How do y’all cope with this

    • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      57
      ·
      1 year ago

      Threat of force is a solution.

      It’s basically what the police exist to do - behave the way we want, or we’ll send someone with a gun to take your money, property, freedom, or life.

      • 100@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        All authority is derived from the monopolization of violence.

          • Madison420@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Those are subjective, it is indeed that clear cut. Authority is derived by power over others, now try to exert your authority over someone without violence.

            • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Ohhh - “I’m right if you ignore counter-factual examples and other commonly used definitions in favour of my hyper-specific definition.”

              Sure - if we dismiss examples where authority isn’t derived from violence, you’re correct. Congratulations.

              • Madison420@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                What factual example are you referring to aside from the ones I directly referenced in my argument.

                So explain it. You’re the intellectual authority on the matter, now exert this authority without violence. Go on, I’ll wait.

                • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You’ve deferred to me as the authority on this matter. I’m correct without the need to use force.

                  Examples such as being an intellectual or moral authority don’t rely on force. I’ll defer to the intellectual authority that is the Oxford English Dictionary on this one, and point out you’re definitionally wrong.

                  In either instance, these authorities aren’t maintained by force, only the fact that people view them as the authority. Denying said authority isn’t going to see the dictionary police come and drag you away - people will just think you’re kinda dumb.

        • DessertStorms@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          https://kbin.social/media/cache/resolve/entry_thumb/35/4d/354d0a2c404970aa339d967747e3beddaa69c0cd67753c5669e4b83975f46ac3.jpg

          You probably think this doesn’t apply to you, but conveniently enough it both address your poor “joke”, and your reply bellow about voting - none of your rights were “given” to you either, and “letting” you vote, as someone has already pointed out to you (and as is broken down in the links I shared that you clearly didn’t bother reading), a distraction and an illusion of choice to make sure the current power structure (which you are at the very bottom of), remains.
          Maybe instead of being a wilfully ignorant smart ass, try actually educating yourself some?

          • trailing9@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            I agree with you about the lock-in, that’s the joke. The /s was there to indicate that I don’t support women voting just because it is powerless. How else do you interpret it?

            I disagree that voters are powerless. Being focused on resolving gerrymandering and such isn’t helpful. Even with gerrymandering, voters can change things. But they cannot do that as dispersed voters. More in the other comment.

    • trailing9@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      In a world with private armies, how do you want to threaten oligarchs?

      Stop struggling, start supporting a platform in your favorite party that makes the necessary changes.

        • trailing9@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Then hurry up with riots because drones are coming.

          You don’t have to wait to affect change with votes. Politicians are traders of power. They will implement your request now if it secures their reelection.

          Voting is only snake oil because voters are complicit. If you reduce resource usage to sustainable levels, quality of life will go down massively. Voters know and don’t want that. Blaming billionaires is an excuse.

            • trailing9@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. Voters don’t affect change because there is no influence. Create a voting block and offer votes for dedicated policy changes and you will get the change that you want.

          • DessertStorms@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago
            • trailing9@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Where in modern history have voters influenced politicians like lobbyists? That’s what has to happen to get results.

              You are right about the danger of enabling fascists. But insulting me shouldn’t be your refutation of the problem that voters benefit from the current situation.

              Letting voters take responsibility is very difficult because it requires voters to see the details and their own faults. That doesn’t justify the need for establishing a socialist elite. It just shows that it will take more effort than people are currently willing to invest.

            • The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Looks at the entirety of modern history and lmmfao… 🤣

              I mean, yeah, exactly, look at modern history… People keep complaining about politicians doing nothing, and everywhere you go people complain about how politicians do nothing, and yet those same politicians keep winning elections.

              It’s literally a meme in my country that every one complains about how corrupt, nepotist, mismanaged, and just bad the leading party is, but how they keep winning anyway. The excuse is usually “the other parties are all too extremist”, even when one of those parties are basically the same as the leading party except: so far they have no instances of corruption; they have a very big focus on environmentalism, which is their main platform. And also, guess what? They’re the smallest party in parliament, with just 1 member. The second smallest, but with also 1 member, is a more centrist but also mostly environmentally driven party.

              For reference, there are 8 parties in parliament right now (before the last elections there were 9), and since we’ve been a democracy only 2 of those have ever won elections. We’ve had 16 elections, and 2 parties are 10 to 6. The one with 10 is currently in power after winning with over 50% of votes. And everywhere people keep complaining about them, and you hear scandals and see ministers resigning every other week, and our forests burn every summer, and living costs keep rising, cities are getting too expensive for our citizens, and so on. And so the meme lives on.

              This isn’t some invisible force casting those votes, it’s the people. It’s the people who cast all those votes, and it’s also the people who, by the way, made the far right party the third-biggest party in parliament in the last elections.

              So yes, please do look at modern history, and understand that for the most part people are getting what they voted for. If you want politicians to act different, vote for different politicians, which is what the other user is saying.

              Voting is snake oil, but it’s snake oil because the majority of people stop it from actually working.

              Liberals believe in the invisible hand that will redistribute wealth and regulate the economy; people like you believe in an invisible hand that is responsible for all of the world’s problems, when the reality is that people hold most of the power, but the majority are either complacent, or actively working to keep things the way they are.

      • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Same way you deal with commanders in chief of real armies - just ask JFK… or any of these guys for that matter.

        Asymmetrical class warfare - particularly when you have the benefit of overwhelming numerical superiority while being dispersed through the broad population is devastatingly effective. There’s a reason the best funded military in the world is consistently drawn into quagmires with villagers brandishing soviet-era small arms and improvised explosives.

        • trailing9@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Have you ignored the part about drones in my comment?

          Look up why South Vietnam failed. Watch the training videos of the Afghan army. There was no will to win, for whatever reason.

          If you have overwhelming numerical superiority, you don’t need war, you can vote.

          • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Have you ignored the part about drones in my comment?

            No - because it was posted after my comment in a different thread - I’m not reviewing your entire post history before responding, let alone travelling through time to do so. If you’re going to be snide, be less stupid about it please.

            The Viet Cong and Taliban tied up the US army for decades, costing them trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives. You don’t need military superiority to pose a mortal or financial threat to billionaires.

            • trailing9@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Sorry, my fault. I thought you were replying there. I will try to be less stupid.

              JFK and the other politicians are no billionaires.

              The Viet Cong and Taliban made billionaires. The tax payers had to pay.

              Now add the drones that can do a JFK on every rebellion leader.

              I think it is easier to use votes to solve problems.

              • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                JFK and the other politicians are no billionaires.

                Correct, but JFK didn’t have a paltry security detail - he had the protection of the entire US defence and intelligence apparatus, and how effective was that against one man and his rifle? The others are variations in the same theme, some more relevant than others.

                The Viet Cong and Taliban made billionaires. The tax payers had to pay.

                They also used their meagre resources to cause massive problems and expense for the US.

                The point of all this is that all the money in the world only grants these people limited protections.

                I strongly favour democratic solutions where they’re available (revolution without sustainable preparation is where communist regimes turn autocratic almost every time), but understand the democracy-breaking political influence billionaires are able to buy. If a couple of your Kochs and Murdochs start meeting grisly ends, the rest of their ilk might get the message, stand aside and let democracy run its course for once.

                • trailing9@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Gated communities. Politicians die because they have to meet their voters.

                  Since the US has global influence, politicians and voters are influenced globally. Koch and Murdoch are just standing out.

                  Voters have to wise up. I don’t believe that a random group of assassins can solve the problem.

                  Rome ended in tyranny because even the educated elite wasn’t wise enough. It’s difficult but we have to be better. Assassinations are a distraction from that problem that needs to be solved.

          • CADmonkey@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Did we have drones in afghanistan? Because the US sure did have trouble there. How many people are in Afghanistan? How many are in the US?

            • trailing9@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Afghanistan was pre-chatGPT. We are not there yet but soon, drones will operate automatically. Numbers won’t matter.

      • dependencyInjection@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        There isn’t a party leader that is interested in making any real changes that don’t happen within their term. They’re not motivated to be the best person for the world as a whole and really they’re motivated by the short term and re-election.

  • justastranger@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    83
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    Blowing up fossil fuel infrastructure is a moronic idea that’ll create an environmental disaster worse than the infrastructure existing. Instead, sabotage it so that it stops flowing.

    • Grayox@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Right?! All the dumbfucks talking about blowing up pipelines want to trade one environmental disaster for another. Its pathetically misguided.

    • meathorse@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      Good point, way less environmental damage to do something about the execs and billionaires in this world

    • Chunk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hey got any fun terror plans I can hop in on? Just text me the address and I’m there.

      -Your friendly neighborhood FBI informant.

    • Dogyote@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Oh wait, we already did that last year

      -Your friendly neighborhood CIA agent

    • Daisyifyoudo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ethics refer to a set of rules provided by an external source. I think this is 100% a moral obligation to blow shit up.

    • insomniac_lemon@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I would say ethics doesn’t really make sense unless there is some sort of rulebook calling for this that I’m not aware of. Because I’d say moral-but-not-ethical is doing what’s right even if it’s against the rules/expectations that apply to you (particularly in a professional capacity, and even then there are different contexts like company policy vs wider ethics).

  • FALGSConaut [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    1 year ago

    There are two wolves inside me

    One wants to discuss the moral obligation to commit acts of sabotage against fossil fuels infrastructure that is killing the planet

    The other wants to have good opsec and not possibly incriminate myself for future actions I may or may not be involved in by posting

    Disclaimer for any feds reading this: I am a clown and everything I do/say/post is hypothetical and/or for comedy only janet-wink

  • BelieveRevolt [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    If you blew up fossil fuel infrastructure, you’d go to jail. The US blew up Nord Stream, nothing happened. We truly live in a society joker-dancing

    • insomniac_lemon@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yeah, I assume there’s gotta be a better way. Like clogging it beyond repair (shut off+completely solidified), siphoning operations (assuming a spill isn’t caused)… And in either case, converting it into something less bad and/or storing the carbon in a stable manner.

      (Although even rebuilding from what I see may be at least $1M-$2M per mile, they sure have the money but it’s not insignificant either)

        • insomniac_lemon@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ah yes, in 50 years we can make a real difference! If even that due to our flawed (FPtP) voting system and money in politics. We should give it a try though, as I don’t think anyone has ever tried it before. Particularly as I assume these sorts of problems became known just this year… because otherwise we would’ve fixed them with our caring, functional, and proactive government ((/s))

    • Lemmygradwontallowme [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Come on, if the Russians/Americans/Ukrainians can blow up the 1st Nordstrom pipeline, and scare both Germany and Russia from starting the other pipeline, why not? /s

      Jokes aside though, who knows what will happen if someone holds up some oil dock workers at gunpoint and orders them to stop the flow of oil and scatter.

      One can essentially sanction the world en masse, with just a dozen people

      Plus, if that gunman or gunmen can hold the infrastructure as a shield from the resulting police and military, it can used as a negotiation tool with them temporarily, or if things go to shit, they will otherwise just show the ruthlessness and brutality of the state apparatus in using drone strikes etc…

  • Neon_Dystopia [any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    As the situation worsens it’s only a matter of time before rampant eco-terrorism, if we’re not all too busy dying in water wars of course.

  • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’ve looped around to sadomasochism.

    Destroy the world! Kill us all! Burn me more daddy!!! 👐 😩 💦

  • Chunk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    1 year ago

    I heard they protect the pipelines near places where it’s easy to access and they know pretty quickly where the break happened so they can find you. It’s quite difficult to actually figure out how to blow up a pipeline and not immediately get arrested.

    • CADmonkey@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      There are thousands of miles of pipeline, Im not so sure.

      For all their bluster, did the FBI ever find the guy(s) who shot up the substation in south carolina last year? No it isn’t a pipeline, and it was attacked for dumbass rightoid reasons, but… did they ever find who did it?

      • Chunk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah but they’re in the boonies. So if you go out there in a Jeep with your buddies and blow a pipeline they know where to look. It’s not that it’s 100% secure it’s that it’s secure against a lot of smaller acts of violence.

  • Mangoholic@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Same thoughts, my mind even came up with a good plan. Drones equipped with remote activated termite pots. It melts through steel easily and fossil fuels burn. You can do this from a distance and it uses cheap available materials. I don’t have the guts to do it though… So it remains an Idea.

  • Fizz@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    If the us and China had a nuclear war the planet might survive.

    • trailing9@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      We will. Cancer is only a problem if you don’t have Moderna’s cancer treatment.

      The bigger problem is managing supply chains when China is gone.