Food seems like it would be difficult to harvest. Anything bigger than a peach might represent a fall risk, as well as any plant that gets big enough that it could hurt someone if it gets ill, rots, and falls to the street. Better to use the inaccessible spaces for small local flora.
Tiresia
joined 6 months ago
They've had decades to adapt to Republicans being blatantly disingenuous. At what point does it stop being "not equipped to deal with" and does it start being "chooses not to deal with"?
Private media are owned by shareholders that want as many unfair advantages as possible. They want to be slightly left of center to appeal to the "reasonable centrist" crowd, but they want the center to be as far to the right as possible so their taxes are low and their assets unregulated. Moreover, they want the presidential election to be as close to 50-50 as possible so both candidates are desperate for bribe money and and willing to pay further favors.
If the Democrats win by a landslide, what is next? What is the new political center, and what does that mean for the stock market? Even in the face of fascism, corporations and shareholders keep playing both sides, because if Volkswagen and BMW and Ford and Siemens and Kodak and IBM and Bayer and the Associated Press and Hugo Boss and Fanta/Coca-Cola and all the unnamed German millionaires that hid their cash and pillaged Jewish artifacts in Switzerland and politely surrendered to the western forces made it through being Nazis with a profit, why expect worse from Trump?
Suburbs were deliberately built to have low density to keep groups away from each other, with "inner city youths" (nonwhite people) demonized and their public services defunded. Public transit was bought out by car companies and deliberately destroyed, even leading to General Motors being convicted of conspiracy (and given a slap on the wrist). Highways were built to tear apart neighborhoods and empower suburbanites at the cost of locals, and draconian zoning laws were installed to ensure nobody could build something reasonable that could serve as a third space or impromptu hangout. All of this at a massive cost to taxpayers through subsidies and government contracts, with cities now often facing bankruptcy issues as they're unable to maintain the low density suburbs.
It takes hard work and strict government interference to make cities as inhospitable as the US'. Even just loosening up zoning laws would naturally give you cities like Japan's over time, dense and mixed-use. What real estate developer in their right mind wouldn't want to build high or medium density shops and housing as close to public transit as possible?
That’s correct - I’m not arguing for a blanket ban on invective, just its widespread and inappropriate use. Persuasive argument has better long-term results than peer pressure.
I would say that is empirically incorrect, at least in our current world. Many activist movements have seen far better results when they forgo reason and started inconveniencing others.
Evaporative cooling is a contributor to people leaving a movement, but empirically people also get drawn to movements and people when they act provocatively. This is a public forum, this conversation is also a play to anonymous lurkers, and I hope there are people who are surprised and intrigued by the notion that it is so natural for children not to defer to parents' authority that accepting parental abuse is dumb.
Those people that get drawn to a movement are often unaware or disagree with its tenets, sparking more discussion and re-evaluation, re-heating the mixture. If you try to go for mass appeal, people will walk away disillusioned that nobody here seems to actually believe the punk in solarpunk. Similar to how Clinton lost voters by seeming to take politically disgruntled people that voted for Obama for granted.
I disagree that it is abuse, though, and I would not want to abuse people for the sake of popularity or ideological pursuasion. If you're not arguing for a blanket ban on invectives, then I'm curious what makes you draw the line that this is abusive when other invectives wouldn't be.
The argument you’re responding to sounds very similar to Bakunin’s [...] distinction between types of authority.
This is a quote from another comment by the same OP under this post:
But if people are free to leave a community and suffer no consequences for it, and staying in the community does have a consequence - accepting abusive behavior by other community members, for instance - people will leave. It’s normal, it’s understandable, and it inevitably breaks down communities. And that’s why I don’t think the authors’ understanding of community is at all wrong. In the long run everybody finds themselves in situations where they have to submit to their community’s authority in order to remain in the community. And when people leave instead of submitting, that breaks community, and everyone, especially the children, suffer for it.
It is literally arguing for accepting abusive behavior from group authorities for the sake of group cohesion. That is the sort of authority they want parents to have over children and elders over parents. Accept abuse so you don't rock the boat. Stay with abusive parents because they deserve to raise you even if they are abusive. Stay with abusive community leaders because the community deserves to persist so it can abuse more people into the future.
That is not Bakunin.
We exclude fascists, but I don’t want to encourage a particular anarchist orthodoxy, or even an anarchist orthodoxy on this instance.
I am not an admin or a mod. Treating my comment like an acceptable part of the discourse does not mean encouraging (a particular) anarchist orthodoxy, as long as similar discourse is accepted from people with different political leanings. I wouldn't describe myself as orthodox either, I just don't like abusive relationships. It is not my intention or expectation to scare them off, just to get them to re-evaluate deeply held beliefs.
We’re openly welcoming to liberals here. Good ideas can come from anywhere, and the problems we face are large enough that we need large coalitions to fight them. Practicing disagreement without dissolution means both our ideas become more potent and our movements grow larger.
I honestly blame the current unpopularity of the left (the proper left) as a political movement among the general public on this attitude. Being willing to water down your supposedly deeply held philosophical convictions for the sake of appealing to centrists makes it look like the convictions are just a charade, and that any promise you make, no matter how ideologically driven, can be traded off for just a little more influence. As labor parties in the UK, Netherlands, and elsewhere were happy to demonstrate in 1980-2018.
Disagreement without dissolution can be a useful skill when you're making practical decisions under time pressure, such as in a coalition government or a friend group deciding what movie to go to. As a user posting here out of my own urge for politically meaningful conversation, I am not under time pressure. If this thread ended, I would find another. I can disagree without dissolution, it's just not what I'm here for. If you happen to know anywhere that does encourage discussion that seeks to dissolve disagreement, I would love to know about it.
And if you do want this to be a safe haven for liberals, then I wish you luck 7½ years from now when you're asked to please not say that library economies are a fundamental part of solarpunk because it would scare off moderates and reduce AOC's chances in the Democratic primaries. Solarpunk is already being co-opted as the new cyberpunk - an aesthetic with a vague 'rebellious' tween attitude engaging in 'green' consumerism and YIMBY-ing state-subsidized corporate greenwashing with all their might.
You would be right, an openly solarpunk Democratic senator and primary candidate would be very potent and indicate a very large movement compared to what solarpunk is today. And maybe you would have practiced disagreement without dissolution so much that you would even be proud and happy to see the movement grow so far.
America is super big and super stretched apart
Perfect for long-distance rail travel. Just get in the train, wait X minutes to get to the next town over, and get out. It's literally how the west was colonized in the second half of the 19th century.
What makes America bad for public transit isn't that the nation is spread out, it's that suburbs are a death knell with how spread out they are. I honestly don't think there's a way to make suburbs self-sustainable short of quadrupling the US' population so you can get decent density even there. Sort of like the SF Bay Area except actually building medium density housing instead of having >8 people to a low density home.
More realistically, the suburbs will probably have to be scrapped. It's not like those homes were built to last, anyway. Just don't replace them when they need to be condemned.
As for there not being enough greenery in cities, that's just a matter of choice, isn't it? Pedestrian boulevards can be lined with trees, building facades with ivy, public parks next to apartment blocks, etc. etc. Almost all the toxins in western urban areas today are from car tire dust and exhaust. Just ban motorized personal vehicles except mobility scooters and e-bikes, and most of what you seem to hate about urban areas can just go away.
I remember the DVD commentary on the 2004 Spongebob movie talking about this. It's bad, but it's not new.
Going by the NOAA's data, it isn't even getting worse, and the five year rolling average has decreased steadily since 1995. It's inevitable that some years will be above average with that amount of variance.
A plan to slowly decrease it is in operation, the cause and consequences are known and accounted for. As far as climate disasters go, this one's pretty tame.
I guess the main thing is that if you're going to argue for something very unpopular, rather than arguing for the sake of your opponent as they are today, argue for the sake of uncommitted onlookers and for the sake of the opponent a week from now after they've had time to calm down and reprocess. Respond to their arguments, of course, but do it in a way that illustrates to less polarized people that you've got a point, rather than trying to convince your opponent or finding specific errors in the opponent's reasoning/self-justification.
When an issue is as polarized as this, people very rarely switch sides publicly (unless they're shilling and they didn't hold the original position to begin with), but people can cringe from the side making bad arguments, quietly distancing themselves, and a few months or years later show up on a different side.
If you want that side to be your side, it's nice to present a pipeline that does that. People who cringe from bottom-of-the-barrel leftist discourse can fall into alt-right pipelines, which you presumably don't want, so ideally you would want to have examples of (leftist) influencers whose takes you find reasonable, ideally on the case itself. For example, LegalEagle ("it is plausible that the jury was right that murder under Wisconsin law was not proven beyond reasonable doubt").
The hate is not really avoidable except by forgoing this venue or not arguing your point, but like with the hate thrown towards peaceful climate activists, it is not a sign that you're doing a bad job.
I don’t think they were prioritizing one group over the other
And you don't think it's weird that they don't prioritize ongoing race riots, arson and assaults over planned pacifist protestors?
Each single cop can't be in two places at once. Every cop occupied with arresting a pacifist is a cop not occupied with preventing arsonists from burning down a building.
As for disruptive protest not helping, have you looked at politics the past two decades? The general public loves disruptive protest.
Your original comment is passive-aggressive. You decry that people aren't doing their due dilligence but don't actually provide your perspective on the story or give any indication that you've put in any effort of your own. Unless you believe that legal definitions and jury trials are simply right, in which case, wow, you're such a leftist.
If you want to have a fact based conversation, it would be nice if you came with facts instead of just claiming they exist.
If you want to discuss about what kind of killing is worth calling murder, it would be nice if you explained your position.
Your original comment is incredibly passive-aggressive.
Great news, people, we've managed to commodify ivy!
Why let a plant grow on your wall using nothing but a planter resting on the ground and time when you can pay a company to build a giant expensive facade by inflicting decades worth of damage to vulnerable natural environments instead?