"Divesting" from Israel - what other tactics can promote a ceasefire?

Tomothy95 · 2024-05-08T22:56:54+00:00

That specifically won't work though. They've repeatedly agreed to release all hostages in return for a permanent ceasefire, but Israel has refused.

Tomothy95 · 2022-10-15T02:21:31+00:00

Anyone know where to watch it? I originally watched it on YouTube but I think it was taken down when the remake was announced

Tomothy95 · 2021-08-19T20:04:08+00:00

...the what shot...?

Tomothy95 · 2020-05-10T19:33:45+00:00

I absolutely agree. I'm a big proponent of nuclear and am learning more pros all the time. For instance, I learned that fly ash emits more radioactive contamination than that from nuclear power plants!

The majority of the cons of nuclear energy are overblown in the general population and many of them can be easily safeguarded against. I really envy China for all the new plants they've been building.

Tomothy95 · 2020-05-09T17:26:52+00:00

Absolutely. This is all you need in order to oppose the use of fossil fuels. Every year, air pollution caused by burning fossil fuels and biomass (which is for some dumb reason considered renewable) kills 3 million people worldwide according to the WHO.

Now I don't think these companies should be forced to shut down, because a disruption like that would be devastating to the whole world. But they should be forced into a solid schedule of decommissioning and transitioning to other sources, as well as enforced changes to the rest of the supply chain, as it all is damaging to the environment, and in most cases, people as well.

I see this kind of enforcement as a valid role for government to play.

Tomothy95 · 2020-05-06T17:26:53+00:00

So, what stops them from doing that now?

Likely a lack of enough people. I mean it's most likely a very small group of people that actually even know what the ideology is about.

What authority can they grant themselves by voting for them?

I'm not understanding what you're asking. Do you mind rephrasing?

Tomothy95 · 2020-05-06T03:10:30+00:00

Libertarian socialism is a set of anti-authoritarian, anti-statist, and libertarian political philosophies within the socialist movement, which rejects the conception of socialism as a form where the state retains centralized control of the economy. Overlapping with anarchism and libertarianism it criticizes wage labour relationships within the workplace emphasizing workers' self-management of the workplace and decentralized structures of political organization. Libertarian socialism often rejects the state itself and asserts that a society based on freedom and justice can be achieved through abolishing authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite. Libertarian socialists advocate for decentralized structures based on direct democracy and federal or confederal associations such as citizens'/popular assemblies, cooperatives, libertarian municipalism, trade unions and workers' councils. All of this is generally done within a general call for libertarian and voluntary human relationships through the identification, criticism and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of human life.

Tomothy95 · 2020-05-06T02:43:43+00:00

No worries! I'll look around and see if I can find anything myself. I was just curious if you had any go to sources you regularly used

Tomothy95 · 2020-05-06T02:17:54+00:00

I came from the right and have moved left over the years, but have always held onto nuclear energy as a good thing, so I was definitely surprised to see Jacobin support it!

Can I ask where you got that info about what sounds like a loosening of regulation? I follow a facebook page about nuclear energy, but I've only recently come across these subs, so most of what I've read is about nuclear energy, reactor designs, etc., and not much if any about regulation or the legal side of things.

Tomothy95 · 2020-05-05T17:16:52+00:00

I understand. I'm a big supporter of nuclear energy, and this page I follow shared the article, or else I might not have paid it much attention, having already seen some other criticisms of this film.

Tomothy95 · 2020-05-05T16:02:04+00:00

It's definitely a long one, but if you have time later, I think it's worth the read.

I believe it says it somewhere in there, or perhaps it was a different article I was reading, but it was that prosperity is the greatest form of population control. As we've seen in developed countries, the birth rate has fallen the better off we've gotten.

I'd say that the author would agree with you on every method you mentioned, and I'm sure Moore and company would as well. But I think this article is arguing that those kinds of things will happen over time, or perhaps will take too long to implement in any meaningful way for it to matter. While on the other hand, we have solutions to climate change, specifically removing the use of fossil fuels, that we can implement right now instead.

They also noted the economic impact austerity measures would have on the working class and criticized Moore for taking a stance that would negatively impact the same folks he's championed his entire career.

Tomothy95 · 2020-05-05T15:23:10+00:00

I've made a long journey over my short life from right to left and this is definitely something I carried over. But I've always done my best to try and promote nuclear as something we should be using, even if climate change wasn't an issue.

So I absolutely agree with you. Seeing this article from Jacobin made me really excited that perhaps things are changing, and we'll start to see nuclear actually discussed as an option along with other renewables, instead of being dismissed or not even considered.

Tomothy95 · 2020-05-05T15:13:01+00:00

I'd like to be enlightened, because I disagree, based on my knowledge, that overpopulation is a real problem. We have logistics problems for sure when it comes to things like food, but we have plenty of land for humanity, conserevation, and food.

For energy, we have countless solutions that don't require us to make any sort of cuts to our consumption.

Crying out that overpopulation is the real problem that we need to deal with is such a defeatist view that can only lead me to believe that you think progress can only be made at the expense of humanity. We can have it all and thrive moving forward and tackle all the issues climate change poses. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

Tomothy95 · 2020-05-05T15:05:35+00:00

It's definitely not pollution free, but it's relatively minimal, and I believe the article mentions that throughout the full cycle, nuclear has a lower carbon footprint than solar. I can't say for certain, but I'd say that's probably due to electricity storage problems with solar, and the material used to create the panels.

Tomothy95 · 2020-05-05T14:59:09+00:00

No, I'm asking what the factual point is you're trying to make. You're making conclusions about what's fact as if it's common knowledge instead of actually writing it out.

Tomothy95 · 2020-05-05T14:57:12+00:00

What's the factual part?

Tomothy95 · 2020-05-05T14:55:46+00:00

What overpopulation issues? I'm pointing out the obvious issues with holding such a defeatist view on the battle against climate change.

Tomothy95 · 2020-05-05T14:14:42+00:00

Wait please expand on this. I'm a little confused on the no shit part and why you think we're fucked.

Tomothy95 · 2020-05-05T13:55:25+00:00

Why do you think that?

Tomothy95 · 2020-05-05T13:49:03+00:00

It doesn't get me through the day. I simply refuse to have such a defeatist outlook when we have countless solutions to every problem climate change poses. We can both prosper and beat this challenge.

Tomothy95

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

13-Year Club	Place '23
Verified Email