Opposition to what the activists are doing right now is not only not anti-lgbt as a whole, it's pro-lgbt in the long term.
The activists are behaving in such a way that they're causing a backlash. If you were trying to calculate a strategy to cause a full-on violence, I don't think you could come up with a much better strategy than what we've been seeing.
I mean, who's Bright Idea is it to March down the street chanting "we're coming for your children"? Fire that they/them.
The activists are behaving in such a way that they're causing a backlash. If you were trying to calculate a strategy to cause a full-on violence, I don't think you could come up with a much better strategy than what we've been seeing.
I mean, who's Bright Idea is it to March down the street chanting "we're coming for your children"? Fire that they/them.
A problem with being homeless specifically is that it's usually not just a resource problem. Often there's a much bigger and sadder story that means throwing money at the person won't help necessarily.
I feel like anyone who can't even comprehend of why people might follow commandments they believe were handed down by God (allegorically in the story of Lot and the city of Sodom and Gomorrah) in the perfect book of the Quran is seriously lacking in cognition.
One can disagree with the conclusion, but to be incapable of even comprehending the conclusion is a failure of the person who can't comprehend anyone having an opinion different than their own.
One can disagree with the conclusion, but to be incapable of even comprehending the conclusion is a failure of the person who can't comprehend anyone having an opinion different than their own.
Sun Tzu says that the victorious general seeks victory first then fights the battles required, while the defeated general seeks battle first then tries to seek victory.
The whole "We need to do something!" without regard to the consequences of those somethings is fighting first and seeking victory second.
People are not going to willingly die terrible deaths of exposure or starvation to fight climate change. Any plan that doesn't account for this is doomed to fail. If you're not careful, not only will protecting against climate change fail, but the backlash will result in a new regime will be actively against doing anything about it because of the sour taste in people's mouths. We've already seen regime change in several parts of the world over climate change policies (among other things, it's always complicated). It can happen here, and it will happen here if someone has a negative consequence.
Another thing about not looking for victory first is that we get somethings that are just accounting tricks. For example, we stop manufacturing things in the west because that uses carbon, but then we just get the Chinese to manufacture it for us using less environmentally friendly practices but it doesn't matter since at least we're not emitting them.
I do believe we need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels as an obvious thing. Even if climate change was a total scam, fossil fuels are a limited resource and we'd like to be a human race that lasts longer than fossil fuels.
Some things we need to get in order to successfully reduce fossil fuel usage:
1. People are not willing to die for climate change policies. Maybe you are, but the masses are not. If you try to kill them, they will fight you and they will win. Proposed solutions need to actually work.
2. We require industrial-scale power generation in order to reduce reliance on fossil fuels. This is for a couple reasons. First, because a lot of energy is required, not optional. Depending on the location, people need to heat their homes in winter and cool their homes in summer. Second, because we need enough energy to keep prices low -- People will happily switch from natural gas furnaces to electric if it means their energy bill is cut in half, and will switch from electric to fossil fuels if the same is true. I saw this personally where I live, where people used to be able to heat their homes with renewable hydroelectricity, but mismanagement of the power system caused electricity prices to skyrocket, so many people had to switch to fossil fuels or face heating bills that looked like mortgage payments.
3. All industrial-scale power generation causes environmental damage. Solar panels, wind, hydroelectric, everything. We're not going to end environmental degradation in this journey, we're just trying to limit it in the long term.
4. "Someday we hope this works" is battle without victory. Betting on unproven technologies isn't a winning strategy.
5. All environmentalism is local. There is no once size fits all solution and anyone trying to say otherwise is selling you a bill of goods. Hydroelectric won't work in the Mojave desert, and solar won't work in the Arctic.
So here's my proposals:
1. There's lots of untapped hydroelectricity in certain parts of the world. In Canada, Manitoba, Quebec, British Columbia, and Newfoundland all run almost entirely off of hydroelectric, and the other provinces could too if there was the will and the money. Russia is huge and I'm certain it has massive untapped potential for hydroelectricity. If these regions can take advantage of hydroelectricity, not only can they become carbon neutral, but these are proven technologies that have been heating and lighting homes for a century. We know hydroelectric works, and it works in places that aren't good for solar. Manitoba's hydroelectric dams are around Gillam, which is further north than 99% of people in Canada have ever even been, even to visit.
2. Once we have lots of power, we should start looking at motive technologies from a century ago. Electric streetcars or trackless electric trolleys existed long ago and didn't require new battery technologies to function. They took much less maintenance for the vehicles than ICE buses, and they wouldn't have to carry massive chemical batteries that would themselves need to be replaced periodically. We know they work, and they work in places that are very difficult to do battery electric such as the far north.
3. We need to get fission figured out. Semiportable power is a requirement for society to run, and right now as I write this there's diesel, natural gas, or propane generators running 24/7 in places that brag about being 100% renewable because you can't get a power line everywhere.
Anyway, tl;dr nobody asked. Thank you for coming to my ted talk.
The whole "We need to do something!" without regard to the consequences of those somethings is fighting first and seeking victory second.
People are not going to willingly die terrible deaths of exposure or starvation to fight climate change. Any plan that doesn't account for this is doomed to fail. If you're not careful, not only will protecting against climate change fail, but the backlash will result in a new regime will be actively against doing anything about it because of the sour taste in people's mouths. We've already seen regime change in several parts of the world over climate change policies (among other things, it's always complicated). It can happen here, and it will happen here if someone has a negative consequence.
Another thing about not looking for victory first is that we get somethings that are just accounting tricks. For example, we stop manufacturing things in the west because that uses carbon, but then we just get the Chinese to manufacture it for us using less environmentally friendly practices but it doesn't matter since at least we're not emitting them.
I do believe we need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels as an obvious thing. Even if climate change was a total scam, fossil fuels are a limited resource and we'd like to be a human race that lasts longer than fossil fuels.
Some things we need to get in order to successfully reduce fossil fuel usage:
1. People are not willing to die for climate change policies. Maybe you are, but the masses are not. If you try to kill them, they will fight you and they will win. Proposed solutions need to actually work.
2. We require industrial-scale power generation in order to reduce reliance on fossil fuels. This is for a couple reasons. First, because a lot of energy is required, not optional. Depending on the location, people need to heat their homes in winter and cool their homes in summer. Second, because we need enough energy to keep prices low -- People will happily switch from natural gas furnaces to electric if it means their energy bill is cut in half, and will switch from electric to fossil fuels if the same is true. I saw this personally where I live, where people used to be able to heat their homes with renewable hydroelectricity, but mismanagement of the power system caused electricity prices to skyrocket, so many people had to switch to fossil fuels or face heating bills that looked like mortgage payments.
3. All industrial-scale power generation causes environmental damage. Solar panels, wind, hydroelectric, everything. We're not going to end environmental degradation in this journey, we're just trying to limit it in the long term.
4. "Someday we hope this works" is battle without victory. Betting on unproven technologies isn't a winning strategy.
5. All environmentalism is local. There is no once size fits all solution and anyone trying to say otherwise is selling you a bill of goods. Hydroelectric won't work in the Mojave desert, and solar won't work in the Arctic.
So here's my proposals:
1. There's lots of untapped hydroelectricity in certain parts of the world. In Canada, Manitoba, Quebec, British Columbia, and Newfoundland all run almost entirely off of hydroelectric, and the other provinces could too if there was the will and the money. Russia is huge and I'm certain it has massive untapped potential for hydroelectricity. If these regions can take advantage of hydroelectricity, not only can they become carbon neutral, but these are proven technologies that have been heating and lighting homes for a century. We know hydroelectric works, and it works in places that aren't good for solar. Manitoba's hydroelectric dams are around Gillam, which is further north than 99% of people in Canada have ever even been, even to visit.
2. Once we have lots of power, we should start looking at motive technologies from a century ago. Electric streetcars or trackless electric trolleys existed long ago and didn't require new battery technologies to function. They took much less maintenance for the vehicles than ICE buses, and they wouldn't have to carry massive chemical batteries that would themselves need to be replaced periodically. We know they work, and they work in places that are very difficult to do battery electric such as the far north.
3. We need to get fission figured out. Semiportable power is a requirement for society to run, and right now as I write this there's diesel, natural gas, or propane generators running 24/7 in places that brag about being 100% renewable because you can't get a power line everywhere.
Anyway, tl;dr nobody asked. Thank you for coming to my ted talk.
Some people say "The only ethical solution to the current situation is to kill all the billionaires".
In that reality, the real answer is to deal with the massive bureaucratic state and mass political corruption that allows for the creation of the richest people in the history of the world in the first place, and implement legal structures that limit the size of a person's wealth through natural means.
The solution of killing those with power and wealth is unethical because we know it's ineffective. We have numerous examples where the people rose up and killed the ruling class, and another group of people just got sucked in through the power vacuum and ended up becoming the new ruling class. The French revolution in particular had massive amounts of bloodshed during the reign of terror, and despite that within 15 years there was another emperor on the throne and a new aristocracy in France.
For examples where long-term improvements were made to regular people, you have to look at examples such as constitutional monarchies where systems were built that limited the powers of the powerful. For much of history, the powerful were the people controlling the governments, so limiting what the government was allowed to do using Constitution and courts was an effective means to improve a common man's lot.
Unfortunately, the modern bureaucratic state was not predicted for by those who came before us and so a lot of power has aggregated into unelected, unaccountable, undemocratic parts of government that perhaps wouldn't have previously. Without constraints, such bureaucrats are eminently corruptible. Perfect for the aggregation of power into billionaires, whoever's ready to pay for play to bureaucrats who will have their jobs whoever's in congress or the whitehouse.
The other thing is that our business structures are set up in such a way that you can let a business grow and grow and there's few natural constraints on growth. I think the way to limit the size of businesses and the amount of active wealth someone can be using at one time is to change it so the owners of companies are responsible for what those companies do when it's something catastrophic enough. Why shouldn't the shareholders of BP be responsible for the damage BP did by cutting corners in the process of making them money? And selling your stock before the court case goes through should not be enough to divest your responsibility.
In that reality, the real answer is to deal with the massive bureaucratic state and mass political corruption that allows for the creation of the richest people in the history of the world in the first place, and implement legal structures that limit the size of a person's wealth through natural means.
The solution of killing those with power and wealth is unethical because we know it's ineffective. We have numerous examples where the people rose up and killed the ruling class, and another group of people just got sucked in through the power vacuum and ended up becoming the new ruling class. The French revolution in particular had massive amounts of bloodshed during the reign of terror, and despite that within 15 years there was another emperor on the throne and a new aristocracy in France.
For examples where long-term improvements were made to regular people, you have to look at examples such as constitutional monarchies where systems were built that limited the powers of the powerful. For much of history, the powerful were the people controlling the governments, so limiting what the government was allowed to do using Constitution and courts was an effective means to improve a common man's lot.
Unfortunately, the modern bureaucratic state was not predicted for by those who came before us and so a lot of power has aggregated into unelected, unaccountable, undemocratic parts of government that perhaps wouldn't have previously. Without constraints, such bureaucrats are eminently corruptible. Perfect for the aggregation of power into billionaires, whoever's ready to pay for play to bureaucrats who will have their jobs whoever's in congress or the whitehouse.
The other thing is that our business structures are set up in such a way that you can let a business grow and grow and there's few natural constraints on growth. I think the way to limit the size of businesses and the amount of active wealth someone can be using at one time is to change it so the owners of companies are responsible for what those companies do when it's something catastrophic enough. Why shouldn't the shareholders of BP be responsible for the damage BP did by cutting corners in the process of making them money? And selling your stock before the court case goes through should not be enough to divest your responsibility.
lol
It's just one step towards banning gas furnaces and having a winter where every scrap of furniture is burned because you can't heat your homes in winter in the midwest using solar panels.
It's just one step towards banning gas furnaces and having a winter where every scrap of furniture is burned because you can't heat your homes in winter in the midwest using solar panels.
It's definitely true that a lot of people have forgotten that you can die and you can make bad decisions that kill a lot of people.
Unfortunately, no matter how many times you tell someone not to put their hand on the stove, eventually you need to just let them do it and understand why viscerally since they won't listen logically.
The only sad thing is that putting your hand on the stove will mean the death of millions, and the temper tantrum after people realize what happened will likely mean the deaths of millions more.
Unfortunately, no matter how many times you tell someone not to put their hand on the stove, eventually you need to just let them do it and understand why viscerally since they won't listen logically.
The only sad thing is that putting your hand on the stove will mean the death of millions, and the temper tantrum after people realize what happened will likely mean the deaths of millions more.
To overcome fear to do the right thing is different than to disregard fear entirely.
Failure is an option. Death is an option. The end of your bloodline is an option. So we should in fact fear.
Failure is an option. Death is an option. The end of your bloodline is an option. So we should in fact fear.
I had a "girlfriend" in like grade 6, but for actual dating that didn't start until after college. Long story, but prior to grade 9 I just wasn't in it, in grade 9 I stayed at home most days so flunked out of school, the next year onwards I was hyper focused on graduating on time, then when I was in college I recognized I couldn't be a good partner being in a really hard course I had no spare time to give someone the attention they'd deserver so I avoided dating then, and then I started dating when I had my first professional job.
Been happily married 13 years now.
Been happily married 13 years now.
I wanted this to be real, but I can't find an actual sauce. Just this tweet. Probably just a joke. A funny joke, but just a joke.
I expect any experiment with federating from big tech to end once they meet dark fedi.
Over on Lemmy which has exploded with new users from reddit, top posts in the past 6 and 12 hours include...
Conversations about defederating from corpos, conversations about defederating from political opponents...
You can take the redditor out of reddit, but you can't take the reddit out of the redditor.
Conversations about defederating from corpos, conversations about defederating from political opponents...
You can take the redditor out of reddit, but you can't take the reddit out of the redditor.
Problem is that high house prices makes line go up so politicians do whatever they can to keep it going despite it being bad for everyone but homeowners (and it's even kinda crappy for them)
There are fixed rate mortgages, but many people went with variable rate and 90% of fixed rate mortgages are 5 years or less. After 5 years the rate starts to rise quickly because after 5 years "fixed" means fixed open so you can refinance with only 3 months interest as a penalty.
I refinanced at a good rate for 10 years and I'm feeling like those economics lessons are really paying off right about now.
I refinanced at a good rate for 10 years and I'm feeling like those economics lessons are really paying off right about now.