this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2025
822 points (91.3% liked)
Microblog Memes
6158 readers
3431 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Probably still would've been less bad if people voted for the lesser of two evils though
Maybe. There's an argument for accelerationism. I'm not convinced of it yet, but clearly the system has entrenched interests that benefit from things being awful for everyone else, and the majority power in the Democratic party has showed that it's all too willing to roll up its sleeves and make minor adjustments. Most folks don't have 3000 years to wait for the democrats to finally adjust things to where they need to be, and in the case of climate change, we certainly don't have that time. Yes, pushing the system to collapse is going to be fucking awful, but I actually wonder if the net suffering will be less than waiting however long it takes for the lesser evil to turn good.
The argument against is that people like me need healthcare and are about to get fucked.
I guess. I worked in EMS for fifteen years and saw my fair share of the system exploiting, abusing, and killing (yeah, I'll stand by that one) people for profit. We've also had major medical events in the family, and had to deal with the insurance fucking with us to try and get out of paying. It only ever seems to move in one direction, which is towards fucking people harder. A system like that deserves a swift kick in the pants, not a gentle polishing.
It sounds like it relies on the hopium that at some point people will wake up. You are certainly more optimistic than I would be.
Biden did more to battle climate change than any president in living memory. Trump has done the opposite, we don't have another four years of runway to speed the collapse, the time for revolution was when Bush stole the election.
You know what causes ungodly amounts of pollution? war. Blowing up and burning whole cities. Biden sent the bombs that blew up all of the west bank and Gaza, and ensured the war would continue. Dont lecture us about how great an environmental president he was. Biden also set up drilling and mineral exploitation everywhere. He was no environmentalist.
Dude, we're just not going to meet the climate goals we need to. Not with Biden, not with Trump. We need someone that's not afraid of the owner class bitching and moaning and withholding donations, and our system simply isn't wired that way.
But I'll bite, what did Biden do to address climate change, and what's the tangible impact?
The Inflation Reduction Act encouraged $3 trillion of investments in renewable energy, he's been working to triple nuclear energy production, and he blocked the construction of oil pipelines.
It's not about picking a candidate to meet the goals, that ship has sailed. We had the choice between Biden/Harris and Trump, the difference in climate policy between them is staggering.
.....No, he didn't. Just by any measure no he didn't. Even if you just limit it to US presidents, no he didn't. Nixon did more for climate change than Biden, by several orders of magnitude.
I have no idea, so in total seriousness, I would love to hear details.
Nixon created the EPA, expanded the national park system as well as explicitly protected the Everglades from development, and worked to transition from coal to nuclear power. He was the last of the conservativism = conservation conservatives.
There are accounts he primarily did all of this to just ensure his reelection and accumulate political capital and good will, but that hardly changes the fact he was one of the best US presidents in terms of environmental policy.
Thanks for the info!
Temporarily yes. Perhaps not in the long run, though. Sometimes you have to go through some pain to cure the disease.
You could call it temporary if this was part of a clear plan for a better future. But it isn't.
The Trump victory doesn't lead to anything good. It isn't 'temporary' pain for a long-term fix. It is simply going in the wrong direction, and it won't turn around by with magic or wishful thinking.
No one has anything like a plan to fix things. The point is to break everything hard enough that the staunch status quo idiots with their heads in the sand are forced to look up and start doing something. Failing that we'll have a quick death rather than a long and torturous one.
So your plan is to fuck everything up in order to motivate 'status quo idiots' to do something, so that you don't have to. Is that about right?
It seems to me that instead of trying to make things worse, you could instead try to make things better. But I guess activism is much easier when you don't actually have to do anything yourself.
To be clear, this isn't my plan. I'm just relaying the reality of the situation to you. This is what is happening and we have to deal with it.
This is more putting through people through certain pain for uncertain, perhaps never coming cure.
Hell of a gamble.
Slow death versus a possible quick death with a chance for a cure.
It's like facing a canyon and hitting the gas pedal instead of working slowing the car down. But they, who knows, there might be a ramp lol
It's more like facing a cliff and pulling the handbrake to crash the car in the hopes it rolls to a stop before going over the edge instead of bickering about what speed we want to go over the cliff at.
Handbrake would be a drastic action to slow down. In this case accelerationists want to accelerate towards the cliff, hoping there's some good outcome from that, instead of trying to slow down.
Though it's true that that doesn't capture the fact that it's outright making things worse for people, especially minority groups, for really uncertain hope that things will drastically improve.
It seems sensible to try and vote to slow down the speed instead of accelerating lol. With slower speed you have more time to actually stop the car.
Just a different kind of evil. Not lesser.
What sort of evil are you thinking of that Kamala would do that Trump wouldn't also do, but even worse?