darq

So, global warming is gonna happen. We no longer have control, it’s not our choice to make.

You’ve flipped flopped between we don’t need to take drastic action, and no action we can take can help.

Conveniently, both means you get to ignore arguments to actually do something to mitigate the damage.

Which really is your entire motivation.

I’m not going to watch a whole youtube video just to pick up on the latest lingo.

Deny it’s happening, then claim we can’t change anything once it’s happened. The moment where we could do something about it is skipped over.

Like you are doing now.

No, mitigation does not require “drastic” action, fortunately. We’ve significantly mitigated it already, concerning our own emissions, and can do so further.

What world do you live on? Certainly not the one the rest of us do. Our emissions have only been increasing.

Yes we require drastic action. In fact we required drastic action decades ago. Now we require radical action.

Do you have an idea that might mitigate it overseas, or change domestic politics enough to speed things up here?

First and foremost, stop pointing your finger overseas. It is nothing but a distraction, a convenient excuse to not do what needs to be done domestically because “oh but China and India”.

Secondly, investment in equipping developing nations with clean energy infrastructure can help.

I don’t think nonviolent protest is going to do it, there’s not enough of us willing to do so.

Ultimately it is going to have to come down to protest.

I am hoping non-violent methods, such as general strikes and direct action will be enough.

But that does require solidarity, motivation, and mutual aid.

You’re responding to a point I didn’t make. Even mitigation requires the drastic action you are arguing is impossible.

But also, no, y’all don’t get to slow-breakup this.

I don’t only see disaster. But I do see a specific problem, with a very obvious answer, that continues to get worse and worse with catastrophic future consequences. A problem that we continuously refuse to address in a meaningful manner.

In my opinion, this position requires some cherry picking to avoid evidence of times when different things have improved over the past few decades.

Quite the opposite. The times when we have made improvements have come precisely because we have made the sorts of decisive changes that we needed to make, that we are currently pretending are impossible.

We actually solved the issue with the ozone layer, precisely because we took action and passed regulation banning their usage, despite the objections of businesses.

Same thing with leaded petrol. We took decisive action and addressed the problem at a systemic level, rather than just softly appealing for people to make the “right choice uwu”.

In our current unprecedented circumstances, drastic change on a short timescale is going to require one of two things: the suspension of our democracy, or wide-scale bloodshed. Neither of these is actually particularly likely to result in positive change either.

I agree that unrest seems basically inevitable. Because the people with the power to make the changes required have shown us in no uncertain terms that they never make the changes required.

So I’m not sure why continuing to pander to those delusions with half-measures is preferable.

I’m hoping change can be accomplished through general strikes and direct action. So that widespread bloodshed can be avoided.

The problem is there may not be survival at the end of this tunnel. But only one way might work in time, and that’s the one we’ve been using for a couple centuries and seen okayish results with.

Oh. So you are completely insane. Because we absolutely have not been seeing okayish results.

Honestly the protesters that everyone hates kinda have the right idea.

The problem with that being that the “minor solutions” aren’t really solving the problem. We’ve been doing “minor solutions” for many years now, and we have only accelerated in our destruction of the environment.

We need drastic change. Failing some deus-ex-machina-esque invention that quickly and cheaply solves the issue with no sacrifice needed, then we have to be demanding radical change. If that isn’t possible, our other option is to just fail and die.

Because the truth has limits on how hopeful and how simple it can be. Whereas the lies of billionaires have no such limitations.

I agree with your point that the messaging isn’t working. But pushing hope without radical reform of our current systems is basically just trying to diffuse the reaction to the facts without actually changing the facts leading to the reaction.

The idea that your create your world with unfettered freedom and no restrictions is a false notion.

Good thing I didn’t say that then.

But I’m saying you also have to be realistic and face the fact that no one is going to pay you to sit on your bum and play video games all day (in all likelihood).

Who said anything about that?

The world you want to live in is bounded by the stark facts of economic necessities and social pressures.

Except economics is not “facts”, it’s a way of organising that we have the power to change. Specifically referring to economics, the world is the way that it is because some people want it to be this way, it is not a fact of nature.

Go ahead and be that way and see how far you get in life.

Better things are possible. We create our world, there is no reason it has to be as uncaring as it is. And the only way to make a change for the better is to abandon your way of thinking.

I mean I get that it’s a meme, and exaggerated for comic effect… But yeah that’s what the world looks like if one semi-willfully misinterprets other people’s views into weird caricatures of what they actually believe. And it’s sadly a really common thing to do.

So they didn’t rule if the “no hats” rule should go, they were asked if such a rule - if it exists - is applicable to religious hats or if the right to religious freedom protects such symbols. So they rule on half-theoretical questions that are often narrower than the case itself.

And I find that very structure harmful. Because by formulating the question asked of the court in a specific way, then limiting the answers it can give to only that question, you can force these kinds of discriminatory judgements while pretending that that wasn’t the point.

The court should be able to say, as part of the ruling, that while exemptions should not be given on religious grounds, justification for rules that are considered to infringe on religious freedoms may be asked for.

We can easily give a reason why discrimination should not be allowed while serving the public, and similarly why antlers cannot be worn in a workshop.

The “no hats” rule in this case wasn’t a “no hats” rule, but a “no religious symbols are allowed to be worn by anybody” rule. The court saw such a rule as justified because it did not discriminate against specific religions or symbols.

Which is ridiculous because a hypothetical religion could use pants as a symbol of their faith and suddenly pants are banned.

If the rule by itself is dumb or not is another matter.

No. It’s not another matter. It’s the entire matter. That’s my point.

I know what I described is your second option. But I’m deliberately putting the focus on the original rule, because that is where the problem lies.

The rule disproportionately affects people who wear headwear. The rule basically makes that job inaccessible to those whose religion requires headwear. The rule is discriminatory in its effect, even if not in its wording or intention. So the appropriate action is to rethink the rule. If there is no strong reason why the rule exists, and it has these discriminatory effects, then the rule should change.

Now there is a rule that employees aren’t allowed to wear head coverings at work (for whatever reason)

And maybe that rule is the stupid one.

So if one religion is allowed to claim special status for their head covering (Head scarf), can an orthodox jew wear their hat? Can someone believing in druidism wear antlers to work?

Except it isn’t necessarily claiming a special status.

The argument can simply be that the headwear ban should be removed, unless there is good reason for it. So yes, anyone can wear any headwear, so long as it doesn’t interfere with the task at hand or other people. The antlers would probably fall afoul of those requirements.

And what is with people who happen to have no religion they believe in. Why are they granted less rights by the state than the religious people?

They wouldn’t be. The removal of a ban doesn’t somehow mean that atheists have fewer rights. They’d be allowed to wear their desired headwear too.

So: Which other possibilities does a state have to resolve this besides

Still a false dichotomy here.

To be clear here: the second option is not “ban religious symbols alltogether”, it’s “we have our rules, there is no way for you to get an exception with the reason ‘religion’”

The option is not to allow “religion” to be used as an exception, but rather set rules that are permissive to everyone, including religious people, within the limits of the task at hand and inconvenience to other people.

A headwear ban is pretty clearly discriminatory towards Muslim people, and probably also to certain Jewish people though I’m not 100% sure of that. The goal should not be to give them exceptions, but rather rethink the headwear rule.

If there isn’t a specific reason that something cannot be worn, such as a safety concern or an obstruction to others, then it should be allowed by default. A headscarf doesn’t affect anyone. Same way a kippah doesn’t affect anyone.

That is completely non-comparable to denying someone service on the basis of religion. And the idea that the only two options are allow religious people to discriminate on the basis of their religion, or ban all clothing that indicates religion, is a false dichotomy.

That is a very false dichotomy.

Those are not the trans people being spoken about I’m sports discussions though. Pretty much every sport that allows, or has previously allowed, trans people to compete in the division fitting their gender has had regulations around HRT and maintaining target hormone levels for a period of time before being allowed to compete.

I mean you can be offended by whatever you want.

But “cis” is a Latin prefix which is simply the antonym of “trans”. It holds absolutely no value judgement.

So it’s a strange thing to find offensive.

It’s literally a Latin prefix. Exactly the same as “trans”, being the antonym thereof.

It’s like you ignored everything else I wrote, to hyperfocus on one sentence, in order to take offense at something I didn’t say.

Mad we’re having a discussion at all that doesn’t revolve around telling him he’s right and we know nothing.

From my comment: “It’s perfectly fine to talk about advantages remaining after HRT is started, and for how long they remain. But that isn’t what is happening when people talk about transgender women as if they were cisgender men. That is completely ignoring the effects of HRT, making a proper discussion of the relevant facts impossible.”

Please at least try reading.