• Mateoto@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    165
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    We are over the edge of no return.

    We should stop begging for change and act now. Politics must hurt them with reforms, taxes, and the rule of law.

    We cannot stop climate change now, but we can try to de-accelerate by fighting against big oil, corrupt politics, and billionaire newspapers supporting them.

    • hh93@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      50
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Too many people believe they can just continue living like they were 30 years ago - if big oil would stop producing stuff and plastics, gas and airplane fuels would not be available anymore then people would riot

      Even threatening to increase prices to a level that would make sense to limit the use to absolutely necessary levels would piss off too many people to be a viable option because everyone just wants to believe that it’s just for “the others” to change but not for themselves.

      Everyone has to act and change their Livestyle…

      • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        36
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Lol that’s the world’s largest prisoner dilemma, never going to happen. People are big children, and you need to treat them as such. You don’t let the child decide whether it’s going to eat candy or real food, you take away the option of candy because they cannot be trusted to make decisions that are good for them in the long run. This is no different, it’s why we have things like regulations and the FDA.

        • hh93@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah exactly but in our situation we also have the children voting and one party is promising them to not take away the candy

          I really don’t see how this can ever work out… :/

          • Matt Shatt@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Not to mention the “adults” in this comparison don’t actually care about the child or the candy, they just care about retaining the ability to control your candy and will do anything and everything to keep stockpiling that sweet, sweet money.

        • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You do realize that they are children ruled by other children who shouldn’t get that kind of authority? Do you know what children with power over other children do?

        • Zeeroover@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Absolutely correct. I myself don’t have children, don’t have a car, and I don’t eat meat. Just pick any of those 3 and try to deal with the reactions to it. People are big children.

        • Uli@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Cool metaphor and all, but just want to be super clear. We’re talking about regulating oil, right? And plastics, coal, other fossil fuel derivatives. And no one’s going to come take away my candy. Stay away from my candy. Don’t take it, it’s mine.

      • DreamerOfImprobableDreams@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is the truth right there. Gas prices went up two measly dollars compared to normal in 2022, and everyone flipped the fuck out. People were prepared to elect Republicans-- fucking Republicans- to office, they were so furious about it.

        And don’t @ me about “100 corporations are responsible for like 90% of emissions”. Who’s buying those corporations’ goods? Who’s refusing to vote for politicians that’ll meaningfully regulate these corporations? Who’s spending all day fantasizing about Da Revolushun^TM that’ll never fucking come (and would kill tens of millions of civilians and likely result in fascists winning and seizing control of your country, if not the whole thing splintering into a bunch of warring fiefdoms controlled by ruthless oligarchs) instead of getting to actual work trying to effect real change in the real world? And I don’t mean “direct action” (read: looking edgy and getting photos for the 'gram), I mean actually fucking getting policy passed that’ll have a real impact on people’s real lives.

        • Ooops@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Gas prices went up two measly dollars compared to normal in 2022, and everyone flipped the fuck out.

          Yeah, sure. They flipped out because the love their cars so much and don’t want to change anything. Oh, wait. No, they flipped out because companies and corrupt politicians made them completely dependent on cars so they will starve without them and kept them so poor that even increasing the cost of using the cars they dependent on just a bit again ends with starving.

          And here you are babbling none-sense again about how it’s the stupid people buying products -as if they had a choice- and not the companies and politicians that are to blame.

          • Balex@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Not to mention that the gas companies were reporting record profits after increasing the price.

          • Solar Bear@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            They didn’t say we can stop it at our individual points of consumption. They explicitly mentioned policy. People need to be willing to support policy that will drastically change their own lives, likely in ways they don’t even realize, and be ready to live with that. Otherwise pretty soon we won’t be living with much at all.

            • bloodfart@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              don’t @ me about “100 corporations are responsible for like 90% of emissions”. Who’s buying those corporations’ goods?

              Suggesting that the consumer is responsible for emissions at the point of production betrays a deep misunderstanding of climate change.

              Suggesting that “people’s” willingness to support policy that would change their lives is holding back cuts to emissions at the point of production betrays a similarly deep misunderstanding of political power.

          • reverendz@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            This is it exactly. We have to turn off the f*cking spigot at the source!

            There is no amount of science or innovation that’s going to save us. It’s going to take “holy shit we’re all going to die horribly” panic from world leaders to forcefully cut off the source, which is oil and its byproducts.

            Short of that, no amount of responsible consumerism can stem this tide.

          • Flygone@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            Not immediately but they’ll stop producing if people stop buying. Just takes a lot of people to have any meaningful change. And that starts with every single one of us.

            • boonhet@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              And that’ll never happen, because everyone else will ignore you and just buy the shit anyway.

              It NEEDS to be regulatory change. Shaming consumers into not consuming doesn’t work. Oil companies want you to think it works, that’s why THEY invented the concept of the carbon footprint. To make everyone ignore real solutions that could actually work.

              • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                We can’t even get people to individually choose to wear a mask or stand a little bit away from each other when their immediate health depends on it. Nevermind asking people to… to do what? It’s not like there’s a choice. That’s what the monopoly phase of capitalism means.

                How can I choose not to use fossil fuels to get around? The buses don’t go where I’m going or when I need to go. How can I choose to avoid the food without the plastic packaging? Almost all the food except for some niche items is packed in plastic. I don’t even get the choice by picking fresh produce because it got to the store wrapped in plastic. How can I choose to use fewer resources? My devices, white goods, furniture, clothes, etc, are all built intentionally not to last – and if they do last, they get ‘updated’ to landfill mode.

                I’m agreeing with you, to be clear. I do wonder how regulation can help, considering politicians don’t regulate unless they’re forced to. Partly because they are or they represent the bourgeoisie and wouldn’t get anywhere near power if they wanted to do things differently. Political pressure can be built but the voices in some of the problematic comments in this thread are quite mainstream.

                I suppose what I’m saying, and I’m not necessarily looking for an answer, is: if we get to the stage where the public consciousness and it’s organisation are powerful enough to make politicians take climate action seriously, why would we leave it to those politicians to implement and why would we retain a system based on infinite growth? Why would we get to the point where we collectively decide to make the world a better place and then say, you know what, you can keep doing all the other extractivism, oppression, war, slum landlording, racist border controls, etc, just make sure you use recyclable packaging and transport it in electric vehicles?

                • boonhet@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Exactly. The world around us has been engineered so that we’d all consume more. Either out of necessity, or for convenience. After all the hard work we put in, we feel like deserve convenience, don’t we?

                  More and better public transit is 100x better for reducing transport carbon emissions than telling people to “just walk to work”. When the options are there, and they’re incentivized, people will use them. But public transit will also have to be way cheaper than driving, because let’s be honest, it’s kinda icky, if you’re used to driving your air conditioned private pod of utter comfort, and you’re being asked to share space with some hobo who couldn’t decide if he wanted to piss or shit himself so he did both.

                  • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Agree with that. It’s been difficult since Covid, too, as it’s made it clear how different people’s views are on hygeine and health. I didn’t used to have a car. But I’m not sitting in an unventilated metal tube where nobody wears a mask and every third person coughs or sneezes without covering their face. That was disgusting before Covid. Now it’s potentially life-changing.

                    They could be built with better ventilation and with more frequent services and more regular cleaning but that would eat into profits. In fact, during Covid, they reduced the number of lines, citing ‘safety’. How it’s safer to have busier carriages in an airborne pandemic, I’ll never know. They never re-introduced the old lines. So the trains and buses have been even more crammed than they were up to 2019. At least the shareholders are happy.

              • reverendz@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                “Think globally, act locally” and other such clever slogans that seemed so logical and made so little impact.

                How about “round up the heads of oil companies and deliver them to a firing squad?”

                Not as much zing to it though.

            • Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Seems odd to say

              And don’t @ me about “100 corporations are responsible for like 90% of emissions”. Who’s buying those corporations’ goods?

              People bringing up the 100 corporations are usually calling for regulations on them, and the “you’re the ones buying the goods” people are usually calling for Personal Responsibility and Voting With Your Wallet.

              • 1stTime4MeInMCU@mander.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s possible to both think those companies should be regulated and that people are doing almost nothing personally to help, including electing people to enact those policies. For most people I talk to the “but 100 corps” is a total deflection of personal responsibility. This crisis will not be solved without a good heaping helping of both personal responsibility and aggressive government regulation. If nothing else because that aggressive regulation will never pass into law unless people acknowledge their personal responsibility and are willing to accept the sacrifices that will come with it.

                • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  In the US, unless you are willing to vote third party, you don’t get the choice to vote for Anti-Capitalist politicians. And there are millions of liberals waiting in line to scold you for not voting for the parties of Capital.

                  • 1stTime4MeInMCU@mander.xyz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago
                    1. Primaries
                    2. Politicians don’t care because the general population doesn’t care. Guarantee if it was on the top of the list of peoples concerns even the corporate shills of the main parties would give it more than just lip service. but climate change didn’t even crack the top 10 voter issue concerns in 2022 midterms (it was 14th)
                  • Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    In the US, 3rd parties effectively don’t exist and you’re throwing away your vote.

                    Vote blue. Remember that Joe Manchin of all people epically played the GOP to get us the IRA. Even corpo shills can advance our cause. Throwaway votes cannot.

                • Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  This crisis will not be solved without a good heaping helping of both personal responsibility and aggressive government regulation.

                  100%. People usually argue for one to the exclusion of the other but we need both.

                  • boonhet@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Only one actually works.

                    You can do personal responsibility alone all you want. Nobody will join you. Government regulation affects everyone.

                    Selling people on personal responsibility is what the oil companies want, because they know it doesn’t work. It gives you the chance to be high and mighty, while nobody else reduces their consumption, so their profits stay the same.

                    Definitely consume less if you can, but don’t delude yourself into thinking that individual actions in reducing personal consumption achieve anything. Go out there and vote for politicians who propose better climate policies, maybe assassinate some oil, gas and coal company execs, etc.

              • DreamerOfImprobableDreams@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Sorry, I’m so used to hanging out in left-of-center places I make the mistake of assuming everyone understands how BS the whole “personal responsibilty” shtick is and is onboard with strict regulations to fight climate change. So I tend not to explicitly call it out in my posts, assuming it goes unsaid. Which might be a bad assumption to make in more centrist / non-explicitly-liberal spaces.

                Will try to be clearer in the future :)

        • BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s almost like our society is car centered, and raising gas prices directly results in worse outcomes for the majority of people. You can’t expect people to just stop using cars, but you can use the state to create massive infrastructure policies paid for wholly by the polluting industries who most heavily profit from our current situation. Use the next decade to build high speed rail, electrified busses and lightrails, subway systems, and other mass transit, and then when gas prices go up, people will have an option other than cutting back on their food to ensure they make it to work every day.

          I replied to the wrong comment in this thread, but if I delete it’ll only delete from my instance, so I’m just gonna leave it.

          • lka1988@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Our society is 100% car centered. My kids’ schools are miles away from my house, my job is miles away, and you cannot convince me to ride a bike or walk when it’s over 100°F outside. Fuck that shit. I’m happy to take public transit, but any public transit available to me isn’t feasible because it would take literally 1.5-2 hours to get to work and back each way, which cuts down severely on my family time. And I can’t work from home either due to the nature of my job, which is maintaining the machines that build microchips.

            • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              1 year ago

              Maybe don’t move somewhere that your job and kids school is hundreds of miles away? My child’s school is down the street, and I can take the subway to work in about 15min. This was a specific choice my wife and I made when we chose to live here.

              • lka1988@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Hundreds of miles? I think you misread. They’re several miles away.

                Also it’s a lot easier said than done to just up and move somewhere more convenient. I don’t have that luxury, and telling me to do so will get you a big fat “go fuck yourself” from me for being so insufferable about it.

                Now move along and go bug someone else with your luxury conveniences.

                • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Your reality is the one that’s grounded in reality.

                  You can’t win, either way. When you move for work or whatever and then say you wish you could see your family and old friends more, you get the same shitty response: well, you didn’t have to choose to move away. Or if you complain that your landlord keeps putting up the rent, you get told, ‘why don’t you just buy’, as if the bank doesn’t just put up the mortgage if it’s even an option. It’s almost like capitalism loves liberal individualism, where every societal fault can be blamed on the individual for not taking better choices.

                • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Oh great, let’s use privilege as a bludgeon to enforce the status quo. This is great and also happens to be indistinguishable from doing nothing.

        • Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          If i could buy none polluting alternatives to anything i currently buy, you can bet your life that i would.

          But i dont have alot of choice.

          I do what i can.

          Maybe ill give it all up and go live in the woods somewhere. Become self sufficient. Maybe the capitalists will notice im gone… or not… probably not.

          • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s a regular liberal trick, to insist on looking at the consumer while the producer laughs at us on their yacht. In the meantime, their managers, agents, lawyers, and accountants work tirelessly to make sure that what they offer, in the form they offer it, are the only options.

            They’ll buy a stake in public transport and run it to the ground so that people are forced to buy and use cars. They’ll drop the prices in their supermarket so the local grocer with local suppliers can’t afford to stay open. They’ll build obsolescence into every product so you have to keep buying new ones, and the old one is thrown into landfill. They’ll campaign against nuclear energy under the guise of green activism, then complain that wind and solar must be backed by fossil fuels. They’ll buy all the newspapers and news channels, ensuring the only narrative is theirs—dog eat dog and the activist down the road is coming for your way of life. They’ll buy the recording studios and reinforce these messages in film, TV, music: that petite bourgeois living is peak aspiration and that ‘there is no alternative’ as if we lack imagination.

            Then the public will continue that good work for them. Condescending all who disagree. Arguing that capitalism isn’t the problem because humans are greedy or any of the other unassailable, facile, and trite logics that we’re forced to hear constantly but which have no grounding in reality.

      • mars296@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I agree with you… It passes people off because their entire life is dependent on fossil fuels. When its been encouraged by society/government for decades and now people have to drive miles to get to the nearest grocery store/point of interest they don’t have an alternative that isn’t uprooting their whole lives.

        If you are going tax gas what it should be taxed, you also need to simultaneously make changes that will help people transition to sustainable alternatives. An amount of people will resist no matter what but you need a carrot to go along with the stick.

      • SSUPII@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Where I live we get one or more times a week 40°C and over days.

        Going from home to work is a 30 minutes drive for me. I drive a 2004 petrol Opel Agila.

        The train requires you to be on-point, otherwise is a 50 minutes wait for the next run. Also, from the main train station to work is a 20 minutes added walk. This is not too bad, but the worst part is doing the walk under the heat we have here during the summer. Good thing it ends up actually being cheaper than driving my Agila, counting a subscription is €30 while I fuel €15 each week.

        The bus is never on-point, always late, always destroyed, always trashy, always overwhelmingly full, skips runs and its not uncommon for it to stop working while you are on it. And you still need the 20 minutes walk. By the way, its too a paid service.

        When I will be able to financially, I want to at least move to a newer electric vehicle or use the train during fall and winter. But at least right now during summer, I just can’t without arriving at work like a bucket of salt water had been thrown at me (as there is little good shade on the way) and we don’t have showers at work.

        Other people might not even have the chance to made this decision, as public services can be even harder to use in some other areas.

      • nexusband@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Everyone has to act and change their Livestyle…

        I “kinda” disagree, because we have a lot of alternatives now. Some are more expensive, some need a bit more work, but the alternatives are there and are coming as well. And little changes can do good things, for example not eating Avocados is something everyone can do. If only 50k people stop eating Avocados, that’s one hell of an impact in the rainforest areas. Because those 50k people don’t eat one Avocado per Month, they eat a lot more (generally). A single Avocado Tree can produce 80-100 Kg per year and generally, avocados are somewhere between 500-900 g. So maybe 120-150 Avocados per year, per tree. Then there’s meat - we don’t have to stop eating it, we have to reduce and it would make a HUGE impact, especially considering Beef from Brazil isn’t even that great, but the rainforest get’s destroyed for it.

        And so on. It even goes so far, that if people still want to drive their gas guzzlers, they can, but they need synthetic fuels which are expensive but 100% carbon neutral. So the Lifestyle does not need changing necessarily - it just needs some adjustments and especially more conscious consumption - especially in those countries, where capitalism is in “full effect” and where we “rich people” actually make impacts with our buying decisions. (Even if they are extremely small, if you tell friends you are doing things different, they may do as well)

        • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Capitalism is in full effect in every country except about five. All those countries that get shit on by capitalism are as much of what capitalism is as those handful of countries (not the above-mentioned five) that prosper from it. It doesn’t work, can’t exist, without both ends of the scale.

    • masquenox@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Politics must hurt them with reforms, taxes, and the rule of law.

      Yeah… that’s how we ended up in this situation. How do you think these giant corporations became so powerful? They “reformed” laws until they could do whatever the hell they please - that’s what “reform” gets you.

        • masquenox@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s really simple… the people with money get to dictate how these “reforms” work - that’s it. It doesn’t matter if you get a Bernie Sanders into a position of power - the “vested interests” will dictate all the little loop holes in the small script that allows for “business as usual” to continue, and that’s if they bother to hide it at all. It’s literally how we ended up in this terrible situation.

          • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Yes, which is why you should hit where you are not expected.

            Which is why statism always works for the stronger side.

            I don’t get why leftists don’t usually understand this. I’m not a leftist, but this should be a very simple conclusion.

            • masquenox@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              I don’t know what kind of “leftists” you have been talking to… the ones I talk to understand this very well. It’s pretty much been the bedrock of anarchist thought for more than a hundred years now.

              • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                I live in Russia so most leftists here are Stalinists in one way or another, or at least Trostkyists, which still means centralism.

                • masquenox@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Stalinists are right-wingers with red flags - there’s nothing leftist about them at all. Trots are barely any better. People forget that leftist ideas are popular - that is why there are so many political racketeers in the world pretending to buy into those ideas while actively distorting the same ideas to suit their political agenda. Even old Adolf did it - but no-one is as guilty as the charlatans that ran the USSR and is currently running the PRC. The USSR was about as “socialist” as the US is “democratic” - ie, their (respective) “socialism” and “democracy” only exists in the minds of propagandists.

                  • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    USSR was “democratic” too ; still much less than USA.

                    I may agree about Stalinists, at least modern ones. Some of the older generation may mix it with actual Marxism.

              • Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s pretty much been the bedrock of anarchist thought for more than a hundred years now.

                And anarchists are a rounding error, numerically. You’re in a bubble.

    • Licherally@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Politicians love their bribes more than they love the planet, so that’s probably not going to happen. Dems and cons both

        • Licherally@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          You read a comment from a person criticizing the current government for being self motivated and taking bribes under a story about climate change and how we’re all fucked and you thought this was a centrist comment?

          • Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            The fediverse is an interesting place with both right wing and tankie shills as well as “enlightened centrists” (which in the US is mostly right wing apologists with window dressing). All are idiots, or propagandists. I like calling them all out.

            I believe in left of center regulated capitalism with a strong social security net, personally. I’m a fan of Clinton, Biden, Gavin Newsom, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, though I have major disagreements with all of them on some issues. I believe authoritarianism is morally wrong and I believe anarchism is a foolish idea. I’m not as familiar with the specific policy positions of non US politicians but I generally agree with the western European and Scandinavian approaches to government, with the exception of the surveillance state. In a very broad sense my ideal state would take that model, make having an educated population the #1 priority, and inject a healthy level of American “the ultimate power resides with the people, who should have the means to overthrow a corrupt government if necessary”.

            I think with a hefty dose of appropriate regulation, capitalism can solve the great majority of societal ills in the world.

            I think a strong Western military is a necessity and I think the Pax Americana is an excellent thing for the world.

            I think taking action within the current democratic system is far more effective than dreaming about some revolution.

            I think the way out of our current mess is to VOTE and push candidates further left.

            For an example of a position I can respect but ultimately disagree with, the idea that we should ban guns to save lives. It’s a reasonable position to take. I just think it’s not worth it, but I wouldn’t call anyone supporting it an idiot.

            • Snorf@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m all in on all of this. But I’m not very confident that necessary change can be made through our (US) democracy. I’m losing faith in our government almost daily.

    • albigu@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Malcolm X has an old speech which applies very well to this issue as well. Too bad you can’t vote for him anymore.

    • Zippy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Ya right. When has prices went over 5 dollars a gallon in the US, people there list their minds. God forbid we should drive a bit less or consume less.

      This is a consumer problem not big oil. The second biggest company in the world by revenue and by far the largest by profit is Saudi Aramco. And why are they so big and countries like Russia are energy giants? Because we are tax and regulated our oil companies significantly more while increasing our consumption. Instead of buying locally, we are now buying from countries like Russia and Saudia Arabia. Look how that is working out.