It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to [email protected]
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
https://nitter.lucabased.xyz/ContraPoints/status/1808529692405662047#m
Any fucking questions
There's a concept in the philosophy of climate change called "intervention responsibility." Basically, it just involves the recognition that "x is responsible for y" is only intelligible if x has the power to intervene in a way that prevents or changes y. The upshot of this is that different kinds of agents have different responsibilities with respect to big, complicated problems in light of the power (institutional and otherwise) that they have: I have a certain set of things that I can intervene on as a relatively wealthy white guy in the Imperial Core, giving me a different set of responsibilities than a subsistence farmer in the global South. Neither of us has anything close to the kind of intervention responsibility that, say, the US President or the Chevron Corporation has though, because those sorts of agents have access to causal levers that neither I nor the subsistence farmer could possibly get near, let alone pull.
Asking "what has the disempowered, disenfranchised left done that's more effective than the wealthiest empire in the history of the world" is a category error on par with asking what the color blue has done to make itself larger than the color orange. It's nonsensical, because you're comparing totally different kinds of things with access to totally different sorts of influence, and thus totally different responsibilities.
Americans buy big dirty trucks and oppose public transportation. They defend the existence of the multinational corporations that depredate their environment and poison the air and water. They eat the meat of tortured animals. They absolutely don’t give a flying fuck about the future of their children, let alone humanity. And you want to tell me they’re not responsible? Give me a break. Old people are many things — poisoned by lead, delusional, ignorant — but innocent is not among them. Everyone who voted for Trump or Bush, everyone who failed to make the modicum of effort required to support people like Bernie, they’re all to blame.
Never let anyone tell you that Americans didn’t choose this outcome. They did. It was presented to them, they were told the consequences and they chose it. And unless you’re a vegan who votes in every election and doesn’t own a car, you’re probably not so innocent either. My pity is reserved for the children and animals who will inherit this poisoned world — the only creatures who are genuinely blameless.
trucks and meat are especially interesting, as its not by "natural inborn consumer preference" (a story you seem to share) they were chosen, just as poisoned water is not chosen.
i rather suspect if epa fined dupont/exxon to bankruptcy over their shit, they would get much more popular. small republicans popularly rebel against regulations not only because they annoy them, but they also perceive deep unfairness that giant corporation can poison half the earth and government will just eat shit over it, while their business become closed over something minor like improper engine oil runoff. And i'm not advocating exclusion of small business owners from it, rather large corporation death penalty over their shenanigans.
Its a confused mess (as projected onto political parties) because messaging by large corporations intentionally obfuscates and emphasizes different stories to different groups. Republicans were mega angry about bank bailouts, for example, until kochs hijacked the tea party, the anger was there to make them democrat voters, while democrats at the time were whimpering about the sacred markets
p.s. if you collapse into wild misanthropy, how can you be a communist/anarchist?
The EPA can’t fine anyone precisely because Americans overwhelmingly support ecological depredation and overconsumption. Read the political data! Almost nobody wants the EPA to “fine Exxon into bankruptcy.” A lukewarm slap on the wrist is barely justifiable to most Americans, who demand cheap gas, are falling over themselves to sacrifice the future of their children for cheap gas. It’s a political demand yodeled from the mountaintops.
And you want, what, the EPA — the EPA that belongs to these animals — to fine the large corporations that also belong to these same animals?
That makes absolutely zero sense.
Again, the government serves those who give it power. For years this has been the voters of this country, and they have made their wishes loud and clear, repeatedly.
The demand for cheap gas is learned behavior, cause cheap gas leads to more disposable income. Do americans get mad at aluminum/wood prices oscillations? The car/homes still get more expensive with those, but you won’t lose election on it.
Corporation construct reality where car is a means of survival, induce demand for gas and now people are bad for caring about this? Canadians or germans don’t get half as mad at gas prices as americans, do you guess why?
The voters don’t make anything clear because they don’t vote on policy, they vote on a theater actor tone of voice when reading teleprompter. aside from 30 percent strongly party affiliated electorate, americans don’t give a shit (or see it they all the same cynicism).
Again, say you describe pfas shenanigans to 10000 average americans, you honestly think 50 percent will say: that’s okay, dupont gives jobs?
Inversely, say I want to execute oil executives, who do I vote for that my preference is seen via voting tallies?
you decide to backproject politicians decisions (as signed off by the corporations) on the voters preferences? To get mega cynical about voters?
Corporations are evil, of course. And no one is debating that evil entities seek to lie and cheat their way into power. But falling for self-serving lies makes you culpable.
Are Israeli soldiers not guilty because they follow orders and believe propaganda? You think that’s an excuse?
That is not an excuse. Pollution is bad. Electing narcissists is bad. Denying science is bad. You could argue human nature is fundamentally twisted and selfish, but that would still make those who endorse cruel and stupid ideologies blameworthy.
There is self-indulgent bathing in propaganda of course. but israel soldier whose choice is sit in jail or become a murderer and amerikan chosing between "i can afford rent here, therefore i need a car (because there is no public transport) therefore gas prices are important to me" or dont have a job and become homeless/sick to death aren't exactly comparable. One is trading humanity for comfort, the other one pollution for much more obvious survival. People play hands they are dealt, not ones they could have been dealt (insert
here).
there is difference as well between endorsing and passively accepting, if we don't make it - germany should have been purified in nuclear fire 80 years ago. I mean the position of everyone should be exactly right on all issues is unproductive, and might lead you to passive contempt from which there is no escape