Not really sure why, but the title reminded me of this Frankie Boyle joke:
American foreign policy is horrendous 'cause not only will America come to your country and kill all your people, but what’s worse, I think, is that they’ll come back 20 years later and make a movie about how killing your people made their soldiers feel sad.
An Inconvenient Truth came out almost 20 years ago. The “lesser evils” have had what, 3 terms, in that period? So projecting into the future, the next 3 DNC administrations will have a lot of work to do to solve this completely.
So yea, go ahead and keep that hope alive, but then also permit me to remain skeptical.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
with embers flying an estimated two to three miles ahead of the established fire and in every direction
Wow never knew it could be so powerful. That’s like a cluster bomb of fire.
Thanks for that explanation! I also worked at a movie theater, we did have a couple fires that started at the popcorn machine, now I know why :)
At the moment, it’s hard to see any light at the end of the tunnel. People currently do seem as you describe, but I’m confident it’s not their inherent nature. They were taught to be that way, so perhaps there’s a way to unteach.
Eventually, I reckon we’re progressing towards a point where the state will no longer have sufficient funds for the most basic services towards their citizens. People at that point do have an incentive to be compassionate. Not sure if a state failing will provide for enough time for people to organize mutual aid groups and networks they can depend on, but at least it’s a glimmer of hope.
Wouldn’t you still risk sparks falling, possibly igniting dried grass?
Not sure if that is actually possible from the few sparks that fall, just a question.
No argument here, I wholeheartedly agree. But let me state the obvious: parliamentary democracy is a feature of capitalism.
That’s the most important question of our time. We have only a few decades to not only come up with that answer, but also with its rigorous implementation.
There seem to be many theories and strategies, either working within and outside the current system, but few seem ideal. Further worsened by the fact that the more ideal a solution seems, the more change it requires of regular folks, thus the more resistance it will face.
But then again, I’m sure once more people see the necessity of it, more discussions will happen, hopefully resulting in better contemporary strategies.
There are arguments to be made in favor of that yes, in the sense accelerationism. But that is based on the delusion that the fascist state will eat itself in the end, which is not guaranteed. That and all the suffering of course.
What I’d really prefer is not to have a corrupt lying stooge between me and decision-making.
The nature of parliamentary politics sure, but that’s just oligarchy with a thin veneer of democracy. No politician is ever responsible, stronger still, the more they push austerity, the more they are rewarded with top-level positions in international institutions. That is what drives politicians, not the betterment of their people. So I can’t undo myself of the impression that participating in this sham is reinforcing it, legitimizing it.
One could argue that by voting you’re supporting the status quo, the bipartisan democracy heavily invested in said status quo. You are the one obstructing change.
Or to say it with a quote:
If democracy demands compulsory voting for candidates people can’t believe in, it’s not democracy, it’s extortion.
EDIT: One further thought on that reasoning: it might actually make one morally obliged to vote for a third party.
deleted by creator
It does, actually. Ice cream can put you at grave risk of brain freeze.
Good point! Then again, I don’t think some flavors result in less brain freeze than others.
Even breathing has downsides.
True as well, every breath destroys lung cells.
If you want to be philosophical about it, consider this: If there weren’t pros and cons, you wouldn’t be making a choice at all.
This, however, I’m having a hard time to agree with. Come to think of it, I’m not even sure choice is something natural, but that will require some deeper investigation to ascertain. In a fictional natural state, when looking for a place to sleep, would a “family” really (have to) make a conscious choice between this cave and that one?
I’d reckon it’s more natural to try and avoid any nut-kicking, but hey, that’s me.
Very interesting viewpoint but it doesn’t quite seem to apply when choosing flavors at an ice cream parlor.
socialism
noun
so·cial·ism ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm
any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
Not anyone. Billionaires will not be helped by this.
So that was what I’m advocating, sitting around and waiting? I’d have to ask you again to copy/paste that bit…
You do realize It’s not binary, right?, It’s not a choice between voting for democrats or sitting around waiting.
I don’t believe this to be true. There were no states in the earliest of tribes, yet they survived:
Over scarce resources - yes that is a plausible scenario indeed. That’s why a plan is essential in order for people to be able to believe in such an undertaking. The groups will need to federate on the level of neighborhoods, towns, cities, states, nationals, and eventually, the planet. If attained, that’s all the protection they’ll need. But granted, that’s a big if.