35
submitted 1 year ago by nulluser@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

The world has experienced its hottest day on record, according to meteorologists.

The average global temperature reached 17.01C (62.62F) on Monday, according to the US National Centres for Environmental Prediction.

The figure surpasses the previous record of 16.92C (62.46F) - set back in August 2016.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] gthutbwdy@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If voting worked, we would have solved this issue decades ago. You can vote for whomever you want, but at the end, no matter what they promise, they always end up doing nothing at all, because they are elected by using big oil donations.

Only a self-organized revolution can stop this madness, people in some nations are already blocking oil tankers and oil rigs. We can't win by only voting, you can vote for a day every few years, but we need to fight this everyday. Take turns blocking streets so no oil driven trucks and cars pass, only this will make an effect.

The idea that nonviolent protest works has been the most harmful idea in history

[-] ericbomb@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I mean nonviolent protests DO work.

Non-disruptive DOES NOT work though.

MLK Jr didn't peacefully sit in a park. They ran boycotts, sit ins, shut down streets, trespassed into white only areas, and drove businesses insane.

If MLK Jr was your enemy you were going to have a miserable time when he rolled into town.

Ghandi had people illegally burn documents and basically smuggled salt against all regulations.

[-] TassieTosser@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago

MLK had the Black Panthers and Nation of Islam as looming threats. Gandhi is also the one who said "pacifism without violence is not pacifism, it is helplessness." A violent counterpart to a non-violent movement helps by being the stick to the non-violent carrot.

[-] ericbomb@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

That's fair, but either way we gotta give up on this nondisruptive nonsense.

Gathering on the park outside of the white house at a time they agreed to doesn't do anything and why it's encouraged.

[-] intensely_human@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago

See US Constitution, Amendment 2 for another example of backing peace with capability of violence to earn respect.

I can assure you the US Government is not quaking in their boots at the thought of Billy Bob's basement arsenal.

[-] JudgeHolden@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Especially since those guys are pretty much all lard-asses. There's a reason why every competent military on the planet emphasizes physical fitness before anything else; it's because real combat --as opposed to playing paintball with your fatbody friends-- is one of the most physically and psychologically punishing activities known to man.

Indeed. As 101st infantry alumni, I'm well aware. Having been on both sides, military combat arms and a civilian gun owner, I find the 'defense against the government' idea around the 2nd amendment to be laughable. If they thought you were an actual threat they'd drone strike you out of existence, and you'd be a bullet point on an after action report. They own us now and they know it, that's why everything is going to shit, and it's why we were warned about the rise of the IMC. If only my younger self had been educated about that, I may not have joined up. Hmmm maybe there's a link there?!?! I wonder.

[-] JudgeHolden@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I think my old man had much the same, or at least somewhat similar thoughts, when he came home from Vietnam. He was a UH1 door-gunner/crew-chief with the 4th ID in the Central Highlands, survived being shot down, was awarded a Distinguished Service Cross, a purple heart, a fistful of air medals and came home with a giant chip on his shoulder.

[-] intensely_human@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago

But it’s not about defending against the government. It’s about deterring the government. A pufferfish can’t defend against a shark, but by being spiky it deters the shark from attacking it.

Surely they teach this distinction in military training?

No they pretty much just taught us how to kill shit. In all seriousness, do you honestly believe that's the case? That the US federal government is deterred by an armed public? Because I don't think they give a shit, at all.

[-] intensely_human@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago

I mean, with all the armor and shit they wear and the flashbangs and the speedy sweep through a building, it sure seems to me like they're very conscious of the danger of going to get someone.

It takes a lot more work and preparation to go grab a US citizen than it does to go grab a pig. A farmer wants a particular pig he isn't putting on armor and tossing flashbangs and going in with backup.

Yes, I think the federal government is deterred by an armed public. They don't just casually fuck with people, like that military government in Myanmar fucked with its people. It's a big deal for them, a costly affair, to go up against a house that might have guns in it, and they don't take it lightly.

[-] intensely_human@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago

That’s funny I thought catching a bullet was one of the most physically punishing activities known to man.

[-] JudgeHolden@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

What's funny is you getting defensive about it. Sounds like you might have a fitness issue yourself.

I'm not saying that you necessarily are a "disgusting fatbody," (to quote Gny. Sgt. Hartman,) but if you were, that's exactly how you would react to the fact that every competent military on the planet demands high levels of physical fitness of their combat troops.

It's just a fact, my dude; you don't last long in real combat if you're heaving and gassed within the first 15 minutes.

[-] intensely_human@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago

I do have a fitness issue. I was forced to stop working out for a couple of years due to a neurological condition. I've slowly worked up to the point of being able to hike with 15 lbs, without inducing insomnia or adrenaline rushes. It sucks balls.

Are you done attacking me personally now? Can we get on with the conversation?

[-] JudgeHolden@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I'm not attacking you personally. Personally, I wish you nothing but the best.

What I'm attacking is the phony mythology that has thousands of fatbodies imagining that being heavily armed is somehow a valid and necessary counter to the possibility of government overreach.

It's an objectively absurd and laughable proposition.

My dad served with the 4th ID in Vietnam, my grandfather fought from Guadalcanal to Okinawa where his war ended, and then he went on to fight in Korea and survived the clusterfuck that was the Chosin Reservoir.

My point is only that such men still exist in the US armed forces, and there is no universe in which "Fatbody Joe McGee" and his airsoft buddies stand a chance against them, no matter how heavily armed they think they are.

[-] intensely_human@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago

You don’t have to win for the guns to make a difference. It’s a red herring. The fact is it helps. Even if it only scares the people on the front lines facing those guns, and the leaders don’t care, it still increases the cost of sending people toward that line.

Like, any government agent that hesitates before going into a room to arrest someone has been slowed down by the guns that could be in that room. The person who wrote the order has to consider the guns. The cop who thinks it might be fun to rape some random housewife for the hell of it has to think of those guns.

I don’t understand the resistance to acknowledging that getting shot is something people work hard to avoid, and that avoidance includes not threatening or violating a person who has the power to shoot you.

It’s very simple. It’s why every animal demos its weapons when cornered: the evolutionary data is in and visibly bearing weapons improves survival. That’s why organisms expend energy growing weapons and then expend more energy waving them around when they’re threatened. It works.

[-] intensely_human@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago

Nor am I quaking in my boots when someone is armed in the same room as me. But I’m not gonna fuck with that person.

[-] ckrius@lemmy.fmhy.ml 0 points 1 year ago

Yup, the only real revolution is a violent revolution.

[-] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

Violence is a sometimes (even often) unavoidable byproduct of revolution, not an essential characteristic. Don't confuse the two.

[-] Zoot@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago

You know, now that a good portion of people are on Lemmy, it just might be the perfect place to start organizing, whatever you feel that may be...

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago
[-] ShakyPerception@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Okay, when a government has completely collapsed, after the total collapse of the larger global leading entity; a peaceful revolution that results in something completely new, should be the top option.

But I don’t think we have that much time

[-] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

How much time do you think we have?

[-] ShakyPerception@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

In my personal (very, very amateur) opinion; less than 10 years, where things keep running as "normal"

Humanity is awesome at adapting so I think it'll be a very long time before things become impossible to deal with, but there is going to be a lot of transition and disruption over the next 20+ years

[-] ArcticCircleSystem@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

And how the heck do we know that it have any reasonable chance of working out well and that it won't be brutally suppressed or co-opted by reactionaries? And how would anyone even organize such a thing? ~Strawberry

[-] ckrius@lemmy.fmhy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

We don't have any idea if it will work out or if it'll be snuffed out.

However, the lack of purposeful revolution will result in an aimless one, carried on not with thought and intent, but instead as a reaction to the immseration of the world's people as we bake in and are flooded from our homes and cities.

The only option is to try as the current hegemony will not solve the problems we face for the problems are a direct result of their desired politics in action.

As for organizing one, that's way too long of a conversation to occur here.

[-] ArcticCircleSystem@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

So we have no idea if it's even remotely a good idea or if it's likely to leave us in a similar position to before or worse, or how to do it? Great plan. ~Strawberry

[-] mordred@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Gandhi was a UK agent and delayed Indian independence by decades. Also he was a pedophile.

[-] mordred@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Thanks for those insights even if they're not really relevant to what was being discussed

[-] ArcticCircleSystem@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

How the heck do you organize that as quickly and at as large of a scale as is needed for it to have a good chance of working out? ~Strawberry

[-] ComradePorkRoll@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I don't mean to be a doomer but we can't. We're passed the point of no return. The best we can do is organize so that we can reduce the amount of death from here on out.

[-] ArcticCircleSystem@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I mean working out as in making sure it doesn't get a significant degree worse than it already is? I know we've already passed the point where we can avoid any damage. ~Strawberry

[-] ComradePorkRoll@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I think it would require some extreme changes to the oil, industry amongst other things. We'd also have to be vigilant that those changes don't disproportionately affect the global south.

[-] ArcticCircleSystem@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Any idea what changes would be needed and what would be required to actually get those implemented? ~Strawberry

[-] ComradePorkRoll@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I don't know everything we need to do, and/or by what means. I would like to think it can be all done peacefully but we have seen how oil executives will fight tooth and nail to keep their quarterly profit report line going up; so that may not be a viable way. We could all practice consuming less and reevaluating our lifestyles. Putting more thought into whether we really need to consume as much as we do is a good example.

[-] gthutbwdy@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago

By starting early enough and being persistent. It will take time, but we had this issues for decades and we will have it for decades more. Best time to start a revolution is yesterday, second best is today.

[-] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago

Both. We need both. Voting matters. Grassroots organization matters. Now is absolutely not the time to give up on democracy. It is also absolutely not the time to give up on mass organizing at the grassroots. Both, we need both.

[-] gthutbwdy@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago

We need direct democracy. What we live in is no democracy at all, they choose for us and then we just pick the worst of two evils.

this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2023
35 points (97.3% liked)

World News

38563 readers
2456 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS