It’s just shallow and disappointing.
Your idea of what politics is about has to be bigger than shitposting and trolling.
They are both carbon-based life forms. Which means that at a psychological level they’re probably identical. And there’s probably no difference whatsoever between the respective nations cultures, economic or political conditions, or their respective geopolitical interests.
If they’re living breathing creatures, and they both rely on carbon to form complex molecules that make up their bodies, it naturally follows that their countries have identical geopolitical alliances.
Agian I ask of Trudeau made the same claim, or the Prime Minister of New Zeeland, would you be making the same argument
Wouldn’t that depend on their particular geopolitical interests, which could be entirely different from those of Russia?
I feel like these questions are so absurd sometimes not because an answer is being sought but because it succeeds at the goal of degrading the quality of conversation.
Exactly. Putin is really concerned about student loan debt.
He says he wants blue team to win in 2024, but we are blue team and we hate him!
Well we’re off to an awfully bad start because this is about the shallowest bad faith caricature I could possibly imagine. Let’s put it this way:
I’m not even 100% saying I’m right, but every step of this is perfectly reasonable, it doesn’t rely on any outlandish assumptions, and communication about this isn’t helped by mocking people with bad faith caricatures and performative incredulity.
or escalate the war.
This seems to run contrary to everything I’ve read about Trump’s position. The first half of what you said is at least somewhat accurate. But the second half is contradicted by numerous reports from Trump that his approach would have been to “take a deal” and get out, implicitly with substantial land concessions from Ukraine. And then there’s the fact that both of them have profess to having positive relationships with one another and admiring one another.
It can be both - a terrible amoral system that concentrates wealth to the point that major world events are driven by wildcard personalities of rich idiots. And then, the rich idiots themselves.
(Psst it’s not actually the socratic method)
I don’t think so? The Socratic method wasn’t necessarily a strategy intended to carefully persuade someone by bypassing psychological blockers. If anything, Socrates’ counterparts were often antagonized and angered by his questions because he exposed contradictions.
I think the ethos behind it was that Socrates presumed he knew nothing, other people seemed like they knew things, so he asked them what they knew, since others were so bold as to make knowledge claims.
I just logged in to two smaller instances where I have accounts, anticapitalist.party and mastodon.xyz. I found them in one step and I could see their posts and replies on both of them.
Because even for me, a full time systems coder, just figuring out what server to join was a pain
What was there to figure out in your case?
I couldn’t just find you by searching for p03locke, I’d have to search for @p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com.
I literally just searched “p03locke” from mastodon.social and found them in one step.
Right, and to your point, part of that is stymieing focused, direct action and ramping up of industry in the western world. So it makes perfect sense to be a global leader in every part of the EV supply and manufacturing chain while being interested in sowing division elsewhere so there’s no convergence of public interest and policy momentum that grows competitive industries. There’s no contradiction between those two things insofar as they serve China’s interests.
Sounds like the heydey of the Geo Metro, which got astonishing MPG for its time.
is one where our impact as private citizens is as close to nil as it can be
Individual choices aggregate into large scale consequences, and individual choices do matter at scale.
When Taylor Swift’s JET ALONE produces more carbon annually than 1000 individuals driving their car daily, it doesn’t matter one iota what kind of vehicle the average joe drives.
Amazingly, you’re missing your own point. If it’s not about individuals, well, even Taylor Swifts jet by itself is a rounding error when considered in the context of global emissions.
But more importantly, it seems like you are contradicting yourself in a pretty fundamental way. You are perfectly comfortable taking Taylor Swift’s emissions and holding her responsible for those due to her belonging to a class, namely folding her into membership of “corporations/billionaires”. So Taylor, insofar as she represents the collective actions of that class, gets moral responsibility.
But individual consumers are also contributing significant emissions when conceived of as a class, which is a way of conceptualizing individual actions that, by your own Taylor Swift example, you are perfectly comfortable doing.
It doesn’t mean it’s the only thing we should strive to change, but it definitely is one of them, because the global collective emissions of people using internal combustion engines is in fact a significant input into CO2 levels, and we can reason about these things at those scales if we choose to.
other than limiting exhaust, or is that it?
Gee, when you say it like that, it makes extinction-level events sound not so bad! It is That Bad, so that would be the most direct answer.
The important thing to note is that even though some electricity is generated from fossil fuels, EVs eliminate the path-dependency that ties transportation to fossil fuels.
Pretty sure this meme originates from an actual, specific Twitter exchange. Which became so legendary that people just repeated it secondhand, and now the secondhand repetition of it is getting screenshotted and posted.
I think the meme is suggesting that they were literally made by “the West” but maybe I’m missing something