Unpopular Opinion
Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!
How voting works:
Vote the opposite of the norm.
If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.
Guidelines:
Tag your post, if possible (not required)
- If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
- If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].
Rules:
1. NO POLITICS
Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.
2. Be civil.
Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...
Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
5. No trolling.
This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.
Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
view the rest of the comments
I mean, this kinda comes back to OPs complaint again. As I attempt to enter in this discussion with a more nuanced take, you reply to me in a sarcastic tone with a metaphor (that I don't think fits very well to reality) that seems to imply that either I fully agree with you or I am part of the problem or at least not doing anything helpful.
Surely you realize that these topics are complicated and there's not a black/white dichotomy? Can you understand how OP and others might find comments like that off-putting, as you either need to fully agree or you're part of the problem?
I also don't think this stance or attitude is helping your case actually. If you want to convince people to action, this is not the way to do it. This just puts them off and pushes them away.
Not every post I make is meant to be a convincing call to action. Not every situation is going to be helped at this. I surmised that this thread - full of smug centrists pointing out how we "have to be realistic" and downvoting everyone pointing out that being this way has led us directly to a climate apocalypse - is not going to be worth the effort.
I think it's the most apt analogy there is. There, the only possible solution would have been an effective mutiny, to wrest the wheel from the captain and sail to safer waters, and damn the journey time or company profits. Much like the only solution we have right now it to wrest the "wheel" of society from the rich an d damn company profits.
But I saw you elsewhere engaging in unscientific climate denialism, much like every capitalist apologist has to in order to stave of cognitivie dissonance, so I have no patience to talk to antiscientific people.
There is no complications in saying that an Anthropogenic extinction is underway and we need to stop the system powering it.
Where? I'm sorry if I've offended you but I am definitely in favour of doing all we can to stop climate change and I am definitely not anti-scientific or in denial about climate change (I fully believe climate change exists and is caused by humans, for the record).
Please, let's not devolve to name-calling or insults.
This implies that climate change would have happened on its own.
That's not what I meant. I meant that there's many different types of societies and capitalism is just one of them. It's perfectly possible that we could've had something other than capitalism (if only) and we still would've dug oil out of the ground and burned it to cause climate change. Capitalism is bad and causes climate change, but I'm sure many other types of societies (maybe not all) would also do it.
Historic Revisionism is just apologia with extra steps. As if you can't engage in direct whataboutism, so you have to invent a fictional whataboutism.
Facts of the matter is that Capitalism did directly lead to climate apocalypse. We knew the effects of burning fossil fuels since the 19th century, but all steps to prevent this scenario were thwarted by, you guessed it, capitalists and rich directly funding lobbyists and misinformation campaigns.
I'm not defending capitalism or anything of the sort. I'm just saying that changing society is complicated and it will take a long time. If I could flip a switch and we had a better world, that'd be great, but unfortunately reality is not that easy.
I really think we agree on capitalism (yes, it's bad) and climate change (yes, fueled by capitalism and also very bad), so there's no need to accuse me of anything. That made me quite uncomfortable and that makes me quite sad and makes me empathize with OPs complaint. It's mostly about how it's said and the absolute-ness of the terms. Hope you have a nice day
Nobody said it was simple to change society. What is simple is recognizing that we need to get rid of Capitalism.
The problem with the op's "discussing problems short term" is that what they mean is "let's waste time trying to reform Capitalism yet again and hope it to be turns out differently this time unlike the 1000 times before it"
You can do both, you know? This all or nothing is exactly what is turning people off. Mostly because those in your camp are mostly doing...nothing but posting the same comment. Either give us a roadmap to action or shut. The. Fuck. Up.
No you can t both reform and dismantle Capitalism at the same time
No one is talking about reforming capitalism. There are, however, problems that need immediate attention. One action does not negate the other. Unless you're starting the revolution tomorrow, there are people that need to put food on the table. Happy to talk about the revolution when we get there. In the meantime, let's help those we can.
I never said not to take direct action to help others. Not sure what you're arguing against.
You directly accused OP of wanting to reform capitalism. I don't even know what your point is any more because any time someone presses you pivot to a new argument.
The op did not give concrete examples, but if they're getting comments about their praxis like that, it's probably because of they're reformist tactics. And reformism doesn't work. I have been pretty consistent with my message
All op was saying is that changing society is a complicated process. They even conceded that capitalism is bad.What about this do you disagree with?
By op I mean /c/SorteKanin. I hope we're talking about the same person.
This is my last reply to them: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/comment/7558299
In which I was countering the OP-OP, not them. Not sure what you're objecting to
Ok. I see now. Maybe I did a poor job of communicating my point in my first response to you. I'm just tired of this all-or-nothing attitude. People need immediate solutions and venting on social media about "capitalism bad" is just not effective. I think clear actionable items are more effective.
I am all for direct action immediately. In fact, that's the only thing I'm for, because this direct action is the only thing that can bring down capitalism. But it has to be direct action. Not voting for politicians or begging them and shit.
I'm really happy that some of you have the privilege of being accelerationists knowing that not much will affect you and you can choose to be apolitical. In the meantime, there are plenty of us that are being directly affected by legislation that republicans are passing and for now the best we can do is try to stand up to them. Thanks for your "direct action" though.
I'm not being accelerationist. I have seen in the past that voting doesn't do jack shit. Direct action brought the 8-hour day, the 40-hour week, the anti child labor laws, and so many others. Voting brought you directly to trump and fascism. So save your centrist smugness for someone else.