Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SalmonGod]

So I guess Jay Inslee has been wanting the DNC to host a debate on climate change.  He's now publicly reported a call to his office from the DNC responding that not only will they refuse to host a debate on climate change during the primary, but also that if he attends any debate on the subject not hosted by the DNC, that he will be barred from participating in any of their future debates.

These motherfuckers have definitely learned nothing.

[smjjames]

So I guess Jay Inslee has been wanting the DNC to host a debate on climate change.  He's now publicly reported a call to his office from the DNC responding that not only will they refuse to host a debate on climate change during the primary, but also that if he attends any debate on the subject not hosted by the DNC, that he will be barred from participating in any of their future debates.

These motherfuckers have definitely learned nothing.

Wtf, and they call themselves climate change warriors? While I can get their desire to control messaging, I don't see what the point is to block informal debates outside of their scheduled ones or whatever. The obvious answer is that they want control over the proccess, but is there a practical reason somewhere?

[Kagus]

The obvious answer is that they want control over the proccess, but is there a practical reason somewhere?

They're backed and funded by many of the same corporate interests as their eternal rivals across the aisle; with both sides helping to create an artificial and bloodthirsty feud that pushes people to pick between two camps that serve effectively the same goals just with different window dressings, thereby not only furthering the well-being of economic megagiants but also making people feel like they chose to do so?


...is probably something I would say if I were into conspiracy theories.

[wierd]

Optics.

this is an election year.  Allowing"unofficial" debates opens the door to stuffed/contrived/engineered panelling for the debate, and for it to become a 3 ring circus that the GOP will eat up like fucking candy.

They want it only to be official, with oversight, so that they can prevent that kind of thing, and prevent those negative optics.

[SalmonGod]

To be fair, I just did a little checking, and the DNC has had this rule regarding unsanctioned debates for a while.  Not just on this issue.

Doesn't change my opinion much, though.  Their idea of optics is to stab themselves in the eyes so they don't have to see what people think of them.

[SalmonGod]

https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/5/28/18629833/climate-change-2019-green-new-deal

When we think about climate change, we’re almost never looking at the whole picture. Generally, we talk about the impacts at a scale so macro, it’s almost impossible to fathom: rising sea levels, melting ice caps, acidifying oceans. In some perverse magic trick, it becomes both atmospheric and far, far away. Everywhere and nowhere.

But when we talk about the causes, the conversation suddenly narrows to our navels. In the aftermath of the 2018 IPCC report, the internet was awash in story after story after story about “what you can do about climate change.” Change your lightbulbs. Bring reusable bags. Cut back on meat.

If the answers are all in our hands, then the blame can’t be anywhere but at our feet. And where does that all lead?

A population beset with shame so heavy they can barely think about climate change — let alone fight it.

This is where the victim blaming takes hold. All too often, our culture broadly equates “environmentalism” with personal consumerism. To be “good,” we must convert to 100 percent solar energy, ride an upcycled bike everywhere, stop flying, eat vegan. We have to live a zero-waste lifestyle, never use Amazon Prime, etc., etc. I hear this message everywhere: the left- and right-wing media and within the environmental movement. It’s even been used by the courts and the fossil fuel industry itself as a defense against litigation. In fact, industries have redirected the environmentalist narrative to blame consumers since the ever-so-problematic “Crying Indian” ad campaign of the 1970s. I hear it from my friends and family, strangers on the street, random people in yoga class.

And all this raises the price of admission to the climate movement to an exorbitant level, often pricing out people of color and other marginalized groups.

At the same time, though, the more we focus on individual action and neglect systemic change, the more we’re just sweeping leaves on a windy day. So while personal actions can be meaningful starting points, they can also be dangerous stopping points.

[McTraveller]

Optics.

Ugh I hate this particular evolution of language more than most.  The word "image" worked just fine for this in the past, without causing my brain to suffer a translation fault.

Apparently this has been in use in Canada since around 1978, but has only picked up steam in the US more recently.

While it would be fun to paint this in an intentional-bending-of-language 1984 scenario, I think it's just a strange unintended emergent phenomenon.

I still hate it though.

[Kagus]

https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/5/28/18629833/climate-change-2019-green-new-deal

At the same time, though, the more we focus on individual action and neglect systemic change, the more we’re just sweeping leaves on a windy day. So while personal actions can be meaningful starting points, they can also be dangerous stopping points.

That's kinda something I've been thinking about recently... With moving into a new place, I needed to get a lot of essentials in order within a fairly short time period. Doing that, especially if you're trying to keep anything resembling a budget, is going to mean a lot of cheap Made in China goods that are either made out of non-green plastic or lovingly wrapped in it... Or both. Often both.

And I've been feeling pretty shitty about buying these things so that I can live independently. The kind of shitty that makes me feel like it's all just pointless to even try and do things better. Surrounded by plastic waste products, palm oil, food waste, unethical and unsustainable farming practices... Shit, I'm just trying to get my life together and feel like a person again.

[Zangi]

You people don't retire your judges at certain age? That's crazy.

The intention is to insulate the judges as much as possible from the political  process. Jusges that face reelection or mandatory retirement have a tendency focus on that rather than on the law.

It works better than it seems.

Reckon giving em a decent retirement package will help with mandatory retirement while also warding off undue influence.

[SalmonGod]

https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/5/28/18629833/climate-change-2019-green-new-deal

At the same time, though, the more we focus on individual action and neglect systemic change, the more we’re just sweeping leaves on a windy day. So while personal actions can be meaningful starting points, they can also be dangerous stopping points.

That's kinda something I've been thinking about recently... With moving into a new place, I needed to get a lot of essentials in order within a fairly short time period. Doing that, especially if you're trying to keep anything resembling a budget, is going to mean a lot of cheap Made in China goods that are either made out of non-green plastic or lovingly wrapped in it... Or both. Often both.

And I've been feeling pretty shitty about buying these things so that I can live independently. The kind of shitty that makes me feel like it's all just pointless to even try and do things better. Surrounded by plastic waste products, palm oil, food waste, unethical and unsustainable farming practices... Shit, I'm just trying to get my life together and feel like a person again.

Yeah, dont.

Be angry that the choices you feel guilty about are choices that were deliberately engineered for you. 
Be angry that environmentally destructive means of producing the goods you depend on are deliberately chosen for profit maximization. 
Be angry that you aren't paid more to better enable you to make environmentally responsible consumer choices. 
Be angry that you don't have more time and energy to dedicate to solving these problems, because the wealthy see you as a productivity unit that exists to serve them.
Be angry that they psychologically abuse you by framing the issue into guilt-trips that they can hide behind like an abusive family member.

Know that there are people responsible.  People with names and addresses.  And don't waste your emotional energy on their mind games.  When you think about the environment, spend it on fighting them, and fighting for a system that doesn't empower them, and nothing else.

[LordBaal]

I mean you have people living unto their 80's and 90's working on that? Not being demeaning because I know people that are those ages and are sharper and more abled than most. But, pretty sure that is not the norm at all. Those judges could be senile enough to become a liability against justice and law in general.

But what can I say, here we have two supreme courts rigth now, one with all it's judges with terms lapsed, elected illegaly and serving a drug cartel, hell the president of the court has murder charges.

The other is in exile and while it is the legal one and have emited sentences is basically powerless and a mere formality.

[McTraveller]

Yeah, dont.


 
Be angry ...

You could get angry, or you could get smart.  Or I guess you can be angry, but don't let it be all you do.

Be angry that the choices you feel guilty about are choices that were deliberately engineered for you.
Be angry that environmentally destructive means of producing the goods you depend on are deliberately chosen for profit maximization.

This is disingenuous - all production of goods and services should maximize some kind of profit, otherwise it's waste.  I agree there are arguments about how to prioritize various aspects of 'profit' - profit doesn't just mean "cash in minus expenses over some defined time period."  I mean, when I spend money to buy some food, I have a form of profit in that I've exchanged unsatisfying coins or electrical signals for tasty food and sustenance.

Be angry that you aren't paid more to better enable you to make environmentally responsible consumer choices. 

Be careful with this one - you can only be paid more now if someone else is not paid more now.  You cannot be paid more now out of thin air.  You can possibly be paid more in the future if you take your pay later, rather than be paid now, if productivity increases. And for those that say CEOs get paid too much:  for megacorps with the crazy-high CxO pay levels, those companies have so many employees that you would get not much benefit by slashing their salary.  Consider a company like, oh, GM.  The CEO compensation was valued at $22M.  GM has 170000 employees.  Spread it out evenly and that's a whopping $129 per employee per year.  The math just doesn't work like people want.

But - you also don't need to get more pay to be environmentally friendly.  The most environmentally friendly thing you can do is consume less, period..  The problem with that is - if everyone cuts back, how are you going to be "paid more"?

Be angry that you don't have more time and energy to dedicate to solving these problems, because the wealthy see you as a productivity unit that exists to serve them.

It's not as bad, and worse, than that: The wealthy don't see "you" at all - they just see statistics.

Be angry that they psychologically abuse you by framing the issue into guilt-trips that they can hide behind like an abusive family member.

I actually agree with this observation - the media (both "big media" and the social-media mob) like to use a shame/guilt/blame culture. We need to break that cycle and stop blaming, take ownership (after all, becoming owners ourselves is the only way to really address issues - to have the authority to control resources and policy), and hold ourselves accountable.

Know that there are people responsible.  People with names and addresses.  And don't waste your emotional energy on their mind games.  When you think about the environment, spend it on fighting them, and fighting for a system that doesn't empower them, and nothing else.

But remember, they are people too - and most of them are probably "middle management" and just trying to make their own ends meet.  And remember that there is no such thing as a free lunch - somebody somewhere has to make stuff, or make the robots that make stuff...

[Gentlefish]

You could get angry, or you could get smart.  Or I guess you can be angry, but don't let it be all you do.

Why does it have to be "or"? I'm very angry at the situation we're all in. And I'm managing to live an okay, if poor, life.

This is disingenuous - all production of goods and services should maximize some kind of profit, otherwise it's waste.  I agree there are arguments about how to prioritize various aspects of 'profit' - profit doesn't just mean "cash in minus expenses over some defined time period."  I mean, when I spend money to buy some food, I have a form of profit in that I've exchanged unsatisfying coins or electrical signals for tasty food and sustenance.

Hardly disingenuous. We're in a capitalist society. Therefore the market prioritizes capital. We need to be prioritizing our well-beings. The leaders are not. wellbeing is not profit in any way.

Be careful with this one - you can only be paid more now if someone else is not paid more now.  You cannot be paid more now out of thin air.  You can possibly be paid more in the future if you take your pay later, rather than be paid now, if productivity increases. And for those that say CEOs get paid too much:  for megacorps with the crazy-high CxO pay levels, those companies have so many employees that you would get not much benefit by slashing their salary.  Consider a company like, oh, GM.  The CEO compensation was valued at $22M.  GM has 170000 employees.  Spread it out evenly and that's a whopping $129 per employee per year.  The math just doesn't work like people want.

But - you also don't need to get more pay to be environmentally friendly.  The most environmentally friendly thing you can do is consume less, period..  The problem with that is - if everyone cuts back, how are you going to be "paid more"?

Counterpoint, why do we need money at all? All of our modern amenities were made in the public sector. Computers, smartphones, the internet... All done without profit in mind, by the government. They were only co-opted by the market. People will make cool things regardless of if there's a cash incentive. See: all Free and Open Source Software.

It's not as bad, and worse, than that: The wealthy don't see "you" at all - they just see statistics.

Heh, not statistics. We're labor. Another form of capital. They're extracting value from us and paying us only the barest minimum of what we need to live. And even not that all the time!

Wal-Mart, for example, keeps so many employees so underpaid they have to supplement their incomes with government assistance. Wal-Mart abuses the system to pay their workers less.

I actually agree with this observation - the media (both "big media" and the social-media mob) like to use a shame/guilt/blame culture. We need to break that cycle and stop blaming, take ownership (after all, becoming owners ourselves is the only way to really address issues - to have the authority to control resources and policy), and hold ourselves accountable.

Cool, glad to see you're on the socialism train. Choo choo! Unless you mean supplanting ourselves onto the boards of the companies which is a laughable pipedream for 99.9% of society.

But remember, they are people too - and most of them are probably "middle management" and just trying to make their own ends meet.  And remember that there is no such thing as a free lunch - somebody somewhere has to make stuff, or make the robots that make stuff...

I'd love to humanize the people whose fault it is for the state of society, but when Coca-Cola literally hires mercenaries to keep the workers in line in South America, and the fact that only 100 companies are responsible for 70% of all the greenhouse emissions and pollution in the world, they need to be held accountable for their actions.

[Iduno]

The obvious answer is that they want control over the proccess, but is there a practical reason somewhere?

They're backed and funded by many of the same corporate interests as their eternal rivals across the aisle; with both sides helping to create an artificial and bloodthirsty feud that pushes people to pick between two camps that serve effectively the same goals just with different window dressings, thereby not only furthering the well-being of economic megagiants but also making people feel like they chose to do so?


...is probably something I would say if I were into conspiracy theories.

No, that's exactly how duopolies work. Every time.

I mean you have people living unto their 80's and 90's working on that? Not being demeaning because I know people that are those ages and are sharper and more abled than most. But, pretty sure that is not the norm at all. Those judges could be senile enough to become a liability against justice and law in general.

But what can I say, here we have two supreme courts rigth now, one with all it's judges with terms lapsed, elected illegaly and serving a drug cartel, hell the president of the court has murder charges.

The other is in exile and while it is the legal one and have emited sentences is basically powerless and a mere formality.

The old are also more likely to be entrenched in their beliefs, which is good if you're benefiting from the status quo.

[McTraveller]

Therefore the market prioritizes capital. We need to be prioritizing our well-beings. The leaders are not. wellbeing is not profit in any way.

I think we'll just have to disagree on that one.  First off - Well-being is definitely profit for an individual and for groups of people (families, communities, etc. Maybe at some point it stops scaling).  Secondly - the capitalist market doesn't prioritize capital - it prioritizes extracting value from capital - there's an important difference.  The reason we see breakdowns today is mainly in two categories: A) a preponderance of maximizing short-term value over long, and B) the breakdown in balance against concentration of ownership.

Computers, smartphones, the internet... All done without profit in mind, by the government.

Haha what? Computers were government funded, but don't be fooled that it wasn't for profit: heavy computers were done to win a war.  If that's not profit, I don't know how to continue...

Counterpoint, why do we need money at all?

It would be cool if we didn't need it - but I don't know of any other system that can so effectively manage deferred trades.  Put another way: barter-only really sucks, and there are many reasons we don't do that any more.

We're labor. Another form of capital.

  I don't know how to discuss this.  Is there a new economic model out there I've missed?  This feels almost as extreme as saying "services are another form of goods".

As for policy - talk of "hold companies (or governments) accountable" sounds good, until you ask "how"?  How do you make a policy that will "punish the abusive companies" without punishing the individual worse? Look at something like pollution - yeah those companies may emit 70% of the CO2 or whatever.  But if you scale that per consumer of their good/service, say "if you pollute this much per customer, you're above the limit" then you'll probably find that anyone with a smaller economy of scale is going to be worse.

I mean, when I grill on charcoal in my yard, I produce way more emissions and particulates per hamburger than your favorite evil burger chain. Should I be banned from doing that?  Maybe - I don't know.  Should I just have to pay a fee for it, as it's a luxury to be able to grill in my own yard?  How do you set the fee?

Ivory-tower philosophizing is great, but when it comes to shoe-leather you'll find there's lot of pitfalls and corner cases.

Regarding armed guards to keep employees in line: I honestly don't even know how to comment on a society where that is possible. I don't even know why people keep working for WalMart to be honest...  I can't comprehend a mindset where I would not be willing to sacrifice short term to get out of that cycle.  I'd live at home, band together with friends, something, anything, to have a different situation.  But you know what? Some people don't have that motivation.  "You can lead a horse to water" is a saying for a reason... yeah it doesn't mean you should abuse people, but there's also real cost (social and economic) associated with over-paying for a good or service.

As for "socialisim train" - sort of.  Basically my views are that we need systems that have incentives to make you want to help others in addition to yourself, rather than help yourself at the expense of others.  But I've been around the sun enough times to know that this isn't something you can enforce - it's something you have to demonstrate and instill in the younger generations.  Our culture has gone from the "pull-yourself-up generation", to the "give your kids better than you had generation" to the "keep the awesome stuff I got" generation to the disenfranchised "those guys have everything, what's left for me" generation.

I don't know what generation is next - I'm hoping it's another combo of "pull-yourself-up" plus "give to others" one, not a "you know what, screw this" kind of desperation.