How do y'all cope with this
this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2023
1084 points (93.8% liked)
Collapse
3237 readers
1 users here now
We have moved to https://lemm.ee/c/collapse -- please adjust your subscriptions
This is the place for discussing the potential collapse of modern civilization and the environment.
Collapse, in this context, refers to the significant loss of an established level or complexity towards a much simpler state. It can occur differently within many areas, orderly or chaotically, and be willing or unwilling. It does not necessarily imply human extinction or a singular, global event. Although, the longer the duration, the more it resembles a ‘decline’ instead of collapse.
RULES
1 - Remember the human
2 - Link posts should come from a reputable source
3 - All opinions are allowed but discussion must be in good faith.
4 - No low effort posts.
Related lemmys:
- /c/green
- /c/antreefa
- /c/gardening
- /c/[email protected]
- /c/[email protected]
- c/[email protected]
- /c/biology
- /c/criseciv
- /c/eco
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I struggle every day with the thought that the corporate noose tightening around all of our necks will not be solved unless we as a society begin to provide some real ... 'mortal incentive' to the oligarchs of the world. No way I could ever do it myself, but I understand the need for it now more than ever.
Normally I'm a solutions guy. I shouldn't be coming up with this as a solution for the issues of the world right now, but it's gotten so egregious that the systems we've put in place FOR THE PEOPLE are not working for the people any longer.
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.
All authority is derived from the monopolization of violence.
Intellectual authority? Moral authority? I'm not sure it's quite that clear-cut.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I say you're wrong and assert I am the intellectual authority.
It's king of the hill, time to shove me off homie.
You're own source, order me to do something and watch me ignore your presumed authority.
You already crowned me king of the hill when you declared me the intellectual authority.
If you want to walk that back because you don't like it, feel free, but you'll do nothing more than make yourself look silly and inconsistent - not correct.
I'm not one for monarchs, but it's good to be the king.
Sure did, now use your authority to hold that position.
It's clearly an example you dolt.
King stupid is still king I suppose.
No need for me to reestablish what you've already conceded.
Are you sure you're OK after all that violence I inflicted on you?
So you're not the intellectual authority because I say you're wrong and I am in fact the authority. Prove me wrong and moreover order me to do legit any fucking thing.
Walking back your own statements because you don't like the outcome does nothing to hurt my intellectual authority, while it torpedoes your own.
My advice - if you want to be seen as the intellectual authority, make a better case for it. Violence won't work, and your current line of argumentation is proving my point.
Farming to prove yourself the intellectual authority is enough evidence that you are in fact not the intellectual authority. It's that perceived power vs actual power issue again.
Your advice as what? Certainly not the intellectual authority.
As the established intellectual authority here, who was handed this status without the need for violence, there's nothing for me to add. You proved me right.
So long, intellectual peasant.
Hah thank you for proving my point.
I made you the intellectual authority thus I have the actual power and you have presumed power.
Do betterer
Are we still talking about the authority was granted to me without force (proving you wrong), and retained in a similar fashion (proving you wrong again) as you've tossed away any credibility or claim to the mantle with self-contradiction (rendering your claim to intellectual authority laughable).
Keep at it, peasant - You've done nothing but prove me right so far. If the use of actual force to kill me wouldn't make your self-contradiction any more correct or your claim to the mantle any more valid, brute-force insistence certainly won't - it only continues to strengthen my claim.
You deferred to me as your source of authority thus I can only logical be a higher authority. Exercise your authority, order me to admit I'm wrong. Logic boss use some.
You immediately proved yourself wrong when you handed me that authority without force, and you've failed to take it back through force or rhetoric - you've only cemented my position further.
Unless you've got a new point to make, we're done here - I've got king shit to do.
I cannot hand you authority, it is by definition taken out surmounted. Notably I cannot hand you something I am not entitled to give from a position of authority.
You presume yourself King, but that was proclaimed by God.
When I asked for a new line of argumentation, I didn't mean for you to stack pseudo-religious babble on top of the self-contradiction. That isn't the path to intellectual authority any more than force is.
Meanwhile...
Grug beat Einstein with stick, Grug intellectual authority on speshul regabibity now.
Hitler genocided the Jews. Thanks to that exercise of extreme force, Hitler is the moral authority on genocide, and all his actions were A-OK.
So dumb.
Just use that intellectual authority to realize it's a metaphor. You lost, stop crying.
You're literally referring to me to attempt to assert your authority. Use that heavy thing above your shoulders, if I gave you authority clearly I have higher authority to do so.
The rest is you my crying, try harder.
Your argument is defending Hitler as a moral authority and Grug as the intellectual authority on special relativity over Einstein.
You're not any old peasant - you're the village idiot.
The only person who's even said the word Hitler is you, use some of that intelligence I gave you.
The village idiot specifically is not nor ever was a peasant more often than not they were wards of that state and the term "village idiot" is a derogatory term used to demean those with developmental disorders. But do go on with your eugenicist insults, I don't mind you're just proving who you are.
...and I thought you were flailing before...
Would you care to explain how your dopey argument can't be used to establish Hitler as a moral authority, and Grug as an intellectual authority?
When you've done that, feel free to join the dots between me calling you (someone making arguments that have now established Hitler as a moral authority) the village idiot and eugenics lol.
Let's not forget the point either. You said all authority must be taken by force before immediately handing me intellectual authority without force (proving yourself wrong immediately).
Try to make it interesting - this level of stupidity isn't entertaining for long.
And my dog thinks his asshole is irresistible, I don't agree.
I'm not talking about Hitler dude, just no. You cannot save a shitty Internet argument by injecting Hitler and forcing the respondent with your shit argument and Hitler's shit argument. Don't be such a stereotype troll, at least add some pizzaz if you can't muster anything else.
Again I have not said not implied anything about Hitler, at all period. Try a better argument that can stand by itself rather than your red herring.
No, no it isn't boss, try harder.
Are you actually too stupid to understand that the fact that your argument can be used to defend Hitler as a moral authority or Grug as an intellectual authority demonstrates how moronic your point is?
Otherwise, feel free to explain why these monstrous outcomes don't apply.
It's ok to say you lost you don't have to throw up the shitty argument Hitler flair.
I do find it amusing how obsessed you are with a eugenicist whole making eugenicist comments and insults. It kinda sounds like you're a Nazi.
Reach harder, my dude.
You still haven't explained how you and your definition aren't so goddamn stupid you'd establish Hitler as a moral authority and Grug as an intellectual authority with the simple application of force.
You also failed to connect those eugenicist dots.
I'll wait - endlessly, I'm sure - but please prove me wrong, or embarrass yourself avoiding the point, you irredeemable dolt.
Bro, all of your argument at this point hinges somehow on Hitler which you are the only person who has spoken of. I'm not going to talk about Hitler with you dude, you lost the argument there are easier way to lose.
I will say I did Nazi you coming, but you should be Gering on your way now.
If my arguments were so dumb they could be used to defend Hitler and Grug, I'd abandon them, but here you are, calling me a Nazi instead because you're incapable of engaging the point. You're either lying, or enough of a moron that this is ableism on my part.
...aaaand you're saying today that Israel can't genocide Palestine because they're the same race. Spectacular.
You're arguing are so dumb You're attempting to win by injecting Hitler for no legitimate reason, you proved you aren't the authority on anything at all.
Not at all bud, reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.
They could not be committing genocide as strictly defined which is by race as they are both the same "race". The are however attempting genocide as defined by the UNs "five acts" definition which I also directly quoted and explained. Notably if you actually read my profile you would see me directly and repeatedly state for a fact that Israel IS commiting genocide.
But again, you've proved my point. You dumb.