I’m very tired and should not be up right now, so sorry if this isn’t super coherent or very well explained, but bear with me.
the people doing the raping, stealing, and killing
I do lean very libertarian/anarchist, but possibly my biggest issue with the concept is that you are now assuming that the people who would be targets of the violence would be the ones doing all that.
Having a monopoly on violence is bad, but on the other hand, the alternative sounds like vigilantism, which often leads to witch hunts. I’ll bring up a practical example to explain myself better:
There’s a streamer on Kick, whose name I won’t mention, who streams himself going after (alleged) child abusers. Recently (yesterday I think) he and other people were confronting a supposed child abuser (they just called him a pedo, but I assume they meant child abuser; otherwise how would they know he’s a pedo?) but they never showed any evidence of it. He was an old man. At one point a random stranger approached them to figure out what was going on, and they told him the old man was a child abuser. As a response, the stranger punched the old man, who fell backwards and hit the back of his head on pavement. He ended up laying unconscious in a large pool of blood. Rumours say he’s probably dead, which doesn’t seem far-fetched given the details.
In a lot of ways, having a monopoly on violence that is subject to hierarchies is quite bad, but the upside is that there is generally a due process where evidence needs to be presented, which will lead someone to be put in prison and not murdered - in most societies I know of. This can also be adjusted through laws and regulations. If someone practices vigilantism and murders someone like that, they themselves are subject to that law and might be put in prison. The vast majority of situations don’t end up with police killing someone; but knocking someone out (or just down) can very easily end up with someone dying from hitting their head on a hard surface.
Basically, what I fear that a completely anarchical society would fall into a spiral of vigilantism, where people kill each other because someone somewhere said they are guilty of something and most people are incapable of evaluating the situation properly and conducting a proper investigation, and will immediately resort to violence. This becomes even more worrying when you consider that me saying that about the old man situation will make some feel justified in using violence against me, because in their head: “that guy was a pedo, and he’s defending him, so he must be a pedo, so he also deserves to die”.
Hope that made some sense, and sorry I’m replying to this 4 days later.
Both can and should be blamed. You can’t complain that what someone is doing is wrong and then keep supporting that wrong action when you don’t even have to.
Eating meat is 100% an optional and more expensive action that is demonstrably worse for the planet, even aside from ethical concerns, but which the majority of people keep consciously choosing to do even when made aware of the issues and presented with alternatives. Those people are just as responsible as the people actively doing the farming.
This wouldn’t even be considered a controversial statement if it wasn’t for the fact so many participate in it and want to keep making excuses. If a nation hired mercenaries to conduct military operations, you wouldn’t absolve that nation of guilt and say only the mercenaries are at fault, would you?
But anyway, blaming people for the depravity of companies is also not going to fix anything
Eating meat is 100% an optional and more expensive action that is demonstrably worse for the planet, even aside from ethical concerns, but which the majority of people keep consciously choosing to do even when made aware of the issues and presented with alternatives. Those people are just as responsible as the people actively doing the farming.
This wouldn’t even be considered a controversial statement if it wasn’t for the fact so many participate in it and want to keep making excuses. If a nation hired mercenaries to conduct military operations, you wouldn’t absolve that nation of guilt and say only the mercenaries are at fault, would you?
Is it 100% optional? Are there no dietary conditions that require eating meat? Even if it is optional, I only said that expecting everyone to change is unrealistic, not that it’s impossible.
What point are you trying to make here? It’s ok for people to support the meat industry because an incredibly small fraction of people need meat? How many people do you know that eat meat? And how many do you know actually need meat for medical reasons? And how many of those specifically require eating red meat, by far the worst offender, the most expensive, and still massively consumed?
How much do you expect people to sacrifice? If you give up eating meat can you fly to go on vacation? Or are people expected to give up everything in the name of the climate while billionaires jet around and corporations expell endless emissions?
“Guys, you don’t get it! Doing 100% is hard, so why can’t people just do 0%?!?” Also, you can criticize people for eating meat and still criticize billionaires on private jets; but nice whataboutism, I guess.
If military operations are required for survival (like eating)
You don’t need to eat meat.
“yes we will only defend that military base and we will not kill everyone in the nearby school” and then they go and kill everyone in the school, why wouldn’t they be blamed for not following their orders?
Pray tell, what is the meat industry equivalent of this? You can’t not worsen climate change with a meat industry. And before you argue “lab-meat”, 1) that also takes a lot of resources currently, and it hasn’t been massively adopted so ti’s not what people are eating, 2) you know whether you’re eating lab-meat. You can’t support the meat industry, which you know is responsible for climate change, and then pretend you don’t know the consequences. Stop.
But fine, you want another example, think of a hitman. “They only hired the hitman to kill people, they are not morally responsible for the hitman killing people”. Except in this case, the hitman is also raising his victims from the ground up and worsening climate change.
You know eating meat, and thereby funding the meat industry, is bad; stop wasting time trying to justify it to yourself and other people and engaging in some kind of double think, and start actually making change for the best.
Just want to point out that there is a difference between “Libertarian Capitalism” and “Libertarian Socialism”; and as per usual, the capitalists were the one who stole the label.
I agree completely with what you’re saying, but what the other user is saying isn’t wrong either: there is always a reason for something to be illegal, and, before you decide to break a law, you should make sure you know why it’s illegal and what the possible consequences of breaking it (other than legal) might be.
It’s sort of like writing a book or making a film. There are lots of “rules” to follow about how those things should be done, and there are plenty of good reasons for those rules to exist, however all the best artists tend to break those rules - but that’s because they know what they are doing, and how to make it work. Another example is the billionaire submarine which crashed. They chose not to follow a lot of safety regulations in regard to the making/using of the sub, and the result was what we know.
In short, if you want to break the rules in regard to anything, it’s important to be aware of what exactly you are doing, and why those rules exist in the first place.
Societies rules also claim those woods are someone else’s property, and you’d be trespassing by just going there, much less living. If you don’t get permission to be on the land and permit to build a house, they send armed people after you to beat you up and throw you in a concrete room. Or, if you’re (un?)lucky, they’d make you be called to court, and when you return to your house afterwards, you’d find it coincidently burned down. That’s something that actually happened to someone in the USA once, some years ago.
I am so so divided on if I should vote for biden or not. I wanna vote third party to at least do something or should I just stay home and protest and advocate where I can? Thoughts?
I was gonna make this a reply, but I guess it fits as a general comment.
There will always be some excuse to maintain the status quo.
In the USA people say it’s because of “first past the post”(*). But in Portugal there is no such thing. We have a parliamentary system (technically semi-presidential, but for practical purposes parliamentary) but somehow people still find an excuse to always maintain the status quo. Since we’ve been a democracy (49 years), only two parties have ever been in power. Before the last elections, we had 9 parties in parliament. After several decades of incompetence, and everyone complaining about how corrupt the system and politicians are, the same party won the last elections with a majority vote, and now we have 8 parties in parliament. Basically, we’re not too far from a two-party system.
This happens because there’s always some excuse to compromise; in my country, the excuse/logic to rally behind the centrists and put them in power is something like “look how much the extreme right is growing, we have to keep them at bay! Plus, the other parties are probably as bad and corrupt anyway!”, with the expression “useful vote” thrown around a lot. Never mind the fact the far right are growing due to the incompetence of the people currently in power, and that, being a parliamentary system, a vote for any non-right wing party already works to keep the right at bay. And the cherry on top is how everyone gas lits themselves with “the other parties that never had any power are probably as bad and corrupt as the parties that have been in power for decades and which we know for a fact are bad and corrupt”.
This isn’t very eloquently written, but hopefully the point comes across: some people always expect you to “compromise” with them by doing exactly what they want, while they don’t compromise at all; and some people create a self full fulling prophecy by convincing themselves from the start that there are no other options. I can’t speak 100% for the USA because I don’t understand the system as well, but at least in my country the reality is that if everyone actually voted for the people they most align with, we could still keep the right at bay and not put all the power in the hands of the “moderates”.
(*)but, unless I am massively mistaken, if a third party gets enough votes they will still get seats in parliament which should still give them power, or at least still take power away from another.
Right, but the point still stands that voting tactically just reinforces the status quo.
Two examples from the last election:
Lisbon, which gets to decide 48 of the seats (the most):
PS (currently leading party) won 21 of the 48 seats in Lisbon. If half their voters actually spread their votes amongst the left, the second-largest party (PSD) would still have only got 13, the IL party 4, and the far right party 4. The power of the right would not have changed, but PS would only have 10 while the left would be a lot more powerful, and we would not have been subjected to a majority victory from PS.
Portalegre, which gets to decide 2 of the seats (the least):
PS won both, with 47% of the votes. PSD won 0 with 23%. In this scenario, if half of the PS votes went to the left, then PS would still have 1, and PSD would also have got 1 - hardly a change on the surface, but the result is that people could look at it and see the other left parties also have some decent representation, maybe it’s not crazy to vote for them and they are a viable alternative. Instead, because the votes went all to PS, everyone is now engaged in a self-fulfilling prophecy: “I should vote for PS! Why? Because they’re the closest party to the left with a change of winning. Why? Because everyone always votes for PS.”.
And that’s how you end up with the same two parties in power for 49 years, while everyone is always complaining about how much they suck the whole time and that nothing changes: “We have to vote for X, because not X doesn’t have a change of winning, because we’re always voting for X; also, not X would probably be just as corrupt and incompetent as X because I’m just guessing they are”. I’ve been hearing that logic since I was a child - the words and rhetoric are ingrained in my brain, and every time I hear the word “elections” the voices pop up in my head.
The grass is always greener on the other side. Americans who think companies don’t pay enough, housing price is too high, fuel is too expensive, etc., would be shocked to see how bad it is in Portugal. You can have a degree in CS and go work as a Software Engineer, and you still won’t have enough money to rent a home in the city. After a few years, if you manage to get some raises (good luck), you’ll maybe have enough for a small flat.
Health care is much cheaper than the US, but that doesn’t mean much when there are no doctors or nurses, and maternity wards start closing down.
We have people who are unqualified to teach having to teach school classes because there is no one else available; also some teachers have to live in their cars because they can’t afford a home in the area they teach.
I could keep naming things. And progressive in what way? Drugs are decriminalized, but that’s not the same as legal, and it’s still illegal to sell weed unlike in the US. Both the US and Portugal have had same sex marriage and adoption for years now. And I also don’t think trans rights are much better in Portugal than in the US; so I’m not entirely sure in what way it’s more progressive, to be honest.
And this is not to mention all the government scandals we’ve had in the last 15 years; probably the same or more as the US, you just don’t hear about it because it’s not the US.
But to get back to the point:
That means they are forced to cater their policies at least a little bit toward all those people, and it ends up having a real meaningful impact on their platform.
No they’re not, trust me. Source: the reason for our last elections. Or how we’ve (the people, through taxes) had to sink a ridiculous amount of money into a national airliner that made no money, and recently when it seemed to be turning a profit after decades, they began to talk about privatizing it, which is something the right had been demanding for a long time now.
If you always vote for someone, they have no incentive to do anything for you; they know they get your vote anyway. If you don’t vote for them, then they have an incentive to try and appeal to you in order to get your vote.
I think you might have missed the point being made.
The idea of property/ownership is nothing but a social contract; it’s made up. It exists only as long as the people agree on there being an authority figure (government), who chooses to uphold their idea of property, keep track of what belongs to whom, and will send people with sticks after you if you mess with that. But that authority figure (government) can also decide not to uphold that idea, or deem that “your property” is actually not yours after all and take control of it - they might even send people with sticks. And the moment people stop working under/for/with the government and people with sticks stop existing, that authority figure loses all its power to define what is “property”, and what belongs to whom.
As for my personal definition of property, if someone does not live there and it’s not a reasonable extension of where they live, or if it’s not located in those areas and they don’t often make use of it, it is not their property. So you if you want to trespass someone’s holiday mansion, or private forest or gardens, or a factory “owned” by one or a few people who never step foot there but make money of people who do, I certainly don’t give a shit.
I know what you mean, I felt the same way when I first saw it, and even when I started playing. But the concept intrigued me, so I kept going, and after a while I got used to the art style. If the concept of the game appeals to you, I’d still recommend you give it a try.
Looks at the entirety of modern history and lmmfao… 🤣
I mean, yeah, exactly, look at modern history… People keep complaining about politicians doing nothing, and everywhere you go people complain about how politicians do nothing, and yet those same politicians keep winning elections.
It’s literally a meme in my country that every one complains about how corrupt, nepotist, mismanaged, and just bad the leading party is, but how they keep winning anyway. The excuse is usually “the other parties are all too extremist”, even when one of those parties are basically the same as the leading party except: so far they have no instances of corruption; they have a very big focus on environmentalism, which is their main platform. And also, guess what? They’re the smallest party in parliament, with just 1 member. The second smallest, but with also 1 member, is a more centrist but also mostly environmentally driven party.
For reference, there are 8 parties in parliament right now (before the last elections there were 9), and since we’ve been a democracy only 2 of those have ever won elections. We’ve had 16 elections, and 2 parties are 10 to 6. The one with 10 is currently in power after winning with over 50% of votes. And everywhere people keep complaining about them, and you hear scandals and see ministers resigning every other week, and our forests burn every summer, and living costs keep rising, cities are getting too expensive for our citizens, and so on. And so the meme lives on.
This isn’t some invisible force casting those votes, it’s the people. It’s the people who cast all those votes, and it’s also the people who, by the way, made the far right party the third-biggest party in parliament in the last elections.
So yes, please do look at modern history, and understand that for the most part people are getting what they voted for. If you want politicians to act different, vote for different politicians, which is what the other user is saying.
Voting is snake oil, but it’s snake oil because the majority of people stop it from actually working.
Liberals believe in the invisible hand that will redistribute wealth and regulate the economy; people like you believe in an invisible hand that is responsible for all of the world’s problems, when the reality is that people hold most of the power, but the majority are either complacent, or actively working to keep things the way they are.
I’m gonna remember this thread for the next time everyone starts going on about how:
“The average person is doing the best they can! Climate change is all the government’s and corporation’s fault, we literally can’t do anything!”
Meanwhile, a post on a vegan community got several people to go out of their way to talk about how cool they are for eating meat. And they got upvoted for it too!
Reminder that:
meat production is one of the largest producers of CO2 (beef is the biggest, and pork after that)
most greens are cheaper than meat, pretty much everywhere
the average person in a western country is typically overweight
“But there’s nothing we can do! Don’t you see? It’s the governments and corporations who have to take action and force me to stop eating meat/insert-other-thing-I-can-do-but-choose-not-to-here! Also, vote for Biden/a-centrist-from-your-country!”
Assuming that an overweight person must eat meat is a logical fallacy.
I wasn’t assuming that.
You’re hyper focusing on one detail and missing the forest for the trees.
Premise 1: The vast majority of people eat meat
Premise 2: The majority of people are overweight
Conclusion: A very large portion of the population can stand to eat less meat.
Add in that some meat (beef) is a lot more caloric than anything green, and the likelihood of an overweight person being a vegan is quite small (which doesn’t mean there aren’t cases of it), and so the number of people who can stand to eat less meat also grows higher.
I’m not trying to shame people for being overweight, I struggled with it for a long time myself, I’m simply pointing out that the majority of people can definitely afford - both money and health wise - to eat less meat than they do.
Not my OC but what I’ve believed for years: there’s no conflict between reducing your own environmental impact and holding corporations responsible. We hold corps responsible for the environment by creating a societal ethos of environmental responsibility that forces corporations to serve the people’s needs or go bankrupt...
It’s also not something I nor anyone else here has said. It’s a total strawman.
It’s not just about this place, it’s about the average person. Every time this topic comes up, people always get very defensive and take it personally, often times even going on about “I already do all this, and that, and some other things, what else can I do?”. Well, chances are the criticism is not directed at you, then.
The criticism is directed at the people who base a big part of their diet on red meat; it’s directed at people who make excuses to drive when they could have easily walked or taken a bike but thought driving was more convenient and comfortable; it’s about people who have access to public transports but don’t want to take them because they’d have to walk five minutes to or from the station, or don’t want to “smell other people”, or just want “the privacy of my own car”. It’s directed at people who could do more, but actively chose not to, and then blame the system and say policy needs to change.
Policy would mean not subsiding red meat, therefore making it more expensive; it would mean raising prices of gas and forcing those people to walk more or ride more public transports; it would mean anything made of plastic would be a lot more expensive, and anything that needs to be shipped somewhere would be too.
How many people do you think would actually be okay with those policies, when they won’t even do it out of their own free will when given the option? How long until they regret it and vote for someone who undoes all the policies?
Even if we ignore all that and say that voting is the most important thing, how many green and ecological parties do you see winning elections around the world?
No matter how you measure it, it’s clear most people are not pushing that hard for change. The average person is choosing convenience and comfort over everything else, and just hopes someone else will sort out the problems - in a way that doesn’t really affect them or their choices. It’s also the reason there’s such a large push from the average “environmentally aware” person for electrical vehicles (even though they’re still bad for the environment) instead of more transports; it would mean not having to change anything in their lives.
Everyone would like a Tesla model geewiz with zero emissions
But that’s exactly the problem! That right there is illustrative of the whole problem! Cars are not the solution, electrical or otherwise (electrical cars are still bad for the environment for a myriad of reasons)! And yet, instead of wanting more walkable and bikable cities, with more public transports, most people just want electrical vehicles; a “solution” that doesn’t require them to change anything about their lives, or requires any actual systematic change.
And as for “supergreen organic carbon neutral groceries”:
Anywhere I know of, most greens are cheaper than meat, and yet 2 things are true in a lot of the developed world:
A very large (often more than half) percent of the population is overweight
People eat a crap ton of meat
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that most people could eat less meat than they do - especially red meat, which is worse - but they don’t. They actively chose to keep consuming, and overconsuming, even when they don’t have to. If they can walk, they’ll make excuses to take the car. If they can take public transport, they’ll still make excuses to take the car. The philosophy of “I don’t have to do anything, it’s the corporations and government who have to act” just enables that behaviour, and also raises two questions:
What will those people do when policy comes in to place that requires actual change from them? Will they be OK with it, or will they end up taking the system down and electing someone who undoes everything?
If people truly care so much, why aren’t all countries around the world electing more environmentally aware parties that enact more effective change?
I think convincing people pollution is morally wrong and to avoid it as much as possible in their own lives, will not only make the systematic change easier, it will also cause those people to actively fight for better and more effective changes when they realize they are being limited by the system itself. As opposed to now, where they just keep doing their thing, electing the same people, and just hope someone sorts it out without bothering them.
Well, the answer, and you imply towards the end, is that it’s morally wrong.
If I said…
There are wars currently going on. Slavery, torture, some mass shootings, and every now and then even a genocide happens in the world. So until we stop all that, why shouldn’t I go and punch some random person in the face, if it will make me feel better? After all, it’s just a drop of water in an ocean of violance.
…you would probably call me an ass, maybe even a lunatic. You’d say I was just looking for excuses to keep being an ass. But that’s the thought process you (not just you, more of a general you) are defending and making an excuse for.
The more “utilitarian” answer is that if we can’t expect people to make changes in their lives by themselves when they have the choice to, why would we expect them to be okay being forced to make those changes by a government? And why wouldn’t they just then go vote for someone who undoes it all?
I don’t see how consuming less resources is waste of resources.
At the end of the day, they are both morally wrong and reprehensible. Neither should be done if it can be avoided.
I don’t feel like writing too much, so I’ll just leave this here to perhaps add some context. It’s another (longer) comment I wrote earlier about the topic.
Full disclosure, I only read the first 3 paragraphs because it seems you missed a key part of my point:
It’s directed at people who could do more, but actively chose not to, and then blame the system and say policy needs to change.
If you have transports close to home that can take you to your work place, but you choose to drive a car anyway, then the problem isn’t the state giving it a priority over other options, the problem is you. Clearly, the state improving transports and making them more accessible wouldn’t make a difference to you.
And are you arguing that most people east most of their meals at fast food places? Because I’m sure we both know that’s not true. Firstly, at least where I live that’s not affordable, fast food or not. Most people do their shopping around once a week and cook at home, because that’s what is actually affordable to most people. Secondly, most fast food places offer vegan and vegetarian options nowadays, and even before that plenty of them offered chicken or fish, both of which are much better than beef, and even pork. So I really don’t understand how this is a reasonable excuse for the incredibly large consumption of beef, as well as dairy products. You can also go on any big forum that doesn’t skew left so much and doesn’t care so much about the environment, and you’ll quickly find out most people’s views on vegans and vegetarians, and see that for most people it is not an access issue.
And why do you need disposable plastic goods? I’m sure you can come up with some rare scenario like a 1 in 10000 occurrence that would justify it, but that’s very obviously beside the point because of what I said at the start. Do you need to buy sodas, which come in plastic bottles? Do you need to buy water in plastic bottles? Do you need disposable plastic utensils, like forks, knifes, plates, cups? Because all those sell quite well around the world. I’ll also add this comment someone wrote in another thread a while ago:
what would happen if everyone turned around and said ‘you know what, fuck companies that sell drinks in bottles i’m never going to be without my refillable bottle’ how long would coca-cola keep producing 100 billion plastic bottles a year? what would they do with them?
But if James Quincey said ‘fuck it, I’m not producing plastic bottles anymore they’re bad for the planet’ but 8 billion people said ‘oh ok, well we’re still going to regularly buy drinks in plastic bottles’ the numbers of plastic bottles being made would dip slightly but only while Ramon Laguarta rushed to spend the flood of money now coming in to scale up production at pepsi co.
It’s a two way problem. As long as most people keep wanting those things, then they will keep being produced. And policy will not change it unless you install a dictatorship.
Anyway, like I said, I didn’t read the rest of the comment because it seems you missed an important cornerstone of my point, and I’m too tired to keep arguing, so I’m sorry but I’ll leave it there. Have a good night or day wherever you are.
For a “Solar punk” instance, this community seems to have very little of the “punk” aspect, and in these comments it sounds more like a “Solar rich liberal” place.
The amount of slander towards homeless people, the propagating of stereotypes, and the removal of personhood in these comments really blows my mind. There are even people defending that homeless people should be sent to prison and have their life managed for them; others claim how it’s their own fault they are homeless; some cry about “private property”.
And of course a bunch of people claiming this isn’t a final/permanent solution, and so it shouldn’t be done… as if to say, until we come up with better solutions, these people should just go without shelter. What is really a priority to them, is not having to look at homeless people.
In a nutshell: “It’s their own fault! They’re probably all heroin addicts anyway. Someone else should come up with and implement better solutions, but in the meantime I don’t want to have to see and walk by people who don’t have a home!”. A Solar Punk Neolib community.
This will be my last comment because I don’t want to keep bothering you, especially because I know I write too much, but feel to reply and I will read it.
most of the Pacific Ocean garbage patch is commercial fishing nets (just one example)
But who eats the fish? It’s not the companies. The companies are just enablers. I’m now not sure if you read it, so I refer you back to the last part of my comment (last 2 paragraphs).
I personally live in a state where taxes on the individual are the answer to every problem and it only makes it even harder for people to survive? Not great.
It seems you don’t realize it, but you’re agreeing with what I’m saying. Studies/polls have shown the majority of people would be in favour of a carbon tax. But as you said, high prices/taxes don’t really help and can make life terrible for the average person. Yet, that would be the result of a carbon tax. But people don’t think about that; people just think about how the world is going to shit, and someone should do something and when they hear “carbon tax” they think “great!”, because they think it’s a way to keep their lifestyle and comforts and don’t realize it would necessitate a life change anyway. The question is whether you do the change now by reducing your consumption, or wait until you’re forced to do it due to regulation and prices hikes you can’t afford.
I do truly believe that everyone is doing their best with the tools that they are given, and I cannot discount their efforts. It is not my place to talk shit idk.
I really don’t want to be rude or mean, but I have no other way to put this: if you really think that, you really are naive and living in a bubble. Which I guess isn’t surprising if you do live off grid and have enough room to grow your own food and you can compost all your waste, while also being on the Fediverse and especially from beehaw (very leftist leaning and environmentally aware places); but take it from someone living in a very large city and who frequents very diverse online places: that’s not true.
Just from the most environmentally “aware” people I personally know: a lot don’t bother recycling, or didn’t until very recently; they don’t think twice about single use plastics; most of them have meat as the stable of their diet, especially red meat; one of them insists on drinking bottled water despite have clean tap water, and a lot of the others buy quite a bit of plastic soda bottles. Oh, and something about my neighbours: some of them throw plastic take out packages out of their windows and into the street.
And also, finally, if what you say is true, then environmental parties would currently be in government in most places; after all a vote is tool everyone has and it costs nothing. But that’s not the case. In my country, the two most environmentally aware parties are currently the 2 smallest parties in the parliament; the second biggest one is a far right party; the third party are somewhere between liberals and right wing libertarians who have said there is no climate emergency; the leading party is a liberal party who talks about the environment, but doesn’t actually do shit about it. And that’s with a 60 to 70% voter turnout.
Do you really expect me to believe that “everyone is doing their best with the tools that they are given”?
I’m from Portugal btw, you can see here how many tons of CO2 per capita we were responsible for emitting (from production and consumption in 2018 and 2016 respectively). We’re not even top 50 in either list; USA is 17th and 7th, for reference.
How Anarchy Works [Andrewism] (www.youtube.com)
Piped / Invidious...
Australian red meat industry says it doesn’t need to meet its self-imposed net zero target (www.theguardian.com)
cross-posted from: lemmy.world/post/11740609...
libertarian learns public ownership makes everyone more free (slrpnk.net)
learn the difference between illegal and immoral (slrpnk.net)
Electorialism (tempted to vote biden) (slrpnk.net)
I am so so divided on if I should vote for biden or not. I wanna vote third party to at least do something or should I just stay home and protest and advocate where I can? Thoughts?
but on the backside, it didn't say nothing (slrpnk.net)
replace nuclear with hydro (slrpnk.net)
Older games with female protagonists?
What games of older generations would you put up? i dont mind the genre really, id would just love to hear yalls suggestions.
This will definitely get me on a watchlist (programming.dev)
How do y’all cope with this
i loved you mommy (slrpnk.net)
we shouldn't promote individual responsibility *instead* of corporate accountability. we should promote individual responsibility *because it leads to* corporate accountability (slrpnk.net)
Not my OC but what I’ve believed for years: there’s no conflict between reducing your own environmental impact and holding corporations responsible. We hold corps responsible for the environment by creating a societal ethos of environmental responsibility that forces corporations to serve the people’s needs or go bankrupt...
"Public spaces belong to the public by right. And the unhoused public, who have the greatest need for public spaces, have therefore the greatest right" (slrpnk.net)
Edit...
It Is No Longer Possible to Escape What We Have Done to Ourselves (www.nytimes.com)