this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2024
1515 points (96.7% liked)
Microblog Memes
5778 readers
1909 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's certainly doable, but it would require Socialism, and revolution within the West. Difficult, yes, but easier than returning to monkey.
I see. “Socialism” will be able to replace all fossil fuel-powered vehicles: cars, trucks, planes, ships AND replace all of the world’s fossil fuel power plants in the world in five years. I guess by “socialism,” you mean “magic.”
Probably not, but it will be able to prioritize things differently. Under socialism it doesn't matter if it is profitable to build high-speed rail, or profitable to run it thereafter, the point isn't to make money, the point is to transport people.
So we have time to switch to socialism and replace all fossil fuel transport with high speed rail in enough time to stop our civilization from collapsing due to climate change? Because I doubt it.
Maybe not. But we have to options: Socialism or Barbarism. Continuing with Capitalism is going to lead to a worse outcome, going with Socialism and working to halt climate change will result in a better outcome. Not a great one, not undoing everything in 5 years, but still a better outcome.
The chances of socialism over barbarism are quite slim given the long history of humanity.
On the other hand, the other guy thinks that you can replace coal plants "as needed," so at least you have a realistic outlook.
Having supremacy over Capital allows you to work against market pressures.
I have no idea what you're doing here, are you arguing for anarcho-primitivism, or are you using me as an outlet for your frustrations? Last time we spoke you were a Maoist, and now you're an Anarcho-Primitivist less than a month later?
If you are just talking about coal-fired power plants and nothing else, you are talking about 2500 power plants.
Socialism cannot replace 2500 power plants in 5 years. It has nothing to do with supremacy over capital. It's like saying socialism could have built the Great Pyramid in 5 years. No it couldn't. You can't magically speed up processes that take a set amount of time, require people with a certain skill level, etc.
I get that you think that somehow we will be in a socialist utopia in five years, but we won't. And as the Earth heats up and the storms get worse and the wildfires choke the atmosphere, you will still be talking about the glorious revolution that will be happening any day now and save us all as the desperate climate refugees storm your home to take your food.
I'm not arguing for anything. You are. And what you are arguing for will not save humanity in the time frame that is needed. Because nothing will.
You don't need to replace everything, you can replace as necessary and shut down everything else. It absolutely has to do with supremacy over Capital. However, you already gave yourself away:
You're just arguing as a personal outlet, that's not healthy. I can't tell if you're a nihilist doomer, or just going through a rough time, but this isn't healthy.
As necessary?
It's necessary to replace all of them.
Are you some sort of climate change denier?
Also, this pop psychoanalysis of yours is tiresome, Dr. Freud.
It is not necessary to replace all of them, we can downsize consumption. Consumerism is an aspect of Capitalism, we can downsize production and energy consumption off pure renewables, if at significant cost of quality of life.
Again, though, you clearly are looking for an outlet, you don't care about logic but simply arguing to argue. I recommend you log out for a while, talk to someone IRL that cares about you. I'm saying this out of concern.
Again, Dr. Freud, your pop psychology is tiresome.
And yeah, you're clearly a climate change denier. Only a climate change denier thinks it's okay to keep using fossil fuels.
I literally told you we could stop using fossil fuels and run on pure renewables now at great cost in quality of life, but only under Socialism. You just read right past that to insult me.
People care about you.
LOL! "We could make life sucky if we just accept socialism!" Great sales technique you have there.
And much like your "arguing in bad faith" hypocrisy, your complaining about insults hypocrisy is just as silly.
Also, I'm fully aware that people care about me. Unlike you, I know what my life is about.
Gotta love a self-proclaimed socialist who acts like they're some sort of superior being.
Better to have reduced quality of life than no life, are you saying you'd prefer the opposite? I don't see how I have been hypocritical either. Either way, it's good that you know people care about you, though I don't know what you mean by claiming I don't know what my life is about. As for Socialism, I do know more about Marxism than most people, though I don't think that makes me superior. Rather, we all have things we are good and bad at.
Do you have someone to talk to? You can DM me if you want to vent about something, or just chat non-confrontationally.
I'm sure you know what your life is about.
What you don't know is what my life is about, despite this arrogant superiority bullshit where you act like you know me.
Also, why the hell would I DM someone who has been hypocritical twice in this conversation and arrogantly and falsely psychoanalyzed me in the most condescending way possible about anything? So you can be more condescending? So you can get my life more wrong?
I know you think you're the Flying Squid expert around here, but you don't even know what my fucking pronouns are.
Have you ever thought about asking about someone's life rather than assume you know what's going on with it? I'm guessing not. Not necessary when you're better than everyone else and know about them more than they do, am I right?
Well, you have been arguing for what appears like argument's sake, you abandoned positions you previously held, and darted around. You can understand why it looks erratic to someone.
I apologize if it seems condescending, but I did mean it when I said you could DM me if you wanted someone to talk to in private. I know you probably don't care, but I promise here and now I wouldn't be condescending, if there indeed is something you want to vent about in private. I didn't ask because I figured you wouldn't want to disclose that for everyone, but I suppose a stranger is no different.
All that being said, the offer is open, you don't have to take it if you don't want to. It's not because I think I am better or anything, it's because there have been times that has helped me in the past. Up to you.
I don't need you. I will never need you. You are not relevant to my life.
Okay, good! The offer is still open if you want to take it down the line. Have a good one!
You do know you come off as insincere and condescending as fuck, right?
Not my intention, but I imagine your mind is pretty well made-up about me already.