rigorousintuition.ca

The system we have, and any system we might otherwise have, are defined by laws. To change the system, you must change the law. Law is the creature of government.

Maybe changing the law is now impossible? That doesn't change the fact that laws—what governments do—define and shape society.

That's why it's just crazy talk to say government doesn't matter. If governments collapsed today, tomorrow we'd be busy forming new ones—to make new laws.

Take a simple example. Money is, and always has been, part of government's legal structure. When government spends less, we have less money. When government spends more, we have more money.

Another example. Record-high economic inequality is a consequence of law. Want to reduce inequality and give more power to working people? Change the law. Too hard? Suffer and admit defeat.

Another example. The pharmaceutical industry enjoys all its advantages because of law. Want to curb Big Pharm's power? Change the law.

The list is endless.

What government does matters—a lot.

Harvey » Fri Jul 28, 2023 1:53 pm wrote:

Elvis » Wed Jul 26, 2023 8:55 pm wrote:

Harvey wrote:With respect, who gives a fuck what any government should do?

This is an utterly bizarre statement. Can it be sincere? I can't even fathom where this thinking comes from.

The gulf between any of the infinity of things we could or should be doing and what governments actually do, not quite wide enough for you yet? Keep on giving a fuck what government should do. I hope the strategy works for you.

BS wrote:

- Questioning current Net Zero, ESG, and/or 'carbon offset' initiatives (and along similar lines 'green energy' and any related policies) is 'right wing' or 'Far Right'.

Carbon offset initiatives are a rightwing, big-business scam designed to let polluters keep polluting. Many on the 'left' subscribe to the idea because they're conditioned to think in rightwing economics terms—while believing they're promoting left-leaning policies.

A carbon tax that produces revenue is not doing its job.

We had "lockdowns" and chaotic policy responses to Covid because we didn't have a coherent policy in place—they furiously improvised, hitting a lot of wrong notes.

Something as simple as having single-payer healthcare laws in place would have prevented many deaths.

"More Than 335,000 Lives Could Have Been Saved During Pandemic if U.S. Had Universal Health Care"
https://ysph.yale.edu/news-article/yale ... alth-care/

But with decades of "trickle-down" conditioning, the profits of the US financial/insurance industry were deemed more important.

Our enemy is the predatory financial industry. It thrives on "trickle-down" thinking. Misdirected attacks on "government" as an institution just give big finance more power.

Drink that trickle-down Kool Aid!

JackRiddler » 12 Oct 2023 16:06 wrote:Which one has been more vigorous in standing with Israel in its time of open genocidal action, Biden or RFK?

Am I just an irredeemable conspiritard, or could RFK, Jr. perhaps have had advance warning that a coming attack on Israel that would have doomed any pro-Palestinian candidate's electoral chances was on the schedule?

Elvis » Thu Oct 12, 2023 2:19 pm wrote:BS wrote:

- Questioning current Net Zero, ESG, and/or 'carbon offset' initiatives (and along similar lines 'green energy' and any related policies) is 'right wing' or 'Far Right'.

This is bullshit. Supporters of all kinds of bullshit capitalism call their ideas leftist or progressive, including support for the proxy war in Ukraine. The latter has even made insroads on the language of decolonization. So? I think on this board we can grasp the elementary point that even the Nazis appropriated the word "socialist." Doesn't make them that. If you want a less incendiary example, the crew who have spent decades trying to appropriate public education budgets, break the teachers' unions, and cram every elementary school classroom with 50 uniformed cadets learning obedience and taking drills in whatever "skills" capitalism thinks it might need next year framed their cause as the New Civil Rights movement. FIRE developers put out millions to fund fake progressive consultants and bot teams (so called YIMBYs) to proclaim they just want to build more affordable housing and gardeners and regressive nostalgic change-hating small-homeowners are the enemy.

Carbon tax could have some positive effect if it was done in the way Elvis describes. It ain't no solution. IRA is a joke. Etc.

stickdog99 » Thu Oct 12, 2023 2:37 pm wrote:

JackRiddler » 12 Oct 2023 16:06 wrote:Which one has been more vigorous in standing with Israel in its time of open genocidal action, Biden or RFK?

Am I just an irredeemable conspiritard, or could RFK, Jr. perhaps have had advance warning that a coming attack on Israel that would have doomed any pro-Palestinian candidate's electoral chances was on the schedule?

No, you're just the most shameless opportunist on this board, ready to fabulate any argument whole-cloth in the cause of winning a point.

(Following part is the joke, not the part meant to elicit serious response, but one has to make that clear around here.)

So not just Bibi but also Bobby was in on an Israeli LIHOP? Insidious!

.

JackRiddler » Thu Oct 12, 2023 2:44 pm wrote:

Elvis » Thu Oct 12, 2023 2:19 pm wrote:BS wrote:

- Questioning current Net Zero, ESG, and/or 'carbon offset' initiatives (and along similar lines 'green energy' and any related policies) is 'right wing' or 'Far Right'.

This is bullshit. Supporters of all kinds of bullshit capitalism call their ideas leftist or progressive, including support for the proxy war in Ukraine. The latter has even made insroads on the language of decolonization. So? I think on this board we can grasp the elementary point that even the Nazis appropriated the word "socialist." Doesn't make them that. If you want a less incendiary example, the crew who have spent decades trying to appropriate public education budgets, break the teachers' unions, and cram every elementary school classroom with 50 uniformed cadets learning obedience and taking drills in whatever "skills" capitalism thinks it might need next year framed their cause as the New Civil Rights movement. FIRE developers put out millions to fund fake progressive consultants and bot teams (so called YIMBYs) to proclaim they just want to build more affordable housing and gardeners and regressive nostalgic change-hating small-homeowners are the enemy.

Carbon tax could have some positive effect if it was done in the way Elvis describes. It ain't no solution. IRA is a joke. Etc.

I disagree, naturally. It's not "bullshit". There are, demonstrably, individuals -- mostly on social media, granted, but 'IRL' as well -- that call any criticism of ESG, Net Zero, 'carbon offsets' as 'Far Right' or 'right wing' talking points. Yes, this happens. I've first hand experience of it.

Anyone here or elsewhere may attempt to apply a nuanced view for certain specified circumstances where criticisms of these policies (using the properly approved terms or language) is "correct" and other scenarios when it's not the "correct" opinion (especially if uttered by a Trumptard or some variant), but the bottom line is that, routinely, broad brush commentary as I present above [e.g., the tendency among certain self-described liberal, progressives, and/or leftists calling any counters to dominant 'climate change' narratives as 'Right Wing' or 'Far Right'] are not uncommon.

It may well be that at least a subset of these self-described "liberals", "progressives" and/or "leftists" are nowhere near the spectrum/category of political views that would earn them the right to label themselves as such, but that's a separate conversation. Over the last 3+ years in particular, many historical terms/concepts have been distorted/flipped/contaminated, purposefully (at least in part purposeful; some of it is inevitable or simply a confluence of factors controlled, random and/or happenstance).

Also: "Net Zero" (and/or carbon taxes, and/or ESG, etc) is fucking bullshit no matter how it may be defined or applied, specific to climate. The end goals are not benevolent. At all.

Pollution/environmentalism and climate are 2 different concerns.

I'm all for curbing pollution and keeping the environment clean as possible.

Climate related aims, as practically applied by all 1st/2nd word govts, are fucking scams; efforts to enact greater controls/siphon more ungodly sums of money to the detriment of the majority. They won't work -- carbon is not the global problem it's touted to be, in any event, so even if the aims at the top are earnest -- they're not -- it won't fucking work as advertised because the premises are flawed.

Some of you can continue to insist on subscribing to bullshit.

I won't.

(this does not mean I'm immune to bullshit. I can be a victim of it as much as others can be. Though since 2020 I've been batting for a very high average. Sorry if that bothers some of you).

Belligerent Savant wrote:Climate related aims, as practically applied by all 1st/2nd word govts, are fucking scams; efforts to enact greater controls/siphon more ungodly sums of money to the detriment of the majority.

Who will siphon more ungodly sums of money from whom?

Belligerent Savant wrote: carbon is not the global problem it's touted to be

Nice of you to carry water for the fossil fuel industry by repeating their self-serving propaganda, which only their reactionary adherents believe (the FF industry itself doesn't even believe their own skewed analysis). They oughta be paying you. (I assume they aren't?)


Pushing fossil fuel propaganda helps keeps them in power longer, longer, longer. Enjoy,

JackRiddler » 12 Oct 2023 19:51 wrote:

stickdog99 » Thu Oct 12, 2023 2:37 pm wrote:

JackRiddler » 12 Oct 2023 16:06 wrote:Which one has been more vigorous in standing with Israel in its time of open genocidal action, Biden or RFK?

Am I just an irredeemable conspiritard, or could RFK, Jr. perhaps have had advance warning that a coming attack on Israel that would have doomed any pro-Palestinian candidate's electoral chances was on the schedule?

No, you're just the most shameless opportunist on this board, ready to fabulate any argument whole-cloth in the cause of winning a point.

(Following part is the joke, not the part meant to elicit serious response, but one has to make that clear around here.)

So not just Bibi but also Bobby was in on an Israeli LIHOP? Insidious!

.

Could you please let me know what exact "point" I am "opportunistically" trying to "win" by tossing out a weird, admittedly paranoid thought that occurred to me?

Because I would really like to know that, as well as why you have come to hate my guts so intensely.

I mean, you do realize that I still hold out faint hope that RFK, Jr. could somehow stop us from repeating another Trump/Biden duopoly?

Grow up. If you want to engage just read what others write and reply (and I'll do the vice-versa). Don't make up and project fantasies, like that I "hate your guts." Your guts and hating them couldn't be more remote from my mind. I think about you as long as it takes to type a reply occasionally, and the annoyances you generate are merely that, annoyances.

Far as I saw you, rather than acknowledge RFK's indefensible position regarding Israel (which rhetorically is on the hardest line even for an American politician), and now that Israel's conducting a genocide (by their own word) and RFK's still backing it all the way, reached for the first thing that occurred to you in defense of him.

The idea is absurd and baseless, though hey, anything's possible. It's not stupid, it's tactically responsive. In your posts, I note, you're always going to win.

I mean, you do realize that I still hold out faint hope that RFK, Jr. could somehow stop us from repeating another Trump/Biden duopoly?

Hope away.

I am OUT of this thread again for the next 88 pages, by the way.

.

Why must everything be couched in such Good vs. Evil terms when the devil is always in the details?

Everybody agrees that we should do more to conserve energy and limit our impact on our environment. Everybody agrees that there hundreds of beneficial ways we could do these things that are not controversial and that do not begin and end by exerting dystopian surveillance and control mechanisms on regular, struggling people.

So why not agree to start where there is broad agreement instead of pretending that "The Science" of Gaia's ability to regulate itself in the face of human emissions is settled? Because even if Gaia can withstand our assault, why keep pushing it?

In the end, isn't the "I do/do not believe human emissions are the worst crisis humans face" just another bullshit shibboleth used to divide people through their supposed "conflicting" ideologies? Why do we have to recite the same dogma if we can agree on practical steps?

How about if we at least try to rein in the oligarchs who and oligopolies that we all can agree are the worst offenders (and even if not, still desperately need to be reined in)?

Do you seriously think that I was trying to defend RFK, Jr. by considering that he may have had "Israeli 9/11" psyop foreknowledge? Seriously?

So the idea that he may indeed just be yet another member of their club who would prioritize his own electoral chances over anti-genocidal principle is supposed to make him a better candidate to anyone?

As for my supposed "silence" on RFK, Jr.'s bizarre and horrendous Zionist cheerleading, I can't help but note how silent you have been on just about everything else we have all been put through recently.

Tribal allegiances got your tongue? Or are you merely publishing your previously prolific and profound observations somewhere else to avoid the unwashed?

Elvis » Thu Oct 12, 2023 3:45 pm wrote:

Belligerent Savant wrote: carbon is not the global problem it's touted to be

Nice of you to carry water for the fossil fuel industry by repeating their self-serving propaganda, which only their reactionary adherents believe (the FF industry itself doesn't even believe their own skewed analysis). They oughta be paying you. (I assume they aren't?)


Pushing fossil fuel propaganda helps keeps them in power longer, longer, longer. Enjoy,

Sorry -- not carrying water for the 'fossil fuel' industry. I am simply a person assessing things as objectively as possible (while doing my best to curb or avoid the influence of bias I may knowingly or unknowingly harbor).

You, clearly, do not follow the same methodology. That you earnestly believe that ONLY someone that "carries water for the fossil fuel industry" can question such things speaks volumes to your [lack of] critical thinking on this topic.

I may well be wrong on this topic, of course [time will tell] -- but that's not the point. The point is earnest pursuit of the closest approximation to truth, and a willingness/courage to challenge existing dogma and strongly-held beliefs. How often do any of us do this, especially in light of the last ~3+ yrs?

Anyone not actively challenging their historical belief systems over the last few years is, minimally, a coward.

.
Related to my last post above, this interview here is interesting. This is Gates being interviewed at a NYTimes event, by a NYTimes representative, so clearly an abundance of qualifiers/caveats apply to the framing of most of the questions/answers. I did not listen to this entire clip (nor am I particularly interested in doing so, near-term), but I share it here because Mr. Gates utters an interesting statement/admission, at around the ~6:45 mark:

Gates:
"No temperate country is going to become uninhabitable..... you really want to make your arguments based on what you actually know about how much is the planet itself at risk, for example..."