Soleos @ Soleos @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

203

Joined

2 yr. ago

If they set a 10 year goal it may take 20 years to hit 80% of goals, if they set a 20 year goal it'll take 40 years to hit 50%, if they set a 50 year goal...

Nobody thinks this is a realistic goal, but the target gives a concrete number to set a mandate on which actually pragmatic policies, funding projects, and incentives can hang their hat on to keep the ball rolling.

With big infrastructure developments, nobody wants to buy into realistic goals, it's too costly, and there's never enough political will. You set overly ambitious goals so you can get people to buy in and then the project is too big to fail, so you end up paying what it actually costs, and you try to mitigate waste, unanticipated problems, corruption, and poor management along the way.

I would too. Unfortunately I'm pretty sure most places that check even half those boxes still fail in the market. You often have to drag consumers kicking and screaming towards something more equitable and less exploitative, even when they're the ones being exploited.

Right, but then someone will rebuild Minecraft in text-based Minecraft with a 3D rendering engine displayed through ASCII

I stopped clicking on articles about things Trump says... Am reminded why. The full quote is always an order of magnitude worse than what you'd assume from the headline. Literally impossible to exaggerate the toxic spittle that comes out of this man's mouth.

Because they are reacting to living under the oppressive structures of late capitalism. Having been raised in a capitalist world, they naturally overemphasize economic systems and their alternatives and make assumptions about government.

So when they communism theyusually mean communism + some equitable government or just they mean socialist democracy.

Funnily enough, you live pretty well in China these days if you're a good little capitalist.

Yeah well there's cooking as in purely functional preparation of nutrients, and then there's cooking as in a process of caring for others by creating a worthwhile experience of food that is needed, engaging, and delicious. The downside is this experience usually has a time limit dependent on time and others' availability (eating hot food together). It's sad for such effort to go to waste. The alternative extreme to this kind of nurturing is abandoning the idea that family time over meals is worthwhile and just shitting out nutrient bricks so the children don't starve. I don't think anyone really wins in the long run with that.

That's not an insult, it's a specific form of trolling/harassment called sealioning.

I'm all for having respect for other's cultural belief systems. However if you're going to invoke the argument of "proof" which is a scientific/rational one, then you should understand you can't prove a negative, so "you can't prove it doesn't exist" is not a valid argument for anything.

No, they're not saying that. They're saying OP hasn't encountered the complex conflicts of values inherent in such issues. Even if the outcome you're seeking is noble, such sweeping attitudes invariably ignore the potential harm. Not sure what that looks like? Just ask the native Americans what it's like to have their belief systems steamrolled by "superior colonial" ones.

Well this was because we grew up in the 90s, when anything was possible, you could be anything, do anything, if you just work for it. You can save the world through love and dedication. I still believe it I think, but my scope of realistic success in this is much narrower now.

"It''s about a way of thinking that's pervasive in society. Evidence and logic be damned, my feelings trump all of that."

Yes and we have entire academic fields full of research, evidence, and argument about the sticky reality of how different belief systems, social identities, and cultural heritage interact both constructively and destructively. For example, how colonialism typically plays out cultural genocide in the name oclf "civilizing" the native population. Modern western positivist ontology and epistemology (which is where most atheists sit) is also laden with these socially constructed features and does not exist in some privileged position outside of them. The problem that people are pointing out, is exactly the smug superior attitude of some atheists, which reveals their lack of awareness about their own position and the risks and limitations thereof. I say this as someone deeply embedded in STEM and evidence-based practice.

The expert consensus of every human-related field from medicine to philosophy to engineering/design to sociology to neuroscience and on and on is that, like it or not, feelings fucking matter.

Is this a shitpost because blue actually represents the Quebecois who view themselves as oppressed the way they oppressed Indigenous People, for whom orange/yellow/black/red/white are more representative colours?

Yeah that's a bit of a strawman. The only people "putting politics on a pedestal" are human characatures, like people who's whole identity is worshipping Trump are to conservatives or "alpha males" to men.

Anyway I already gave my take on politics being a property more than a lens.

I think I've lost your meaning of shit/ty. It sounds like everything is shit. Life is shit, you're born, you suffer, you die shitty, etc. Which sounds edgy but doesn't really mean anything. What do you mean by shit/ty?

And at this point totally fair to call it here on this thread. It's just my gut reaction to your response.

I feel like you're splitting hairs, like saying all the shit parts of democracy are politics and all the not shit parts are somehow not politics. Democracy IS a part of politics. How about this, if you are to play devil's advocate for yourself, try listing 3 examples of how politics is good rather than evil.

My view is a bit different though. I see it more as an inherent property or process of society, like mass is to matter or spatial distribution of a flock of birds.

Huh, yeah we're probably in closer agreement that initially appeared. Some earlier bits in your other comments came across more "anti-politics"

I'm not saying ubereats' rates aren't outrageous, but if you make a certain amount of money and are busy, it's still worth the time saving. There are enough of those people to keep it going. Plus the ridiculous rate incentivized consumers towards their subscription model. But yeah I barely eat out or order in these days and definitely more healthy.

I see what you're saying in terms of idealism/naivete vs pragmatism. However I also get the sense that what you mean by government and politics is a bit different from what the left usually means. I'd be interested to understand what you mean by "politics" and "government".

A couple follow-up questions that might help clarify the distinctions

1. does a society make choices between better and worse practice of politics/government?
2. what would a world that doesn't need government look like if you were to imagine it?

The only part is disagree with is that the left encourages not participating in politics. I'm pretty sure a pillar of the left is encouraging informed participation in politics. Unless you mean punk/commie ideas of rejecting the establishment in favour of revolution? That's still participation in politics.

I would say the greater achievement of right wing grifters is the connotation that "politics" is inherently bad and shameful, as implied by your comment as well.

I see, I think there are a couple things to clarify. Causally, you can view it as the political system of decision-making determines the economic system, so keeping capitalism is a political decision made through a political system such as democracy or theocracy with downstream political consequences, e.g. property has high capital value, which affects citizens.

You may also be conflating decisions that carry a political quality with decisions made by a political system. Or conflating systems that carry political qualities such as economic systems and education systems with political systems proper, which are system for instituting decisions that govern societies. For example, the market may "decide" that asbestos is the best insulation, however, the market does not set political policy about insulation. It is up to the political system (e.g. democratic parliament or dictator) to decide whether or not to pass policy about limiting asbestos insulation, not capitalism. This distinction is also present in your own argument. Like you said, the market (capitalism) doesn't create and enforce property law, it's the state (political system) that creates the law and is responsible for enforcing it.

-EDIT- Okay I think I see the semantic disagreement. What others are emphasizing is that the economy is political in nature and therefore it is a political system. What I understand for the term "Political System" is more narrow to be more narrowly "system of government". I certainly agree that the economy is political in nature. And honestly, I'm not married to my definition of political system. What I cared more about is drawing the distinction between "system of government" and "systems that are political in nature". The only reason why I'd disagree is that by the latter definition, any system of social structure such as religions, education systems, human transportation systems, communication systems, language systems etc. Are also political systems because they're political in nature. So the term "political system" may be too broad as to be useful.