Agreed. They depressed me as a kid, and they depress me now. Absolutely exploiting the most impoverished among us. Vimes' Boot Theory holds there IMHO: https://terrypratchett.com/explore-discworld/sam-vimes-boots-theory-of-socio-economic-unfairness/
GoodbyeBlueMonday
joined 1 year ago
Thank you for explaining what your point was, but it's absolutely a non sequitur. My original point was about the validity of criticizing something because it's happening by more than one bad actor. Not quibbling about whether an small part of my statement ("little influence") is 100% correct or not. My point wasn't about litigating whether or not the US is a democracy, so: it was a non sequitur.
That said, it's clearly a waste of time to engage with you, because if you're going to be bent out of shape for being "accused" of a non sequitur and then start calling me "a schlub that lives in a fascist empire", then you don't have the temperament to actually fight a fascist empire. Some of us do more than vote and complain online.
Thanks, I respect your take too. I fully understand that I'm an optimist, and will desperately cling to any shred of hope we have. Not a position everyone holds, and I don't hold it against anyone to not have hope for humanity's future, as much as it conflicts with my own thoughts. In any case, I hope you have a good one! Thanks for a good discussion.
That's entirely my point though: we can't reason with a deadly virus, but we can with most humans. Or at least some humans. OK maybe a few. The point is, I don't think it's logical to throw in the towel.
That isn't human exceptionalism in my view, either: because I don't believe we're inherently special animals when it comes to how we treat the environment. My point is that most animals inherently exploit resources, and drive others to extinction. We just managed to make guns and power tools and propaganda. Once humans are gone, we have no reason to think that any species that manages to start some technologically advanced civilization will be any better. So either we eradicate all biological life to ensure that it doesn't eradicate biological life...or we try to improve humanity, because despite things, we can often be reasoned with. Humanity has gotten better, even though it hasn't improved enough, when looking at human civilization over the last few thousand years. That's my point: not that we don't deserve calamity, but that we can - if we fight hard enough - try to steer our own species toward a better future for everyone.
Who knows though, maybe if humanity is gone the bonobos will rise up to take our place. They're pretty chill, all things considered.
Another non sequitur, and in any case not what I said (nor implied, unless you read my reply in bad faith).
That's a non sequitur at best.
That's the easy way out. Please stick around and help the rest of us try to steer humanity in the right direction. Help the moral arc of the universe bend a little faster. It's hard work, and most of us won't see much of a return. But long-term, let's hope that humanity can.
To clarify: I'm a biologist. The perspective you've taken is basically "Noble Savage" but for animals. Animals are pushed to extinction all the time. Yes, we're incredibly good at it, and we're good at coming up with highfalutin reasons for killing things, but look at chimps, ants, dolphins...nature is brutal. It sucks to be most animals. Say a habitat changes, and a species "needs" to move into an adjacent similar habitat that's already occupied by one or more species exploiting those resources? Extinction of something is pretty likely. That's all very much an oversimplification, of course, but this is a lemmy comment.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111310 https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-it-comes-waging-war-ants-humans-have-lot-common-180972169/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War
The hope I have is our intelligence. The fact that you recognize this existential threat is more than a badger is capable of.
What many of us imagine is that it's bad when either nation does this.
Yes, it is hypocritical for most US politicians to criticize Russia's interference in US elections, but it's not incorrect.
It certainly isn't wrongthink for those of us who have little influence on what alphabet agencies do to complain about it happening just because it's happening elsewhere, too.
Sorry, I didn't articulate my thoughts well: I meant that when I CTRL+F'ed the PDF searching for "dissent", the second of three places in the PDF that it "finds" the word dissent is literally behind the word "concurring" in "SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and JACKSON, JJ., concurring in judgment" on page 15 of the PDF.
I also don't have legal training to dissect most of what's in there, but I find it interesting that dissent is embedded in the PDF behind the title to their opinion.
dissent
So I went to read it and found there's no dissenting opinion, but a concurring one: but oddly, if you CTRL+F "dissent", their concurrence lights up for me. Tried it on two PDF readers, but maybe I'm losing grip on reality.
I agree with you in boiling it down to: Democrats have failed the people because they haven't done enough good things, while Republicans have failed the people by actively doing terrible things.
So my conclusion is that yes, both parties have done terrible things, and I agree that Democrats haven't gone far enough on most issues I care about, but the GOP is actively going against the things I care about.
It's an easy decision at the ballot box, and it is an easy decision for me to do more than simply vote. Voting is the lowest bar for participation in a democracy.
Exactly: or take folks who live in the tropics (about 40% of the human population) where it feels cold below 60F.