218
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by TokenBoomer@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] flossdaily@lemmy.world 24 points 2 years ago

The big problem with this argument is that it blames the ineffectual centrists and the ignored left, when the real villain is the anti-science suicide cult that is the Republican Party.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago

Republicans are Neoliberals too. Nice try at re-framing though.

[-] AngrilyEatingMuffins@kbin.social 11 points 2 years ago

Not really anymore. They’re just fascists.

[-] PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago

Neoliberals who have realised that the only way to suppress wages further is with slavery.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

That doesn't seem very liberal, so this take seems doubtful

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] SCB@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Democrats are Neoliberals too. It's a cool thing to be. Try it!

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago

ineffectual

Complicit.

[-] Lols@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

the real villain for global inaction on climate change is not the american republican party

[-] Synthead@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago

Here is the part in the article that describes what activism needs to take place:

persuasion, argument, nonviolent direct action or other means

That's it. I don't think this is an article about activism at all.

[-] SasquatchBanana@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

It's that good ol' white washed MLK activism. Our world is boiling and all we gotta do is keep making good arguments, as though the ones given haven't been enough.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

You and I have different definitions of activism. But I like where your heads at.

[-] Synthead@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

How did you conclude that so quickly and definitively?

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Game recognizes game. Or projection. Probably projection.

[-] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 8 points 2 years ago

Really couldn't disagree more with this article but here's the big one that stands out:

Second, what must be done runs directly counter to the way the economy currently works.

It does not run counter to our existing system at all. We don't live in capitalist anarchy, we have a government that can act pretty broadly here, actually. The government can and has done cap and trade on NOx and SO2. The government can and has provided tax credits to make alternative energy more cost effective sooner.

If your complaint is that solutions to your prioritized issue are coming too slow, join the club, that's definitely true. But that is a different complaint.

[-] sadreality@kbin.social 14 points 2 years ago

Government is the only player who can provide a solution short of a revolution.

The issue is that we have criters and their boomer enables who think this is the their turn to loot younger generations. So reforms are not ton the table.

Selection of critters up for vote does not install any confidance, at this rate something might happen in 2030s.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Government is the only player who can provide a solution short of a revolution.

Not all boomers are down with this sickness. And with climate change on its way, I think you answered your own question about what is needed.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

You gonna fight in that revolution?

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Depends. You gonna wear the buttress chaps I bought you?

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

So no, then.

I'd absolutely wear the chaps, btw.

[-] DessertStorms@kbin.social 8 points 2 years ago

Imagine still believing that governments work for the people and not for the capitalists.. 🤯

[-] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago

I gave examples of government solutions working. Your bumper sticker response does not refute that.

[-] xapr@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

The government can and has done cap and trade on NOx and SO2. The government can and has provided tax credits to make alternative energy more cost effective sooner.

I presume you're either joking or you're trusting IPCC numbers to judge the severity of the problem. The examples you give are nowhere near what's needed. We need massive reductions in construction, commercial air travel, cars, and manufacturing of most junk that you can buy at a store today. How are you going to accomplish any of this in the capitalist economic system?

Edit: what I mean regarding IPCC is that I understand that their numbers are completely unrealistic because they are assuming carbon capture technology and scales that don't and won't exist.

Edit 2: add meat consumption as another item that needs to be massively reduced.

[-] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I'm not saying my examples are the thing that solves climate change, just that there are paths other than "let corporations do whatever they want." Government acted to reduce acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer. Government can act to reduce climate change. That means there is a path in our current system.

Total US greenhouse gas emissions are lower than they were in 1990 and they have been going down for years. The question is if we can get low enough, fast enough, globally, to prevent as many negative impacts as possible. That sort of balancing of priorities and costs and benefits is why we have government.

[-] DessertStorms@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago
[-] SCB@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Ah yes, "blacklikemao" and "nyanarchist" - clearly sage wisdom.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Thanks for the links. If I could read, I might not be a liberal.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2023
218 points (90.4% liked)

politics

25144 readers
875 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS