How do y’all cope with this
I struggle every day with the thought that the corporate noose tightening around all of our necks will not be solved unless we as a society begin to provide some real … ‘mortal incentive’ to the oligarchs of the world. No way I could ever do it myself, but I understand the need for it now more than ever.
Normally I’m a solutions guy. I shouldn’t be coming up with this as a solution for the issues of the world right now, but it’s gotten so egregious that the systems we’ve put in place FOR THE PEOPLE are not working for the people any longer.Threat of force is a solution.
It’s basically what the police exist to do - behave the way we want, or we’ll send someone with a gun to take your money, property, freedom, or life.
All authority is derived from the monopolization of violence.
Intellectual authority? Moral authority? I’m not sure it’s quite that clear-cut.
Those are subjective, it is indeed that clear cut. Authority is derived by power over others, now try to exert your authority over someone without violence.
Ohhh - “I’m right if you ignore counter-factual examples and other commonly used definitions in favour of my hyper-specific definition.”
Sure - if we dismiss examples where authority isn’t derived from violence, you’re correct. Congratulations.
What factual example are you referring to aside from the ones I directly referenced in my argument.
So explain it. You’re the intellectual authority on the matter, now exert this authority without violence. Go on, I’ll wait.
You’ve deferred to me as the authority on this matter. I’m correct without the need to use force.
Examples such as being an intellectual or moral authority don’t rely on force. I’ll defer to the intellectual authority that is the Oxford English Dictionary on this one, and point out you’re definitionally wrong.
In either instance, these authorities aren’t maintained by force, only the fact that people view them as the authority. Denying said authority isn’t going to see the dictionary police come and drag you away - people will just think you’re kinda dumb.
the systems we’ve put in place FOR THE PEOPLE
lol, no (or to be more accurate - which people?)
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/08/22/american-democracy-was-never-designed-to-be-democratic
https://libcom.org/article/capitalist-democracy-illusion-choiceYes. Why else would you let women vote? /s
You probably think this doesn’t apply to you, but conveniently enough it both address your poor “joke”, and your reply bellow about voting - none of your rights were “given” to you either, and “letting” you vote, as someone has already pointed out to you (and as is broken down in the links I shared that you clearly didn’t bother reading), a distraction and an illusion of choice to make sure the current power structure (which you are at the very bottom of), remains.
Maybe instead of being a wilfully ignorant smart ass, try actually educating yourself some?I agree with you about the lock-in, that’s the joke. The /s was there to indicate that I don’t support women voting just because it is powerless. How else do you interpret it?
I disagree that voters are powerless. Being focused on resolving gerrymandering and such isn’t helpful. Even with gerrymandering, voters can change things. But they cannot do that as dispersed voters. More in the other comment.
It’s not like they’re giving us much choice
In a world with private armies, how do you want to threaten oligarchs?
Stop struggling, start supporting a platform in your favorite party that makes the necessary changes.
Voting is snake oil that keeps a disenfranchised nation from resorting to violence. You’re mad now, so vote for this person who will change things in 30-40 years…maybe…if you’re lucky…if the system lets them…oh sorry we couldn’t do it…maybe you should vote more…
When these people are holding the American populace under water, we don’t have the time to wait to file a petition of grievances.
Violence gets things done that voting won’t. Nothing in American politics has changed without it.
Then hurry up with riots because drones are coming.
You don’t have to wait to affect change with votes. Politicians are traders of power. They will implement your request now if it secures their reelection.
Voting is only snake oil because voters are complicit. If you reduce resource usage to sustainable levels, quality of life will go down massively. Voters know and don’t want that. Blaming billionaires is an excuse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig
This is why voting is snake oil.
And fuck, this is only 1 TINY video on the topic. There’s a whole iceberg of other reasons why voting is ineffective. FPtP, etc…
And I’m also not talking about “resource usage” either. I’m talking about wealth-inequality.
It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. Voters don’t affect change because there is no influence. Create a voting block and offer votes for dedicated policy changes and you will get the change that you want.
They will implement your request now if it secures their reelection.
Looks at the entirety of modern history and lmmfao… 🤣
Also
Voting is only snake oil because voters are complicit
yes, yes you are…
https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/10/14/liberalism-and-fascism-partners-in-crime/
Where in modern history have voters influenced politicians like lobbyists? That’s what has to happen to get results.
You are right about the danger of enabling fascists. But insulting me shouldn’t be your refutation of the problem that voters benefit from the current situation.
Letting voters take responsibility is very difficult because it requires voters to see the details and their own faults. That doesn’t justify the need for establishing a socialist elite. It just shows that it will take more effort than people are currently willing to invest.
Looks at the entirety of modern history and lmmfao… 🤣
I mean, yeah, exactly, look at modern history… People keep complaining about politicians doing nothing, and everywhere you go people complain about how politicians do nothing, and yet those same politicians keep winning elections.
It’s literally a meme in my country that every one complains about how corrupt, nepotist, mismanaged, and just bad the leading party is, but how they keep winning anyway. The excuse is usually “the other parties are all too extremist”, even when one of those parties are basically the same as the leading party except: so far they have no instances of corruption; they have a very big focus on environmentalism, which is their main platform. And also, guess what? They’re the smallest party in parliament, with just 1 member. The second smallest, but with also 1 member, is a more centrist but also mostly environmentally driven party.
For reference, there are 8 parties in parliament right now (before the last elections there were 9), and since we’ve been a democracy only 2 of those have ever won elections. We’ve had 16 elections, and 2 parties are 10 to 6. The one with 10 is currently in power after winning with over 50% of votes. And everywhere people keep complaining about them, and you hear scandals and see ministers resigning every other week, and our forests burn every summer, and living costs keep rising, cities are getting too expensive for our citizens, and so on. And so the meme lives on.
This isn’t some invisible force casting those votes, it’s the people. It’s the people who cast all those votes, and it’s also the people who, by the way, made the far right party the third-biggest party in parliament in the last elections.
So yes, please do look at modern history, and understand that for the most part people are getting what they voted for. If you want politicians to act different, vote for different politicians, which is what the other user is saying.
Voting is snake oil, but it’s snake oil because the majority of people stop it from actually working.
Liberals believe in the invisible hand that will redistribute wealth and regulate the economy; people like you believe in an invisible hand that is responsible for all of the world’s problems, when the reality is that people hold most of the power, but the majority are either complacent, or actively working to keep things the way they are.
Same way you deal with commanders in chief of real armies - just ask JFK… or any of these guys for that matter.
Asymmetrical class warfare - particularly when you have the benefit of overwhelming numerical superiority while being dispersed through the broad population is devastatingly effective. There’s a reason the best funded military in the world is consistently drawn into quagmires with villagers brandishing soviet-era small arms and improvised explosives.
Have you ignored the part about drones in my comment?
Look up why South Vietnam failed. Watch the training videos of the Afghan army. There was no will to win, for whatever reason.
If you have overwhelming numerical superiority, you don’t need war, you can vote.
Have you ignored the part about drones in my comment?
No - because it was posted after my comment in a different thread - I’m not reviewing your entire post history before responding, let alone travelling through time to do so. If you’re going to be snide, be less stupid about it please.
The Viet Cong and Taliban tied up the US army for decades, costing them trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives. You don’t need military superiority to pose a mortal or financial threat to billionaires.
Sorry, my fault. I thought you were replying there. I will try to be less stupid.
JFK and the other politicians are no billionaires.
The Viet Cong and Taliban made billionaires. The tax payers had to pay.
Now add the drones that can do a JFK on every rebellion leader.
I think it is easier to use votes to solve problems.
JFK and the other politicians are no billionaires.
Correct, but JFK didn’t have a paltry security detail - he had the protection of the entire US defence and intelligence apparatus, and how effective was that against one man and his rifle? The others are variations in the same theme, some more relevant than others.
The Viet Cong and Taliban made billionaires. The tax payers had to pay.
They also used their meagre resources to cause massive problems and expense for the US.
The point of all this is that all the money in the world only grants these people limited protections.
I strongly favour democratic solutions where they’re available (revolution without sustainable preparation is where communist regimes turn autocratic almost every time), but understand the democracy-breaking political influence billionaires are able to buy. If a couple of your Kochs and Murdochs start meeting grisly ends, the rest of their ilk might get the message, stand aside and let democracy run its course for once.
Did we have drones in afghanistan? Because the US sure did have trouble there. How many people are in Afghanistan? How many are in the US?
Afghanistan was pre-chatGPT. We are not there yet but soon, drones will operate automatically. Numbers won’t matter.
There isn’t a party leader that is interested in making any real changes that don’t happen within their term. They’re not motivated to be the best person for the world as a whole and really they’re motivated by the short term and re-election.
Use that. Organize and offer the votes for their reelection.
Blowing up fossil fuel infrastructure is a moronic idea that’ll create an environmental disaster worse than the infrastructure existing. Instead, sabotage it so that it stops flowing.
Good point, way less environmental damage to do something about the execs and billionaires in this world
Right?! All the dumbfucks talking about blowing up pipelines want to trade one environmental disaster for another. Its pathetically misguided.
How about a foreign fossil fuel infrastructure first?
-Your friendly neighborhood CIA agent
/s
Hey got any fun terror plans I can hop in on? Just text me the address and I’m there.
-Your friendly neighborhood FBI informant.
Oh wait, we already did that last year
-Your friendly neighborhood CIA agent
Are you morally obligated or are you ethically obligated? Or is it both?
I’m just here to blow shit up tbh
Are you morally obligated or are you ethically obligated? Or is it both?
MOBA, not Nuke. Same effect without the radiation.
difference?
Ethics refer to a set of rules provided by an external source. I think this is 100% a moral obligation to blow shit up.
I would say ethics doesn’t really make sense unless there is some sort of rulebook calling for this that I’m not aware of. Because I’d say moral-but-not-ethical is doing what’s right even if it’s against the rules/expectations that apply to you (particularly in a professional capacity, and even then there are different contexts like company policy vs wider ethics).
There are two wolves inside me
One wants to discuss the moral obligation to commit acts of sabotage against fossil fuels infrastructure that is killing the planet
The other wants to have good opsec and not possibly incriminate myself for future actions I may or may not be involved in by posting
Disclaimer for any feds reading this: I am a clown and everything I do/say/post is hypothetical and/or for comedy only
If you blew up fossil fuel infrastructure, you’d go to jail. The US blew up Nord Stream, nothing happened. We truly live in a society
Removed by mod
A US vassal. Same thing.
Honestly reading that I don’t see how you can’t conclude that at the very least it was Ukrainians with CIA backing. It was a very sophisticated attack, and yet somehow they did it “without the knowledge of the leadership in Kyiv.”
It wasn’t the US, though.
Yes it was. https://archive.ph/jaqOv
This is garbage.
Blowing it up will not stop them as they’d just rebuild. More pollution in the process.
they’d just rebuild
that’s why you have to kill the people in charge as well.
Yeah, I assume there’s gotta be a better way. Like clogging it beyond repair (shut off+completely solidified), siphoning operations (assuming a spill isn’t caused)… And in either case, converting it into something less bad and/or storing the carbon in a stable manner.
(Although even rebuilding from what I see may be at least $1M-$2M per mile, they sure have the money but it’s not insignificant either)
Run for office(or help someone) and make changes.
Ah yes, in 50 years we can make a real difference! If even that due to our flawed (FPtP) voting system and money in politics. We should give it a try though, as I don’t think anyone has ever tried it before. Particularly as I assume these sorts of problems became known just this year… because otherwise we would’ve fixed them with our caring, functional, and proactive government ((/s))
deleted by creator
Find the substation powering a section of pipeline?
Come on, if the Russians/Americans/Ukrainians can blow up the 1st Nordstrom pipeline, and scare both Germany and Russia from starting the other pipeline, why not? /s
Jokes aside though, who knows what will happen if someone holds up some oil dock workers at gunpoint and orders them to stop the flow of oil and scatter.
One can essentially sanction the world en masse, with just a dozen people
Plus, if that gunman or gunmen can hold the infrastructure as a shield from the resulting police and military, it can used as a negotiation tool with them temporarily, or if things go to shit, they will otherwise just show the ruthlessness and brutality of the state apparatus in using drone strikes etc…
Going after critical national infrastructure like that will get you 5 GTA stars and the national guard on your ass in minutes.
If they hit their own balls, in trying to wipe the infrastructure hostage-taker out, that’s their problem (see: MOVE bombings of 1985)
As the situation worsens it’s only a matter of time before rampant eco-terrorism, if we’re not all too busy dying in water wars of course.
at least we won’t be drowning in them
If you start being a nudist then they have too see you naked when they spy on you.
Shower with your grandpa Morty
Just killing billionaires is probably the best option
Can we run a Go Fund Me to hire a hitman?
Flash mob might work better.
A muzzle flash mob, if you will…
Sorry, I’ll show myself out lol
Send in The Guard, and their flashlights!
Justices that pass down shitty decisions should be pretty high up there too.
It’s easily what has the most direct effect on our political landscape.
I heard they protect the pipelines near places where it’s easy to access and they know pretty quickly where the break happened so they can find you. It’s quite difficult to actually figure out how to blow up a pipeline and not immediately get arrested.
There are thousands of miles of pipeline, Im not so sure.
For all their bluster, did the FBI ever find the guy(s) who shot up the substation in south carolina last year? No it isn’t a pipeline, and it was attacked for dumbass rightoid reasons, but… did they ever find who did it?
Yeah but they’re in the boonies. So if you go out there in a Jeep with your buddies and blow a pipeline they know where to look. It’s not that it’s 100% secure it’s that it’s secure against a lot of smaller acts of violence.
Nah, they just find the broken bits of a kamakazie drone.
I’ve looped around to sadomasochism.
Destroy the world! Kill us all! Burn me more daddy!!! 👐 😩 💦
Posadist
deleted by creator
Posadas was a fucking Trotskyist 😠
Same thoughts, my mind even came up with a good plan. Drones equipped with remote activated termite pots. It melts through steel easily and fossil fuels burn. You can do this from a distance and it uses cheap available materials. I don’t have the guts to do it though… So it remains an Idea.
Thermite pots? Or maybe scary GM termites
thermite, yes
I also read that as termite pots and thought @mangoholic was going to follow that up with a pot of spiders.
If the us and China had a nuclear war the planet might survive.
We will. Cancer is only a problem if you don’t have Moderna’s cancer treatment.
The bigger problem is managing supply chains when China is gone.
How do I cope? Video games that let me blow up infrastructure.
I want to play them. Which ones?
Very nice. Thank you :)
Just cause 3 & 4 were very, very good
I played both. Right up there with Tomb Raider as my favourite franchise :)
