4 ms·
In the past few years we've learned that no matter what course of action a group of any significant size chooses to take, at least 25% of them will just say "no
by Paul-Craft 3y ago
In the past few years we've learned that no matter what course of action a group of any significant size chooses to take, at least 25% of them will just say "no, fuck you" and either refuse to go along or actively sabotage the effort. Given that, what's your alternative? How do you get the necessary level of cooperation happening right now so there's some semblance of civilization left for people 3 generations from now?
- lazide 3y agoSince when is 25% enough to block the other 75%? Actually? 75% is a supermajority. Think about that a bit, and I think you’ll get your answer. You’re being lied to, and it isn’t actually that 25% that is (solely) at fault.
- Paul-Craft 3y agoSince we can't accomplish what we need to accomplish without 100% participation. You're deluding yourself if you think we have any hope of a reasonable climate future without universal participation. And, yes, it is the 25%'s fault when they're just willing to say "no" to anything because it hurts someone they want hurt, even if it also hurts them in the process.
- lazide 3y agoThere has never been a time where 100% of anyone has ever actually been on board. Nor a time when it was ever required. Actually. It isn’t even in the rules that such a thing is even requested or desired. If someone is giving you another impression, that is a good place to start in your investigation. The answer is staring you in the face, you just don’t want to see it.
- Paul-Craft 3y agoPlease enlighten me.
- lazide 3y agoYou first.