That’s a very good point, but I am specifically addressing the “even if there was a better way” part, which strikes me as a little spiteful, at least.

Oh no that kind of thing I agree with. As long as it is necessary, then sure. However, a lot of these discussions are plainly theoretical - no one here is gonna do shit, in short. But people get galvanized by the idea of committing these acts and get from these fantasies a certain kind of satisfaction I’m not sure I understand properly. I mean - I do understand. People are fed up and angry with the state of the world. But since this is purely ideological and not practical, it derails all productive discussion.

What I’m saying is: as long as you can’t come up with an actual plan that has better odds of working than any other proposed alternatives, I don’t know why you’d be so obsessed with the idea of violence that it ends up being unhealthy; this maladaptive coping mechanism, in turn, might bleed into other aspects of your life and/or activism. Even if the maths check out, a lot of this is inflammatory tribalistic discourse with no point other than to rile up ideological support through emotive means. I think that actually matters quite a lot.

Apologies if my expression is somewhat unclear at times.

I don’t think you should, but should we derive what is just from how much sympathy capital a given person has? Assuming your objective is to end poverty, etc, and to minimize suffering, then if you are ready to advocate for something like murder even in the hypothetical that you absolutely don’t need to, then you’re probably just letting your feeling dictate your actions. You can of course dispute that hypothetical, and there is definitely an argument to be made there, but a lot of people don’t and still go all in on it. Hence the problem with “wanting” these people to die, as opposed to “doing what is necessary”.

Then isn’t it revenge, and not justice? Not that I would feel bad for them, and I understand where the feeling is coming from, but in actuality, I wouldn’t ever dream of condoning something like that if there was any viable alternative. I thought we agreed the death penalty was bad, right?

I wish more people would understand this. If you remove the capitalists, capitalism will just make more. You need to remove capitalism, though obviously the capitalists will fight you on that and you may want to remove them from the system anyway. In either case, a lot of eat the rich discourse sounds like it’s out of spite and not in search of actual solutions.

That’s kind of insane considering it’s literally the top movie on imdb

Someone is mad.

wallpaper material right here

Ideally, I think you’d want to use hydro and geothermal first, because they are local resources that can be built with relatively low overhead, and where you can’t, just spam nuclear (assuming it is within the country’s capabilities), with a massive storage-infrastructure-stabilized (preferentially offshore) wind and solar kickstart. Classical renewables have the advantage that you can build up capacity efficiently, and we are definitely on a timer here.

However, the real world is a little bit more complicated, so I think really we should just take what we can and not overthink it too much. Functionally, there’s no single, clean, silver bullet energy source.

It’s not, but I like it very much!

El. Psy. Congroo.

I don’t think that’s really granular enough, though. I guess it would be fine right now with the amount of content we’re getting, but on reddit, I lose count on the number of posts I upvote and mostly just forget about on a daily basis, so long term it wouldn’t work out, I think.

Also, it’s a specific social signal that you think the post is good and so others may want to look at it. I do think it’s really interesting how there are separate upvote and downvote counts showing controversiality intsead of a tally which may hide interesting dynamics.