5 ms·

> Vote for what you want What if your country is locked in a two party system captured by elite interests with no desire to actually solve the problem? What if

> Vote for what you want What if your country is locked in a two party system captured by elite interests with no desire to actually solve the problem? What if what you want is not available by vote? > form a new party What if your system is designed to ensure new parties always fail? > stop having kids Is our sacrifice really what is needed to stop climate change? Would it even make a difference? Are we doomed to live unhappy lives because of the system we were born in to? > stop buying things Shall we just perish then? > if the majority agrees we'll deal with it What if the majority agrees but a minority that disagrees controls the political system?

vasco 3y ago
You seem to want to prove that the only thing left is terrorism, and I posit to you that you should genuinely ask yourself if other terrorists do not feel as justified as you do, and what you think about their methods.
- hgomersall 3y ago
  I'm not sure anyone is advocating terrorism. Certainly that's not what I read in the previous posts.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 3y ago
    I agree. Happy to be proven wrong, but I don’t believe TaylorAlexander has ever advocated for such, at least here on this forum, and there’s no reading, that I can imagine, of their comments here that would lead to me think they’ve started doing so.
- TaylorAlexander 3y ago
  This would be true if I believed your argument is sound, but I don't believe that. You say terrorism is not appropriate, and we should do these other things. My question for you is, what should we do if those things have been ineffective? The goal is to get you to think more about what your are saying. Generally I would say the solution is to use every legal measure at our disposal including lawsuits[1], plus peaceful protest including blockades, to stop new fossil fuel projects from advancing and show corporations and politicians that we will not stop until the projects end. We also must learn about and pressure politicians to adopt rail and bike transit projects which aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in our cities. We must advocate for right to repair so existing machinery is not discarded in favor of the manufacture of more equipment and its associated emissions. We must advocate for veganism and an end to extreme meat consumption and all of the emissions associated with it. There is SO MUCH we can do beyond personal habits and voting. [1] https://apnews.com/article/climate-change-youth-montana-trial-c7fdc1d8759f55f60346b31c73397db0 https://apnews.com/article/climate-change-youth-montana-tria...
  - vasco 3y ago
    Some of the things you mention are not like the others, and many are not terrorism. To this line which I hear from time to time: "My question for you is, what should we do if those things have been ineffective?" I say, keep thinking. Specially if your answer is terrorism or para-terrorist activities.
    - TaylorAlexander 3y ago
      > Some of the things you mention are not like the others, and many are not terrorism. Just say what you mean please. What have I suggested which is terrorism?
      - vasco 3y ago
        If you read the original comment you replied to, you will see my only position is against terrorism, that is suggested as the next only possible step after lobbying and litigation. You piled on that train to again propose the idea that every single suggestion I made was innefective and therefore "what can we do?". Since my comment was purely denouncing terrorism, I made the obvious connection that this is what you proposed to do. You then mentioned a bunch of suggestions similar to my own suggestions in my original post, except for blocking roads which I believe is a serious offense as you do not know what you are blocking people from getting to, though I'm not sure it amounts to terrorism. If someone says "purple is bad" and you comment a bunch of reasons why purple is not bad, am I that much at fault to think you believe purple is good? If you are for democratic and societal change through legal means then you're with me. I'm sorry if I annoyed you for hinting that you were proposing terrorism, but please re-read the original comment and see how that might've happened, I also got annoyed myself due to the fact that I didn't think people would find offense to an anti-terrorist stance, so perhaps I exaggerated.
        TaylorAlexander 3y ago
        What I found irritating is the suggestions to vote, form a new party, or change personal habits. It is surprising to hear someone in 2023 suggesting these things as these are all the things which have failed us for 20+ years. My point was not to advocate terrorism but to highlight the folly of your suggested alternatives. Your intention may have been purely to argue against terrorism but in the process you made other arguments I felt compelled to critique. I was not arguing in favor of terrorism.
- eesmith 3y ago
  DoingIsLearning wrote "Start suing start and start lobbying. It is pretty much the only thing left bar from going full eco terrorist (which I believe is entirely likely in our current timeline)." That's a prediction that suing and lobbying won't work, leaving only eco terrorism. You posit that it will work because "if the majority agrees we'll deal with it". I consider that either an unfounded article of faith, or a confusion between political majority and population majority. (Under apartheid South African whites were a minority of the population but with the majority of political power.) "Sixty-four percent of people believe climate change is a global emergency," says https://www.undp.org/press-releases/worlds-largest-survey-public-opinion-climate-change-majority-people-call-wide-ranging-action https://www.undp.org/press-releases/worlds-largest-survey-pu... . From the report: > • Regionally, the proportion of people who said climate change is a global emergency had a high level of support everywhere - in Western Europe and North America (72%), Eastern Europe and Central Asia (65%), Arab States (64%), Latin America and Caribbean (63%), Asia and Pacific (63%), and Sub-Saharan Africa (61%). > • Of the people that said climate change is a global emergency, 59% said that the world should do everything necessary and urgently in response. Meanwhile 20% said we should act slowly, while 10% percent of people thought the world is already doing enough Given that a majority of the world's population believes there is a climate emergency, where is the corresponding government response that you say should exist now that a majority agrees? If the population majority agrees we need urgent and radical change now, but the political majority does not deal with it - what's the next step? What will you do? > Those are all things that will help without forcing your views on others through force CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions are being forced on us, very strongly, backed by the use of police and military power. "Fossil Fuels Received $5.9 Trillion In Subsidies in 2020, Report Finds" - https://e360.yale.edu/digest/fossil-fuels-received-5-9-trillion-in-subsidies-in-2020-report-finds https://e360.yale.edu/digest/fossil-fuels-received-5-9-trill... . Where did that money come from? Our taxes. What if we don't pay taxes? I'll let you finish that. We may see MLK Jr now as a leader in non-violent protests, but focusing only on his non-violent methods ignores the effect of riots ("A riot is the language of the unheard") and more militant organizations on establishing legal civil rights equality. Remember, violence can be effective. Violence supported centuries of racial oppression in the US. Violence also ended slavery in Haiti. > Eco terrorism is just like any other form terrorism. Especially in that the government gets to define what is and is not terrorism. Dumping poisonous waste into a waterway, knowing that the fine is cheaper than actual clean up, and knowing that even if it kills plants, animals, and people at most the company will get a fine, is not eco terrorism. Why not? Because it's not 'violent' (even though it's deadly) and because it's not in support of environmental causes. The government is set up to support large companies over individual people, so fines like this are a simple cost of doing business rather than a death penalty for the company and manslaughter charges against its employees. The violent attacks on the Dakota Access pipeline protestors were also not eco terrorism, because the attacks are not in support of environmental causes. Let's call it "biz terrorism", like how coal companies used to hire people to carry out machine gun attacks on strikers. Odd that biz terrorism isn't it's own special category, yes? Famously, "one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter", and Nelson Mandela was on the US terrorist watch list until 2008. Quoting the commentary at https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/is-one-mans-terrorist-another-mans-freedom-fighter/257245/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/is-one-... : ] "As a descriptor, terrorist is almost never applied rigorously and consistently to describe the tactics a group is using -- rather, it is invoked as a pejorative to vilify the actions only of groups one wishes to discredit. People who agree with the ends of the very same groups often don't think of them as terrorists, the negative connotation of which causes them to focus on what they regard as the noble ends of allies they're more likely to dub freedom fighters."
jl6 3y ago
All systemic change is hard, but it can happen, and when it does, it’s because people kept pushing and pushing in whatever small way they could. Your line of questioning above is how people argue themselves into inaction (or radicalization).
sneak 3y ago
Not having kids isn't a sacrifice. Not having kids is the default. Children, just like smoking or drug addiction (or driving ICE cars), are opt-in.
- sparrowInHand 3y ago
  This opinion is evolutionary selected against.
- readthenotes1 3y ago
  "Not having children is the default" I take it you, unlike the vast majority of people, don't enjoy sex. With enough sex, there will be children, either through negligence or failure of birth control methods.
  - mongol 3y ago
    It still is opt-in, even though it is enjoyable.
- Mordisquitos 3y ago
  > Not having kids is the default. Are you sure? How many of your ancestors didn't have kids?
lern_too_spel 3y ago
> What if your country is locked in a two party system captured by elite interests with no desire to actually solve the problem? That's not the world we live in, so your argument for terrorism falls apart. This is not a "both sides" issue. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-is-the-social-cost-of-carbon https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-is-the-social-cost-o...
Gud 3y ago
Then work to change the system. Become a proponent for direct democracy and work to replace the institutions that aren’t serving you how they should.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  Direct democracy is a terrible idea, unless you love populism.
  - Gud 3y ago
    Why? It’s working extremely well in Switzerland.
    - moffkalast 3y ago
      > The first federal vote in which women were able to participate was the 31 October 1971 election of the Federal Assembly. However it was not until a 1990 decision by the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland that women gained full voting rights in the final Swiss canton of Appenzell Innerrhoden. It's not working extremely well. It's also quite slow which is quite the opposite of what's needed now.
      - smcin 3y ago
        Honestly that's like citing the Scopes Monkey Trial to discredit the US on science as a whole. Appenzell Innerrhoden is a tiny half-canton, 67 sq.mi, population ~16,000 or 0.2% of Switzerland (8.8m). Dayton, Tennessee (of Scopes Monkey Trial infamy) has a population of 7,000. Women in Switzerland obtained the right to vote at federal level in 1971, and at local cantonal level between 1959 and 1972 [0][1], except for Appenzell. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women%27s_suffrage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women%27s_suffrage [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage_in_Switzerland#Introduction_of_women's_suffrage_at_the_cantonal_level https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage_in_Switzerl...
      - Gud 3y ago
UncleMeat 3y ago
The inflation reduction act was the largest piece of climate change policy ever passed in the US. Yes, it could be significantly more extreme, it uses levers of tax breaks and markets rather than regulation, and it was softened considerably by Manchin, but it is absolutely not the case that both parties in the US treat climate change the same.

vasco 3y ago

You seem to want to prove that the only thing left is terrorism, and I posit to you that you should genuinely ask yourself if other terrorists do not feel as justified as you do, and what you think about their methods.

hgomersall 3y ago
I'm not sure anyone is advocating terrorism. Certainly that's not what I read in the previous posts.
- TheSpiceIsLife 3y ago
  I agree. Happy to be proven wrong, but I don’t believe TaylorAlexander has ever advocated for such, at least here on this forum, and there’s no reading, that I can imagine, of their comments here that would lead to me think they’ve started doing so.
TaylorAlexander 3y ago
This would be true if I believed your argument is sound, but I don't believe that. You say terrorism is not appropriate, and we should do these other things. My question for you is, what should we do if those things have been ineffective? The goal is to get you to think more about what your are saying. Generally I would say the solution is to use every legal measure at our disposal including lawsuits[1], plus peaceful protest including blockades, to stop new fossil fuel projects from advancing and show corporations and politicians that we will not stop until the projects end. We also must learn about and pressure politicians to adopt rail and bike transit projects which aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in our cities. We must advocate for right to repair so existing machinery is not discarded in favor of the manufacture of more equipment and its associated emissions. We must advocate for veganism and an end to extreme meat consumption and all of the emissions associated with it. There is SO MUCH we can do beyond personal habits and voting. [1] https://apnews.com/article/climate-change-youth-montana-trial-c7fdc1d8759f55f60346b31c73397db0 https://apnews.com/article/climate-change-youth-montana-tria...
- vasco 3y ago
  Some of the things you mention are not like the others, and many are not terrorism. To this line which I hear from time to time: "My question for you is, what should we do if those things have been ineffective?" I say, keep thinking. Specially if your answer is terrorism or para-terrorist activities.
  - TaylorAlexander 3y ago
    > Some of the things you mention are not like the others, and many are not terrorism. Just say what you mean please. What have I suggested which is terrorism?
    - vasco 3y ago
      If you read the original comment you replied to, you will see my only position is against terrorism, that is suggested as the next only possible step after lobbying and litigation. You piled on that train to again propose the idea that every single suggestion I made was innefective and therefore "what can we do?". Since my comment was purely denouncing terrorism, I made the obvious connection that this is what you proposed to do. You then mentioned a bunch of suggestions similar to my own suggestions in my original post, except for blocking roads which I believe is a serious offense as you do not know what you are blocking people from getting to, though I'm not sure it amounts to terrorism. If someone says "purple is bad" and you comment a bunch of reasons why purple is not bad, am I that much at fault to think you believe purple is good? If you are for democratic and societal change through legal means then you're with me. I'm sorry if I annoyed you for hinting that you were proposing terrorism, but please re-read the original comment and see how that might've happened, I also got annoyed myself due to the fact that I didn't think people would find offense to an anti-terrorist stance, so perhaps I exaggerated.
      - TaylorAlexander 3y ago
        What I found irritating is the suggestions to vote, form a new party, or change personal habits. It is surprising to hear someone in 2023 suggesting these things as these are all the things which have failed us for 20+ years. My point was not to advocate terrorism but to highlight the folly of your suggested alternatives. Your intention may have been purely to argue against terrorism but in the process you made other arguments I felt compelled to critique. I was not arguing in favor of terrorism.
eesmith 3y ago
DoingIsLearning wrote "Start suing start and start lobbying. It is pretty much the only thing left bar from going full eco terrorist (which I believe is entirely likely in our current timeline)." That's a prediction that suing and lobbying won't work, leaving only eco terrorism. You posit that it will work because "if the majority agrees we'll deal with it". I consider that either an unfounded article of faith, or a confusion between political majority and population majority. (Under apartheid South African whites were a minority of the population but with the majority of political power.) "Sixty-four percent of people believe climate change is a global emergency," says https://www.undp.org/press-releases/worlds-largest-survey-public-opinion-climate-change-majority-people-call-wide-ranging-action https://www.undp.org/press-releases/worlds-largest-survey-pu... . From the report: > • Regionally, the proportion of people who said climate change is a global emergency had a high level of support everywhere - in Western Europe and North America (72%), Eastern Europe and Central Asia (65%), Arab States (64%), Latin America and Caribbean (63%), Asia and Pacific (63%), and Sub-Saharan Africa (61%). > • Of the people that said climate change is a global emergency, 59% said that the world should do everything necessary and urgently in response. Meanwhile 20% said we should act slowly, while 10% percent of people thought the world is already doing enough Given that a majority of the world's population believes there is a climate emergency, where is the corresponding government response that you say should exist now that a majority agrees? If the population majority agrees we need urgent and radical change now, but the political majority does not deal with it - what's the next step? What will you do? > Those are all things that will help without forcing your views on others through force CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions are being forced on us, very strongly, backed by the use of police and military power. "Fossil Fuels Received $5.9 Trillion In Subsidies in 2020, Report Finds" - https://e360.yale.edu/digest/fossil-fuels-received-5-9-trillion-in-subsidies-in-2020-report-finds https://e360.yale.edu/digest/fossil-fuels-received-5-9-trill... . Where did that money come from? Our taxes. What if we don't pay taxes? I'll let you finish that. We may see MLK Jr now as a leader in non-violent protests, but focusing only on his non-violent methods ignores the effect of riots ("A riot is the language of the unheard") and more militant organizations on establishing legal civil rights equality. Remember, violence can be effective. Violence supported centuries of racial oppression in the US. Violence also ended slavery in Haiti. > Eco terrorism is just like any other form terrorism. Especially in that the government gets to define what is and is not terrorism. Dumping poisonous waste into a waterway, knowing that the fine is cheaper than actual clean up, and knowing that even if it kills plants, animals, and people at most the company will get a fine, is not eco terrorism. Why not? Because it's not 'violent' (even though it's deadly) and because it's not in support of environmental causes. The government is set up to support large companies over individual people, so fines like this are a simple cost of doing business rather than a death penalty for the company and manslaughter charges against its employees. The violent attacks on the Dakota Access pipeline protestors were also not eco terrorism, because the attacks are not in support of environmental causes. Let's call it "biz terrorism", like how coal companies used to hire people to carry out machine gun attacks on strikers. Odd that biz terrorism isn't it's own special category, yes? Famously, "one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter", and Nelson Mandela was on the US terrorist watch list until 2008. Quoting the commentary at https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/is-one-mans-terrorist-another-mans-freedom-fighter/257245/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/is-one-... : ] "As a descriptor, terrorist is almost never applied rigorously and consistently to describe the tactics a group is using -- rather, it is invoked as a pejorative to vilify the actions only of groups one wishes to discredit. People who agree with the ends of the very same groups often don't think of them as terrorists, the negative connotation of which causes them to focus on what they regard as the noble ends of allies they're more likely to dub freedom fighters."

jl6 3y ago

All systemic change is hard, but it can happen, and when it does, it’s because people kept pushing and pushing in whatever small way they could. Your line of questioning above is how people argue themselves into inaction (or radicalization).

sneak 3y ago

Not having kids isn't a sacrifice. Not having kids is the default. Children, just like smoking or drug addiction (or driving ICE cars), are opt-in.

sparrowInHand 3y ago
This opinion is evolutionary selected against.
readthenotes1 3y ago
"Not having children is the default" I take it you, unlike the vast majority of people, don't enjoy sex. With enough sex, there will be children, either through negligence or failure of birth control methods.
- mongol 3y ago
  It still is opt-in, even though it is enjoyable.
Mordisquitos 3y ago
> Not having kids is the default. Are you sure? How many of your ancestors didn't have kids?

lern_too_spel 3y ago

> What if your country is locked in a two party system captured by elite interests with no desire to actually solve the problem? That's not the world we live in, so your argument for terrorism falls apart. This is not a "both sides" issue. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-is-the-social-cost-of-carbon https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-is-the-social-cost-o...

Gud 3y ago

Then work to change the system. Become a proponent for direct democracy and work to replace the institutions that aren’t serving you how they should.

robertlagrant 3y ago
Direct democracy is a terrible idea, unless you love populism.
- Gud 3y ago
  Why? It’s working extremely well in Switzerland.
  - moffkalast 3y ago
    > The first federal vote in which women were able to participate was the 31 October 1971 election of the Federal Assembly. However it was not until a 1990 decision by the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland that women gained full voting rights in the final Swiss canton of Appenzell Innerrhoden. It's not working extremely well. It's also quite slow which is quite the opposite of what's needed now.
    - smcin 3y ago
      Honestly that's like citing the Scopes Monkey Trial to discredit the US on science as a whole. Appenzell Innerrhoden is a tiny half-canton, 67 sq.mi, population ~16,000 or 0.2% of Switzerland (8.8m). Dayton, Tennessee (of Scopes Monkey Trial infamy) has a population of 7,000. Women in Switzerland obtained the right to vote at federal level in 1971, and at local cantonal level between 1959 and 1972 [0][1], except for Appenzell. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women%27s_suffrage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women%27s_suffrage [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage_in_Switzerland#Introduction_of_women's_suffrage_at_the_cantonal_level https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage_in_Switzerl...
    - Gud 3y ago

UncleMeat 3y ago

The inflation reduction act was the largest piece of climate change policy ever passed in the US. Yes, it could be significantly more extreme, it uses levers of tax breaks and markets rather than regulation, and it was softened considerably by Manchin, but it is absolutely not the case that both parties in the US treat climate change the same.