ignored in service of profit. This is what Silvanel was getting at with his indictment of the various consumptive ways in which people are actually doing very little to address the larger problems of international shipping and resource exploitation. Lastly, what is or is not environmentally friendly or, more to the point, an appropriate method of addressing climate change is a starkly opaque question that is even further clouded by political game. So, when you say that someone who makes ostensibly enviornmentally friendly consumption choices will likely vote for environmentally friendly politics, that presumes that the signal of what is and is not a good idea to address climate change is an accessible, digestible concept for the average voter. I don’t think that’s the case, and the varying lukewarm to hot policy proposals of the Democratic candidates is proof that there is a wide array of approaches to the issue. This is where the split between personal sacrifice and forcing massive-scale sacrifice comes home to roost, and is where I think it’s a mistake to presume that impossible burger eating Prius drivers are going to do the right thing and push for the kinds of monumental changes we need to implement if we have any chance of surviving climate change. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4726 Posts
| ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28665 Posts
On September 24 2019 22:04 Silvanel wrote: Because emotion based policies are never good. Like the Fukishima-Germany reaction i mentioned or the fact that average Norwegian creates more pollution than avarage pole (it is our Industryw hich evens the score) yet it us who are seen and described as dirty polluters even in this very thread. In enviromental discussion the perception is more important than facts. That was just one statement by Biff. I myself said that Norway/Norwegians are culprits and tried to highlight that for every ostensibly environmentally friendly action from Norway it tends to be reflected by a negative one. Emotion based politics are good for making people care about an issue. Maybe you are different in that you are almost uniquely rational, fact-driven, fact-aware, but seeing as how political action is influenced by popular opinion, and that popular opinion is influenced by emotional appeals, I'd say emotional appeals are very useful. Just because you can point to nuclear being abandoned due to emotional reactions does not mean that emotional appeals have no place in politics.. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23221 Posts
On September 24 2019 21:07 farvacola wrote: Normatively situating personal consumption choices is one thing, but wrestling with how they affect average people and their willingness to do more is another. The idea that folks are more likely to abdicate further advocacy for fighting climate change if they do not make various personal choices that fit with the contemporary environmentalist aesthetic simply does not square with the converse, that folks are just as likely to forego pushing on the powers that be precisely because they already make personal sacrifices that are ostensibly aimed at addressing climate harms. I strongly dislike South Park's take on political advocacy, but their concept of San Francisco smug hits the nail right on the head, there are millions of folks who are all to happy to eat their impossible burgers and drive Prius's instead of joining political movements that seek to do the violence necessary to fight those who make billions off of the mechanisms that are harming this planet's climate. I think you're being too subtle, or people are demonstrating your point, not sure yet. It's not about whether one's prius is ecologically friendly all aspects considered (though obviously a part of it), it's about people preferring a prius and a paper straw over shutting down all the major airports in the US with a protest and refusing to let police remove them. It gives them room to claim a moral high ground over Republicans/climate deniers without actually having to address the problem. It's a microcosm of neoliberal politics today. Harm reduction, better than the alternative, let the process play out, etc... all of that is borne out of the same neoliberal paradigm of placing themselves between Republicans (making it worse) and solutions (Socialism) in a position of slower deterioration with illusionary/temporary progress that amounts to maintenance of a status quo they (at least the voters) may not prefer, but accept over the risk of resolution. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28665 Posts
On September 24 2019 21:59 farvacola wrote: There are two distinct problems with this take that come from a materialist standpoint imo, and a third that is more a general political problem. The first is that class analysis is practically never a separate issue, as it lies at the crux of how society functions. A focus on personal consumption choices will always place an inordinate burden on those least able to change the circumstances surrounding those choices, meaning that as long as there is an increasingly large number of lower class folks who must devote a large proportion of income to daily consumption, there will be environmentally unfriendly consequences that dwarf the impact of any choices of the well-off and enlightened. The second is a qui bono problem; personal consumption choices are ripe for neoliberal cooption. In other words, any solution to climate change that shows itself amenable to capitalism will find itself turned into yet another profit making venture for those with the capital to do so. This is why the vast majority of supposedly environmentally friendly consumer items implicate a host of beneath the surface environmental costs that are ignored in service of profit. This is what Silvanel was getting at with his indictment of the various consumptive ways in which people are actually doing very little to address the larger problems of international shipping and resource exploitation. Lastly, what is or is not environmentally friendly or, more to the point, an appropriate method of addressing climate change is a starkly opaque question that is even further clouded by political game. So, when you say that someone who makes ostensibly enviornmentally friendly consumption choices will likely vote for environmentally friendly politics, that presumes that the signal of what is and is not a good idea to address climate change is an accessible, digestible concept for the average voter. I don’t think that’s the case, and the varying lukewarm to hot policy proposals of the Democratic candidates is proof that there is a wide array of approaches to the issue. This is where the split between personal sacrifice and forcing massive-scale sacrifice comes home to roost, and is where I think it’s a mistake to presume that impossible burger eating Prius drivers are going to do the right thing and push for the kinds of monumental changes we need to implement if we have any chance of surviving climate change. I mean in the US your political choices are 'democrat' or 'republican'. In Norway I have the communists, the socialist left, the labor party, the centre party, the greens, the christian people's party, the liberal party, the conservative party, and the progress party. The greens, the socialist left, and the liberal party all consider climate the most important issue (although they present different solutions - socialist left focusing on importance of reducing inequality and capitalist influence over society as part of the solution, the greens want immediate and drastic cuts in emissions without having too much of a policy aside from that (not mocking, to me they are the #2 party to vote for after socialist left), the liberals want to reform within the capitalist system). Last year I was living in the city, commuting by train to a rural area, to teach a group of 5th graders. They all thought it was really, really weird how I was an adult without a car. We talked a lot about the climate, and I always made it clear that for me, while not having a car was partially an environmental choice, it's possible, and easy, to live without one in the city. There's no judgment there. For a vast majority of people, these personal choices happen as a consequence of those personality choices not being that detrimental to their lifestyle.. This, to me, means that we must make the more environmentally friendly choices more available to a wider range of the population - certainly not that we must shame (in whatever fashion) people who are less 'willing' (or able) to make the same personality choices. To me, your statements seem colored by living in an environment where the 'smug-alert' type of person is significantly more visible than that person is here. The only fully committed vegan I personally know is dating a butcher, for example. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28665 Posts
On September 24 2019 22:19 GreenHorizons wrote: I think you're being too subtle, or people are demonstrating your point, not sure yet. It's not about whether one's prius is ecologically friendly all aspects considered (though obviously a part of it), it's about people preferring a prius and a paper straw over shutting down all the major airports in the US with a protest and refusing to let police remove them. It gives them room to claim a moral high ground over Republicans/climate deniers without actually having to address the problem. It's a microcosm of neoliberal politics today. Harm reduction, better than the alternative, let the process play out, etc... all of that is borne out of the same neoliberal paradigm of placing themselves between Republicans (making it worse) and solutions (Socialism) in a position of slower deterioration with illusionary/temporary progress that amounts to maintenance of a status quo they (at least the voters) may not prefer, but accept over the risk of resolution. I think democracy is a highly treasured value (significantly more so with an educated population and in a functional democracy) and I'm not willing to abandon that yet. We can't shut down everything without popular support, I think harm reduction is the most politically feasible thing on the table. It's far better than not having harm reduction. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23221 Posts
On September 24 2019 22:36 Liquid`Drone wrote: I think democracy is a highly treasured value (significantly more so with an educated population and in a functional democracy) and I'm not willing to abandon that yet. We can't shut down everything without popular support, I think harm reduction is the most politically feasible thing on the table. It's far better than not having harm reduction. I'm not suggesting abandoning democracy, I'm arguing in favor of bringing it back. We have an oligarchy with a convincing mask. I'd be careful not confuse being outside of oligarchs focus for being outside of their control/influence. The simplicity of "harm reduction > not harm reduction" is nice but it's a path to certain catastrophe. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28665 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23221 Posts
On September 24 2019 23:13 Liquid`Drone wrote: So you think shutting down all major airports in the US would have anything remotely resembling popular support if not for the oligarchical control of society? I don't. I think the drastic measures required to adequately deal with climate change do not have popular support, yet. (In Norway, the two parties that imo go anywhere far enough have ~12% from the adult population added up). I'm saying actions of that scale and level of disruption are necessary and neoliberal harm reduction isn't only not a solution, it's a tool of repression meant to prevent such actions from being realized. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7888 Posts
On September 24 2019 18:25 GreenHorizons wrote: You're simply mistaken to believe that the president using foreign policy to leverage his political interest is rare or that this an especially heinous example, it's just shameless. The reason they aren't in the streets is simple and one I've mentioned recently. They still have a naive faith in Democrats, media, and the criminal justice system and their ability to hold Trump accountable. A belief based in an affinity for process and systems (and comfort within them) rather than history. EDIT: To borrow your 5th Ave. example. If he did shoot someone on 5th ave people wouldn't take to the streets either for the same reason. Faith the criminal justice system would hold him accountable despite proceedings obviously lingering past the 2020 election. It's not like Democrats would arrest the president even if they could find law enforcement willing to do it for them. Oh? Can you really imagine Obama blackmailing a country into giving him dirt on Romney, and / or do you have any example of such thing being done in recent US political history? I mean, you talk about it as if it was business as usual, but I struggle to think of anything as serious in term of corruption in recent memory. I don’t know maybe I am crazy, but I find that extraordinary. If Trump shot someone on the 5th avenue and the justice system didn’t do anything because republicans refused to impeach him, I can guarantee you that the whole system would implose. And, actually, it would actually not happen because republicans know it and would, actually, impeach him immediately. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28665 Posts
On September 24 2019 23:36 GreenHorizons wrote: I'm saying actions of that scale and level of disruption are necessary and neoliberal harm reduction isn't only not a solution, it's a tool of repression meant to prevent such actions from being realized. What do you wager the % of action of that scale and level of disruption happening and being successful?  | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7888 Posts
On September 24 2019 23:00 GreenHorizons wrote: I'm not suggesting abandoning democracy, I'm arguing in favor of bringing it back. We have an oligarchy with a convincing mask. I'd be careful not confuse being outside of oligarchs focus for being outside of their control/influence. The simplicity of "harm reduction > not harm reduction" is nice but it's a path to certain catastrophe. What seems a much faster way to catastrophe is, “not quite sufficient harm reduction = going straight for certain disaster in the worst possible way”. But we have had that discussion about two hundred times. | ||
| ||
