Chetzemoka

joined 2 years ago
[–] Chetzemoka@startrek.website 2 points 2 years ago (5 children)

Do what? Just saying "we'll have farming and transport" is not a plan.

I'm not saying there isn't any other way to accomplish food production and distribution. I'm saying that just overthrowing our current systems without an explicit plan to keep food on the shelves is going to result in regular working class people starving. That has happened in every revolution except the American, and that's because the American revolutionaries already had the Continental Congress in place making plans about how to administrate the country, if they managed to win the war.

But most revolutions were just pure chaos with no plan that resulted in regular people starving to death. I 100% agree we need new systems. But I'm not terribly interested in living through a violent revolution.

[–] Chetzemoka@startrek.website 2 points 2 years ago (15 children)

Well, it better have some kind of mechanism in place to keep the grocery stores full or it's going to fail on its face.

[–] Chetzemoka@startrek.website 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

And my whole point was that you're wrong in your assessment of why the cultural revolution was a disaster. It was a disaster because it was a populist authoritarian movement. Had nothing to do with progressive or conservative no matter what propaganda they used to dress it up.

[–] Chetzemoka@startrek.website 13 points 2 years ago

TV shows again, but very notable and important examples I think are Star Trek: TNG and DS9

[–] Chetzemoka@startrek.website 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (17 children)

Our institutions are not the problem, our policies are the problem. I want to see a transition to UBI, but a dramatic overhaul that dismantled WIC and SNAP before we got UBI in place would be an unmitigated disaster for the very people we were intending to help.

It's not the reform that I'm skeptical of. It's the lust for revolutionary destruction as a path to reform that I'm skeptical of. It's emotionally satisfying without regard to its actual efficacy in accomplishing the proposed reforms. Because history does not show us evidence that this works out well in the short nor the long run.

[–] Chetzemoka@startrek.website 1 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Are you saying you think a populist authoritarian movement was really communism?

[–] Chetzemoka@startrek.website -2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Well they solved starvation by dramatically increasing it and then replaced old systems with new ones that have all those same old problems. So consider me unconvinced. I think we need to find a new way to change these systems that's more resilient for the future

[–] Chetzemoka@startrek.website 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I think it's just an effect of giving them sodium ascorbate instead of ascorbic acid. It's not the usual cause of hypernatremia, but it is possible to cause hypernatremia with that high a level of sodium intake, especially in the setting of kidney failure. I think they knew that and that's why they specifically noted that side effect.

[–] Chetzemoka@startrek.website 4 points 2 years ago

And I thought it deserved every bit of the accolades haha. But that's fine. We like what we like ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[–] Chetzemoka@startrek.website 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Eh, anything that becomes popular becomes divisive. Because it becomes popular to love it and also popular to hate it.

view more: ‹ prev next ›