this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2024
209 points (96.4% liked)

politics

25208 readers
2935 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Hurricanes are getting so strong in a warming world that a Category 6 intensity should be added to the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind scale, a new study finds.

Why it matters: The research shows how significantly climate change is altering storm intensity and other characteristics, as well as further underscoring the limitations of the scale.

Reality check: The paper, published Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, does not represent an official move by the National Hurricane Center to add another hurricane category.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world 76 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

I used to rhetorically say for years that our global oligarchs won't let us steer away from reckless economic growth/metastasis until CAT 6 hurricanes, because they'll need a new level of intensity, are flattening entire cities.

I've grown wiser since then. Literally nothing will stop our global oligarchs from running up their ego competition scores at humanity's expense until civilization truly, completely, entirely collapses, not even from cities being flattened from a single superstorm.

Our species is determined and committed to destroying itself and its only habitat for short term private profit for a few thousand sociopath families. We're a dog with a bone.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 18 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I don't think it is the species. I think it's the oligarchs you mentioned. Individuals are really not the big climate change drivers that corporations are. It doesn't even come close.

[–] AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world 24 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Theres only about 3,000 billionaires on earth, and only about 28,000 people worth 100 million or more. There are bigger sports stadiums on Earth than that. Our species' true enemy's numbers are tiny.

We the billions to their tens of thousands choose not to end them. That's on us, and moreso the billions of true believer class traitors that will defend them to their dying breath, in pathetic hopes it will one day endear the owner class to them.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Sorry, you somehow expect 8 billion people to systematically go to every one of those 3000 people's homes and kill them? How many people killed by those billionaires' heavily-armed security forces are you willing to sacrifice? And will you be at the front of the mob staring down the roof-mounted machine guns? Also, are all of those people supposed to go on foot or are you planning on giving them a travel stipend?

[–] AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

You explain the mass excuses as to why billions of humans live in subsistence to a few thousand sociopath families well. The numbers are the numbers though. They get away with it because we allow it.

That said, we could also end them legislatively, but at least half of the subjugated have been propagandized to see their oppressors as a necessity they must protect. Poor deluded bastards.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (2 children)

How do you end a global problem legislatively?

There is not a global legislature.

[–] AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Nation by nation of course. That would have to start with a single prominent wealthy nation though.

I just don't see the will. Humanity in all likelyhood will follow the path of least resistance off a cliff without exercising radical violence or radical democracy. I think we're too cowardly to act, and the owners correctly bet on that mass fear and indolence. We largely don't think of our children, only our own immediate consequences.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Not all nations have legislatures. Not all nations with legislatures have legislatures that actually represent the will of the people. Not all nations are even democracies or republics.

How exactly do you plan to get the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on board? Because they're a huge part of the problem. Do you think you're going to convince the House of Saud to stop pumping oil out of the ground and selling it?

[–] AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Not all nations with legislatures have legislatures that actually represent the will of the people.

"Not all?" rofl almost none. The Nordic nations and that's about it, and the market capitalists will do to them what they've done to the UK and are doing to the rest of Western Europe. That's why I am without hope. I'm just commenting on the ridiculousness of our hopeless situation. It's remarkable in in a dark way. Burning the paradise we inherited as the apex predator because we were conquered by the modern equivalent of the snake oil salesmen of old who convinced us its the only way.

Imho, there is no solution, at least not one humanity is capable of calculating. Enioy the show, it's basically Jackass without the self-awareness on a much larger scale. We're not going to survive our nature with all the technologies we're too primitive to wield responsibly.

Probably that "great filter" astrophysicists use to explain the lack of obvious interstellar civilization activity out there. At some point, a species becomes just smart enough to develop technologies that can destroy it they lack the capacity to wield like grown ups benevolently.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

So... your solution is to legislate this nation by nation even though most nations do not actually represent what people want and won't legislate it because of that and due to this it means the entire species is determined and committed to destroying itself.

[–] CodexArcanum@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Squid, other than the devil, what are you advocating for here?

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Honestly, I don't think climate change will be solved, but I also don't think the entirety of humanity is to blame.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

How do you end a global problem legislatively?

The rulebook includes a pretty straightforward legislative approach to global problems.

Article I Section 8

The Congress shall have Power ... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Granted, we probably shouldn't use that power until we've exhausted all possibility of resolution via treaty, but the tool is in the box, should we decide to use it.

Legislatively, Congress could enact a wealth tax, annually conveying 20% of all registered securities held by billionaires to the IRS for liquidation. They don't have to sell them off suddenly; we're just going to take their shares, and sell them off to the public over a sufficiently long period of time. Monthly sales, totalling no more than 10% of market volume, until the IRS's entire issue is sold. That takes care of American billionaires, including people like Musk and Bezos, whose wealth is in their stocks. It also takes care of any foreign billionaires with holdings in American markets.

For billionaires in the rest of the world, Congress is empowered to decide if they want to follow or violate international law. We can put a bounty on the heads of everyone worth more than a billion.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Wait, sorry, so your solution is for the U.S. government to start committing assassinations in other countries?

And you think the other countries would just sit back and let it happen?

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I was asked for a "legislative" solution in a world without a global legislature. I answered that question.

My "solution" is a wealth tax, targeting the registered securities of the obscenely rich, on the basis that their influence destabilizes the market and the economy, causing harm to the American people.

I would expect other nations to follow suit, and clamp down on their own billionaires in short order.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I would expect other nations to follow suit, and clamp down on their own billionaires in short order.

Why would the House of Saud do that?

Why would Lukashenko do that?

Why would Vladimir Putin do that?

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Why would the subjects of Louis XVI do that?

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I see... so your plan is to make billionaires illegal in the U.S., hope that other countries do to, but if they don't, hope for a revolution, and if that revolution doesn't come, commit war crimes in their countries.

I'm sure the U.S. assassinating a Russian billionaire inside Russia won't have any serious repercussions.

But hey, global thermonuclear war will end global warming, so I guess you did come up with a solution.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)
  1. Not illegal. Taxed on their excesses until they are pulled from the stock market.
  2. Louis XVI was not deposed by Americans, but by French citizens. That act was not a war crime. It wasn't even an act of war.
  3. The last time a private, foreign individual directly harmed American citizens, we ended up dumping his carcass in the Arabian sea. That was an act of warfare, but it certainly was not a war crime.
  4. When they leave US markets, they no longer pose a threat to US citizens. Problem solved, without the bounty on their heads. If they want to do business in the US, they can demand their governments impose a similar cap on their wealth.

If they are as rich as an independent nation, I see no reason why we shouldn't treat them as an independent nation.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'm pretty sure billionaires are a threat to the world, not just the U.S.

And, yes, I get that you think nuclear war is a solution, you've already made that clear.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Is it true that Jeff makes you put on an Amazon vest and call him "Daddy" while he's plowing your ass?

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yes, that makes sense. Because I think billionaires are a global threat, I must worship Jeff Bezos.

Logic.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I didn't insinuate that you worship Jeff Bezos. I insinuated that you call him Daddy while he rails you.

I figure if you're going to present bald-faced lies about my position, turnabout is fair play.

If Jeff Bezos wants to be richer than some nations, we can treat him like the autocratic ruler of a nation. When an autocratic nation brings harm to Americans, we do something about it.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 3 points 2 years ago

How many people killed by those billionaires' heavily-armed security forces are you willing to sacrifice?

Meh, they're all Uvalde cops.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 15 points 2 years ago

Literally nothing will stop our global oligarchs from running up their ego competition scores at humanity's expense

Yes, there is. It's called a "guillotine".