[POLITICS] Police Officer says Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez 'should be shot'

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

hanselthecaretaker:
The only other alternative is for people to stop buying and using so much shit, and good luck with that. The cat?s out of the bag and even ?clean? energy won?t make a big enough dent in the strain on resources that reckless human ambition has created. Unless we somehow figure out how to recycle damn near everything.

Don't imagine for a second that these problems are unfixable. We are not lacking the technology, or the capability, or the resources to combat pollution, waste, climate change and habitat destruction.

We are lacking the political will, and the awareness.

Silvanus:

hanselthecaretaker:
The only other alternative is for people to stop buying and using so much shit, and good luck with that. The cat?s out of the bag and even ?clean? energy won?t make a big enough dent in the strain on resources that reckless human ambition has created. Unless we somehow figure out how to recycle damn near everything.

Don't imagine for a second that these problems are unfixable. We are not lacking the technology, or the capability, or the resources to combat pollution, waste, climate change and habitat destruction.

We are lacking the political will, and the awareness.

TBH, I think even those who deny it is a problem are fully aware, they are just liars or are so self centered they simply do not care how it will affect others because they think they have enough wealth to move and survive whatever so they choose their greed over doing anything about it.

Sadly, at this point I think they are just too greedy to care is a bigger part of the problem.

Lil devils x:
TBH, I think even those who deny it is a problem are fully aware, they are just liars or are so self centered they simply do not care how it will affect others because they think they have enough wealth to move and survive whatever so they choose their greed over doing anything about it.

Yes and no, I tend to believe that a lot of them don't know it's a problem, in the same way as the prominent Nazi technocrat Albert Speer didn't know about the Holocaust, because he made sure not to know. They aren't lying when they tell people that they don't think it's a problem, they do lie to themselves first.

Not all of them, of course, a lot just don't care, but how many are which, and how many are in-between I can't say.

Thaluikhain:

Lil devils x:
TBH, I think even those who deny it is a problem are fully aware, they are just liars or are so self centered they simply do not care how it will affect others because they think they have enough wealth to move and survive whatever so they choose their greed over doing anything about it.

Yes and no, I tend to believe that a lot of them don't know it's a problem, in the same way as the prominent Nazi technocrat Albert Speer didn't know about the Holocaust, because he made sure not to know. They aren't lying when they tell people that they don't think it's a problem, they do lie to themselves first.

Not all of them, of course, a lot just don't care, but how many are which, and how many are in-between I can't say.

How could they not know it is a problem? Not in In the US at least. It is part of mandatory education even in Republican States such as Texas we are taught from Kindergarten all the way up every single year about the effects of humankind on the environment, the mass extinction we are experiencing, How all the large animals may disappear within our lifetime, the great Pacific Garbage Patch and all the plastic in our oceans and the animals within, the incredible amount of pollution and how the poles are melting faster than ever due to all the chemicals and gasses we are pumping into our atmosphere. We did projects on the effects of our chemicals on our Ozone layer. In elementary school, they took us on field trips to plant trees and wildflowers and teach us about which plants filter which chemicals out of the air. We participated in fundraisers to save animals from extinction and clean up and reduce pollution as part of our school projects. These things are part of our mandatory education and have been for a very long time now. You cannot even pass elementary school, graduate middle school or high school without being able to answer these questions accurately, so how can they claim not to know about it? That doesn't even make sense to me.

I know for a fact this has been a serious topic of concern at the indigenous people's conferences and the tribes all over the world are very aware and concerned and have been making efforts to work towards solutions so even in the most remote areas, this is well known.

Even in Ethiopia they just planted 350 Million trees in a day to try to combat climate change, so they seem to know about it:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-49266983
and Kenya is to plant a million trees this year:
https://www.africa.com/kenyan-scouts-to-plant-1-million-trees-in-2019/
India planted 220 Million Trees in a day:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-change-india-plants-220-million-trees-in-a-single-day-to-save-the-planet/

I honestly cannot fathom how the remote regions of the earth know about this, but the wealthy and educated in developed nations could be oblivious to it. Do you know of any schools anywhere on the planet that haven't been teaching about this for decades now? Where this isn't seen on the news non stop? At this point they really have to be choosing to ignore it to feed their own greed.

hanselthecaretaker:

Nedoras:

hanselthecaretaker:

Environmental justice is a combination of environmentalism and social justice which means we should make sure that what pollution is left (landfills, dirty factories, etc.) are spread evenly throughout our communities rather than concentrated into poor neighborhoods. While this seems eminently fair and noble, land is cheaper in poorer areas, so when we move factories and landfills to higher-priced neighborhoods, we raise their costs, meaning we all must pay higher prices or higher taxes (or both).

It?s basic economics from a pragmatic standpoint. Would you want to pay a premium on a property that was sitting next to a landfill? Or should we just spread the crap around so there are simply be no desirable properties available?

The guy is literally saying it's better for the poor to live in heavily polluted areas. My point in bringing that up isn't that I want landfills to be evenly spread across the country. It was to show how fucking absurd he was being. That entire article was laughable. The entire premise was arguing that the poor have it bad, but they have to have it bad, because that's the way it is and we can't change things. The end of the article was fucking sickening too. "I like saving the world just fine, but I would rather help a poor person afford to feed her family than reduce the global temperature one hundred years from now by a miniscule amount." What a fucking worm. He doesn't give a single fuck about the environment or poor people, and said so over and over throughout the damn piece. It was anti-intellectual dogshit.

He ?literally? just made a fact-of-the-matter statement based on economic realities. Should he have said, ?Instead of dumping more trash and building more landfills in poor neighborhoods, we should really start redistributing it to wealthy neighborhoods, because god knows they can afford it more.?? That doesn?t really sound any less absurd. You seem to be wanting an ideal solution, but the problem is we don?t live in an ideal world by any means.

If we are aiming for there to be less pollution and garbage-filled landfills and oceans, then people need to start coming to grips with the elephant in the room and acknowledge the need for population awareness and control. The only other alternative is for people to stop buying and using so much shit, and good luck with that. The cat?s out of the bag and even ?clean? energy won?t make a big enough dent in the strain on resources that reckless human ambition has created. Unless we somehow figure out how to recycle damn near everything.

What economic reality? He said that people's taxes would be raised, but that isn't a fact. You pointed out that wealthy people wouldn't pay a premium on a nice house next to a landfill, which I think is the actual reason. He didn't make a point, he made a shitty argument that it's okay for poor people to breathe in pollution because taxes might go up maybe. Then at the end of the article he laughed off the notion of climate change, as if he even gave a shit about any of this at all. No, he shouldn't have made the argument period, as it was incredibly ridiculous.

I know that truly ideal solutions are almost impossible at this point. But I want better solutions than what's being proposed by a lot of lawmakers now, which are just bandaids being put on a gunshot wound. Better solutions are possible, it's just going to be met with a stupid amount of pushback in the same way that a single payer system currently is here in the States. Doesn't mean that we can't try though, considering the consequences.

What do you mean by population awareness and control? People buying and using things isn't the main problem. The individual impact on these things is nothing compared to the corporate and governmental impact on it. That reckless human "ambition" is just striving for stupid amounts of ever growing wealth with not a single care for the consequences. That CAN be solved. That same amount of ambition can be used to push for and fix these problems, it just isn't. Instead we're told it can't be done and these fucks are allowed to keep destroying the planet. Because, ya know, it's not immediately profitable or profitable at all to fix things. I understand none of this is easy to fix, and that it isn't just one thing either. A hell of a lot needs to be done and even though I fully believe it can be, plenty is already set so firmly in place that it's going to take way too long. Some of which is highlighted in the article you linked. But we still need to try and pretty much nothing is being done at the moment. Hell, the current administration is trying to actively make things worse.

Nedoras:

hanselthecaretaker:

Nedoras:

The guy is literally saying it's better for the poor to live in heavily polluted areas. My point in bringing that up isn't that I want landfills to be evenly spread across the country. It was to show how fucking absurd he was being. That entire article was laughable. The entire premise was arguing that the poor have it bad, but they have to have it bad, because that's the way it is and we can't change things. The end of the article was fucking sickening too. "I like saving the world just fine, but I would rather help a poor person afford to feed her family than reduce the global temperature one hundred years from now by a miniscule amount." What a fucking worm. He doesn't give a single fuck about the environment or poor people, and said so over and over throughout the damn piece. It was anti-intellectual dogshit.

He ?literally? just made a fact-of-the-matter statement based on economic realities. Should he have said, ?Instead of dumping more trash and building more landfills in poor neighborhoods, we should really start redistributing it to wealthy neighborhoods, because god knows they can afford it more.?? That doesn?t really sound any less absurd. You seem to be wanting an ideal solution, but the problem is we don?t live in an ideal world by any means.

If we are aiming for there to be less pollution and garbage-filled landfills and oceans, then people need to start coming to grips with the elephant in the room and acknowledge the need for population awareness and control. The only other alternative is for people to stop buying and using so much shit, and good luck with that. The cat?s out of the bag and even ?clean? energy won?t make a big enough dent in the strain on resources that reckless human ambition has created. Unless we somehow figure out how to recycle damn near everything.

What economic reality? He said that people's taxes would be raised, but that isn't a fact. You pointed out that wealthy people wouldn't pay a premium on a nice house next to a landfill, which I think is the actual reason. He didn't make a point, he made a shitty argument that it's okay for poor people to breathe in pollution because taxes might go up maybe. Then at the end of the article he laughed off the notion of climate change, as if he even gave a shit about any of this at all. No, he shouldn't have made the argument period, as it was incredibly ridiculous.

I know that truly ideal solutions are almost impossible at this point. But I want better solutions than what's being proposed by a lot of lawmakers now, which are just bandaids being put on a gunshot wound. Better solutions are possible, it's just going to be met with a stupid amount of pushback in the same way that a single payer system currently is here in the States. Doesn't mean that we can't try though, considering the consequences.

What do you mean by population awareness and control? People buying and using things isn't the main problem. The individual impact on these things is nothing compared to the corporate and governmental impact on it. That reckless human "ambition" is just striving for stupid amounts of ever growing wealth with not a single care for the consequences. That CAN be solved. That same amount of ambition can be used to push for and fix these problems, it just isn't. Instead we're told it can't be done and these fucks are allowed to keep destroying the planet. Because, ya know, it's not immediately profitable or profitable at all. I understand none of this is easy to fix, and that it isn't just one thing either. A hell of a lot needs to be done and even though I fully believe it can be, plenty is already set so firmly in place that it's going to take way too long. Some of which is highlighted in the article you linked. But we still need to try and pretty much nothing is being done at the moment. Hell, the current administration is trying to actively make things worse.

Yes the very premise that someone has to live next to a landfill and that someone has to live in a polluted environment in the first place is completely and utterly false. No one should be forced to live next to toxic chemicals, and a clean, safe environment should never be considered "just reserved for the wealthy" and I have no idea why anyone would think it would be. They need to clean that shit up and if that area is too badly damaged to do so in a timely manner, then they need to relocate the people there to a livable environment as part of "maintaining the general welfare of the people" as is the duty of the federal government at the tax payer's expense due to the government allowing the general welfare of the people to be violated in the first place with the pollutants. They need to solve the problems and if they fail to do so they are failing in their duties to protect the people.

I have never understood this mindset that it is somehow okay to force other people to suffer because "someone has to" . No, no they do not and there is no excuse for thinking they do or being willing to turn a blind eye to it in the first place. I am seriously trying to figure out why they think that it is okay to make anyone live in such an environment to begin with or that they think they do not have to figure disposal/ recycling into the cost to produce things in the first place. Why should they profit billions meanwhile leaving tax payers with the bill to clean up the mess from the products they made? The bill to clean the mess up needs to go to those who are profiting from the products that are making the mess. Under no circumstances should the wealthy be able to keep the profits and then go make others live in the filth from the products that brought them the profits in the first place.

Nedoras:

hanselthecaretaker:

Nedoras:

The guy is literally saying it's better for the poor to live in heavily polluted areas. My point in bringing that up isn't that I want landfills to be evenly spread across the country. It was to show how fucking absurd he was being. That entire article was laughable. The entire premise was arguing that the poor have it bad, but they have to have it bad, because that's the way it is and we can't change things. The end of the article was fucking sickening too. "I like saving the world just fine, but I would rather help a poor person afford to feed her family than reduce the global temperature one hundred years from now by a miniscule amount." What a fucking worm. He doesn't give a single fuck about the environment or poor people, and said so over and over throughout the damn piece. It was anti-intellectual dogshit.

He ?literally? just made a fact-of-the-matter statement based on economic realities. Should he have said, ?Instead of dumping more trash and building more landfills in poor neighborhoods, we should really start redistributing it to wealthy neighborhoods, because god knows they can afford it more.?? That doesn?t really sound any less absurd. You seem to be wanting an ideal solution, but the problem is we don?t live in an ideal world by any means.

If we are aiming for there to be less pollution and garbage-filled landfills and oceans, then people need to start coming to grips with the elephant in the room and acknowledge the need for population awareness and control. The only other alternative is for people to stop buying and using so much shit, and good luck with that. The cat?s out of the bag and even ?clean? energy won?t make a big enough dent in the strain on resources that reckless human ambition has created. Unless we somehow figure out how to recycle damn near everything.

What economic reality? He said that people's taxes would be raised, but that isn't a fact. You pointed out that wealthy people wouldn't pay a premium on a nice house next to a landfill, which I think is the actual reason. He didn't make a point, he made a shitty argument that it's okay for poor people to breathe in pollution because taxes might go up maybe. Then at the end of the article he laughed off the notion of climate change, as if he even gave a shit about any of this at all. No, he shouldn't have made the argument period, as it was incredibly ridiculous.

I know that truly ideal solutions are almost impossible at this point. But I want better solutions than what's being proposed by a lot of lawmakers now, which are just bandaids being put on a gunshot wound. Better solutions are possible, it's just going to be met with a stupid amount of pushback in the same way that a single payer system currently is here in the States. Doesn't mean that we can't try though, considering the consequences.

What do you mean by population awareness and control? People buying and using things isn't the main problem. The individual impact on these things is nothing compared to the corporate and governmental impact on it. That reckless human "ambition" is just striving for stupid amounts of ever growing wealth with not a single care for the consequences. That CAN be solved. That same amount of ambition can be used to push for and fix these problems, it just isn't. Instead we're told it can't be done and these fucks are allowed to keep destroying the planet. Because, ya know, it's not immediately profitable or profitable at all to fix things. I understand none of this is easy to fix, and that it isn't just one thing either. A hell of a lot needs to be done and even though I fully believe it can be, plenty is already set so firmly in place that it's going to take way too long. Some of which is highlighted in the article you linked. But we still need to try and pretty much nothing is being done at the moment. Hell, the current administration is trying to actively make things worse.

It's pretty much a never ending cycle, and makes me think humanity is cursed. It's a flaw of human nature to want the shiny precious, and it typically takes a disaster or catastrophic downfall to realize our arrogance and careless failures. Opposite of paying it forward. "Fucking it forward" mostly.

I'd like to think a lot is possible to correct, but it almost has to be done sans political anything. People have an innate tendency get too easily hung up on that because for some reason so much of their identity is wrapped up in it, and they don't like it feeling threatened. Just look at the arguing that goes on on this one site of many.

Reworking education would be a good starting point, but it also starts with the family and we all know how increasingly messed up those seem to have gotten. Chicken>egg>scrambled. Everything happens incrementally, but how to get say, 90% on roughly the same page without all these split up ideologies is the big end game question. If we think of the how and why there are so many in the first place, it was an issue of geography and lack of common knowledge. We mostly don't have that excuse anymore due to advances in communication and travel, but the legacy effect of what each pocket of civilization has learned will continue for possibly hundreds of years yet.

So we play the waiting game - and it will either be a very long one or back to the catastrophe comment above, a much shorter one - then hope/try to lead the largest amount of people to somewhat of a eutopia. Ideally we won't have to start from scratch again. With the kinds of weapons we now have, let's hope we've learned enough to avoid a global reboot of civilization.

Lil devils x:
How could they not know it is a problem?

A lot of heads in the sand and blind eyes, I guess. I tend to believe that Albert Speer and half the Third Reich didn't know about the Holocaust, because they chose not to. Something big and scary they'd have to face up to and weren't able to personally do anything about was going on, so they (consciously or not) avoiding looking at things they knew might lead to having to ask questions.

Nowdays, people might well acknowledge and admit that forests are going, species are dying out, the planet is getting warmer in a vague, general way, one of any number of problems that doesn't affect them in direct and immediate ways. Sure, lefties and greenies and the like make a big fuss, but then they do that. Squint your brain and it looks like a big over-reaction.

It requires some mental gymnastics, but it doesn't (IMHO) require consciously deciding to lie. Not to say that there aren't those doing that.

Thaluikhain:

Lil devils x:
How could they not know it is a problem?

A lot of heads in the sand and blind eyes, I guess. I tend to believe that Albert Speer and half the Third Reich didn't know about the Holocaust, because they chose not to. Something big and scary they'd have to face up to and weren't able to personally do anything about was going on, so they (consciously or not) avoiding looking at things they knew might lead to having to ask questions.

Nowdays, people might well acknowledge and admit that forests are going, species are dying out, the planet is getting warmer in a vague, general way, one of any number of problems that doesn't affect them in direct and immediate ways. Sure, lefties and greenies and the like make a big fuss, but then they do that. Squint your brain and it looks like a big over-reaction.

It requires some mental gymnastics, but it doesn't (IMHO) require consciously deciding to lie. Not to say that there aren't those doing that.

Isn't that just lying to themselves to see facts and try to tell themselves it isn't real though?

Lil devils x:
Isn't that just lying to themselves to see facts and try to tell themselves it isn't real though?

I would say there's a distinction, but it's a subtle one. The results are much the same, though.

OTOH, it's rather different to lying to everyone else because there's profit involved.

Thaluikhain:

Lil devils x:
Isn't that just lying to themselves to see facts and try to tell themselves it isn't real though?

I would say there's a distinction, but it's a subtle one. The results are much the same, though.

OTOH, it's rather different to lying to everyone else because there's profit involved.

Profit, greed, self centeredness, laziness, unwillingness to change because they enjoy their lifestyle and refuse to consider anyone else... IS there a difference in the end really?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here