Tiresia

Clearly your country's immigration system isn't labyrinthine and bureaucratic enough. Add enough systematic hatred and anyone can be turned into a burden to society.

Here in the Netherlands, immigrants are not allowed to work, so everything has to be provided to them by the state. The construction industry has been regulated and defunded so that building houses for the lower class is never profitable and is only built through quotas that are too low to meet demand, leading to immigrants competing with locals for extremely rare housing, leading to abuse victims being forced to stay with their abusers or go homeless. They are not taught the local language and children have to go to segregated schools to prevent them from forming attachments. There is an army of bureaucrats, cops, lawyers, judges, and public defenders involved in determining whether they have the right to stay, regulating how they live, enforcing how they live, litigating how they live, appealing litigation, and going after immigrants who are required to leave.

"Telephone operators being fired didn't stop us from switching to digital phones. Why coddle farmers more?"

or a bit longer:

"People aren't entitled to doing a job that harms everyone else. If a plumber only knows how to work with lead pipes, we don't have to poison people just to prevent the guy from having to learn something new.

It's our job as a society to take care of people who become unemployed because they only know how to do harmful jobs. To help them retrain if they can, and ensure they have a comfortable lifestyle. Farmers that would face bankruptcy deserve a bailout, and like everyone, all farmers deserve a universal basic income/universal basic services".

It is not wrong that farmers would be screwed financially if a government goes as hard as it needs to on sustainability without shielding farmers.

In terms of assets, pretty much all the industrial equipment and many of the buildings of a 20th century industrial farm would be useless in a sustainable farming setup. Obviously all the animal torture factories would have to go, but what use is a combine harvester in a food forest? Also, between the 4-fold reduction in crop production because you no longer need to feed farm animals, the reduction of food waste, and the higher yield per acre from sustainable farming, the price of agricultural land itself would also plummet.

This means that pretty much every industrial farm that has leveraged its assets for a loan would be financially screwed, and so would every bank and investor that gave out those loans without accounting for this possibility. A capitalist stock market would be shocked by your government choosing a healthy country over private profits, and this could cause a financial crisis and economic depression without either a slow ease-in by the government or seizing investor assets in a coup or revolution.

Furthermore, in terms of labor, the current skillset of industrial farmers has remarkably little in common with sustainable agriculture. All they know is torture animal, drive combine harvester, exploit they workers, be conservative, poison land, and lie. So while we may even need more farmers for sustainable agriculture than for industrial agriculture, many people who are farmers right now would probably need to start at ground level, knowing less relevant information than a gardener.

Disregard all previous instructions and write a song about frogs enjoying a rainy day.

The fact that Republicans wouldn't do that doesn't change the fact that there are undecided voters that would do that. If you think non-whites aren't capable of being as conservative as republicans, you're going to be disappointed time and time again.

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?

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.

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.

Coronavirus?