Well, fallacies only exist in the world of logic, and since Marxists supposedly thrive in the contradictions of the real world, I’ll throw a little contradiction here: Socialists claim to side with ordinary people and disadvantaged communities (and they usually do, at least the rank and file as opposed to the leadership), but are always shocked to find out that the ordinary people they ostensibly side with are overwhelmingly conservative or at least harbour many views that could be labelled as conservative. When it’s racial minorities or other minority identities taking conservative positions, then they really lose their minds and revert to the only space they feel truly comfortable in: that of abstract ideas disconnected from reality.
But the reality is this: black fathers and mothers want to raise their children in safe communities just as much as white fathers and mothers do, a gay person will want the police to take their call and show up when their house is burglarised, just as much as a straight person would. And all of them will most likely want to be able to afford and own their house as opposed to have huge corporations and banks buying most of the housing stock, inflating prices and reducing them to rent-serfs. That’s the main difference between populists and socialists: socialists need to be constantly “reminding” people of what their best interests are, creating artificial divisions if necessary, whereas populists trust people to know what’s in their best interest and accepts them. Thus a populist can take positions that are both “left-wing” or “right-wing”, as he doesn’t need to fit into an ideological straightjacket. As for a “naturalistic fallacy”, the only one that can exist is that of misreading nature or reality. Logic is a tool to help us interact with reality, it does not replace reality, which can be better described as the things that just are. The mistake socialists make (I’ll be generous and call it a mistake rather than a feature) is that of wanting the people to adapt to their politics, whereas populists are happy to have politics adapt to the people in their pursuit of a fair deal vis-a-vis the elites. Which brings us to these claims below:
Tradition does not mean denying women education, it means embracing wisdom acquired and transmitted over generations by the people. Likewise family loyalty and local community bonds serve, among other things, to preserve bargaining power and agency locally rather than having the people deprived of them in favour of corporations or the state. I find it curious that Marxists, who make a correct assessment of this particular issue, namely that capitalism destroys communities and disempowers ordinary people, are happy to see the state play that same role. Moreover to say that family loyalty is bad because it can be used to cover up spousal abuse is just like saying that adoption is bad because it creates opportunities for child abuse (which it does), even though children are more likely to be abused in orphanages or even public schools. And if those abuses do happen, I think victims have a better chance of finding protection and redress by appealing to a strong local community rather than the state.
In contrast what happened in political experiments that sought to break family loyalties? In East Germany over 10% of the population were Stasi informants, and many ratted on their own family members. Many people spent years in jail without knowing that someone in their own family had betrayed them. Likewise during the cultural revolution in China children were encouraged to denounce their own parents as counterrevolutionaries, and many did. And what were their “real” crimes? Invariably failure to comply with a prevailing orthodoxy. Because Marxism is not “logic” and “scientific” as it claims to be. It is a culture and a quasi-religion. It stems from German idealism, and, unlike traditional religions, it is not based on the lived experience and spirituality of the people, but in the ideological concoctions of a few.
To skip to the actual topic again, scroll to “Back on Topic”.
Except…I’m not really surprised? People tend to depend only on what they’ve personally witnessed, and what I as an individual witness is a small fraction of a percent of what actually goes on in the world. And, as a non-white, cishet man, there are certain experiences I will never go through. I will never feel completely safe around (American) cops. I will never know the experience of childbirth. I will never experience sexism in the same way women do. I will never personally experience homophobia or transphobia. I may be a witness to such experiences, but I will never go through those experiences myself.
Rather than using our personal experiences to understand the world, it would be nice to learn from others’ experiences and grow as a result. Unfortunately, many people do not do that, but that’s what organizing is about, right? Bringing stories to people, having a discussion, understanding their point of view. I was a union organizer for several years and I understood something extremely quickly: People know if you’re looking down on them or their experiences, and they shut you out. Organizing can’t be a one-way street, where we bring the good word to people who are “unenlightened” (hell, isn’t that Christianity’s job? ). Rather, it’s about building a community from the ground up, learning from other’s experiences, and everyone growing as people.
Absolutely. Of course everyone wants to feel safe. Of course everyone wants financial (and other) security. The fundamental point, though, is that not everyone feels safe when the cops are involved. And the statistics bear this out. Are there black (or latino) people who feel safe calling the cops? Absolutely. But, statistically, the ‘average’ black (or latino) person is less comfortable calling the cops than the ‘average’ white person. And it’s this reliance on personal anecdotes (rather than looking at trends over a whole community) that break down community rather than building it up. When you start saying “Well, that’s not my experience”, you start destroying any notion of solidarity (and thus, breaking down any sense of community).
There’s so much wrong with this. What people think is their best interest is informed by so many different environmental factors (and propaganda) that it’s not even funny. From your schooling to the news to what you believe is possible to literal propaganda, what you believe is in your best interest isn’t cut-and-dry. All you’re doing when you say you “trust people to know what’s in their best interest” is that you don’t want to actually change anything about the system. If people believe that capitalism is the best (because that’s literally all they’ve been told), then what you’re saying is that we should accept it. If people believe that women shouldn’t be able to vote, we should accept it. If people believe that gay people should be killed, we should accept it.
Right? Or are some of those things not acceptable while others are? And is that difference ideologically motivated?
My only point in pointing those things out was to say that you are making certain value judgements when you pick those values. Those aren’t inherently good things anymore than they’re inherently bad things. They’re simply a collection of values you picked because you prioritize certain outcomes (and possibly people) over others.
Marxism isn’t the only socialism, and I’m not a Marxist. I don’t really condone what happened in the USSR or in China during the Cultural Revolution.
Yup, fully agreed. I don’t know why @offtobettershores fixated on the fact that I mentioned that I’m a socialist (rather than the original topic, about which he apparently has little to say anymore).
Back on topic
@offtobettershores, here’s what I’ll say. Maybe, for the sake of this thread, we can put aside the whole socialism thing (which really belongs on #off-topic, not on here), since there’s no way that’s getting resolved in this thread. You still have not presented anything reputable questioning the scientific climate consensus and repeatedly have conflated what governments and corporations are willing to do with what scientists say we should do. You have also repeatedly cited government and corporate inaction to ask why we should worry about climate change when they aren’t, fully ignoring the fact that the government is not run by scientists and corporations are not run by scientists (something I have mentioned repeatedly and you have failed to actually respond to).
It feels like you’re deliberately muddying the waters to question the climate consensus without actually providing sources or hard data to back it up, and you’re using that to justify shitting on Framework for trying to offset whatever carbon emissions they generate.
If anything I have mentioned here is wrong, please feel free to correct me.
Totally agree. Even though this has become increasingly polemic from his side, I still feel the urge to respond to @offtobettershores as there are many things in his statement that I feel need correction. But for the sake of this thread and my sanity I will agree to ceasefire
I have already addressed this question a few posts back when I said that science today is politicised and bound by the pressure of interest groups (to which I would add also peer pressure). I said that was an unfortunate circumstance, whereas you claimed that the politicisation of science is an inescapable feature. And that’s what led to the discussion about socialism.
As to why I keep pointing to the decisions of governments and corporations. Well, they are the ones making financial decisions aren’t they? Plus I have argued, and that’s my main point, that “climate change” can be a useful tool to shift even more wealth from the people to the elites. And throughout the debate I remained open to the possibility that it is real, as I have not claimed any special knowledge.
Then we should be 90% on the same side.
You said yourself that no preference is neutral, and my preferred outcome is that people are free, prosperous and safe. As to the suggestion that I might “prioritise certain people”, that’s indeed a low punch. But I am not surprised, and I don’t plan on pursuing this line of discussion as it is really below me.
I am not “shitting” on Framework and this is very clear from my earlier posts.
I apologise. I’m happy for it to be moved elsewhere or even archived.
Science has always been political, though. As I mentioned earlier, stating that the Earth goes around the Sun was a political act at the time, even though we don’t see it that way now. Developing the theory of evolution was a political act. Science being political is nothing new, and scientists have always been embedded in some political context, whether they were/are aware of it or not (and most, I think, were/are).
Should we take government’s (and corporations’) advice on everything then? Since they’re always calling the shots? Or should we listen to the people who actually study this stuff? I find it baffling that there can ever be more than one answer to this question.
Like, we listen to doctors for medical advice. We listen to mechanics when they describe what’s going on with our cars or trucks. We listen to plumbers when they tell us what’s going on with the plumbing in our house. Why the hell wouldn’t we listen to the scientists for answers to questions about science?
That’s not to say we should unquestioningly accept what anyone says (science isn’t, and shouldn’t be, a religion). But doubting a narrative requires contradictory evidence, and you have yet to provide any. Blind skepticism is as stupid as blind faith.
90% of what’s going on today can be a useful tool to shift more wealth from the people to the elites. Or, to borrow another phrase, from the workers to the capitalists (the owners of capital). And climate activists have been fighting against such measures that preserve (or worsen) inequality.
I don’t see what any of this has to do with the concrete action Framework has taken, though, which is offsetting whatever carbon emissions they could not prevent.
Except you clearly take issue with carbon offsetting as a concept, and you’re annoyed that Framework has partnered with CarbonFund to offset their carbon. Right?
You may claim not to be a Marxist, and I’ll believe you. But this is straight out of Marxist theory. No more on this.
But governments and corporations are the ones bankrolling the “people who actually study the stuff”. It’s governments and corporations who decide who gets funding and who doesn’t.
Look, my scepticism is not blind, but your faith seems to be. If I get sick or otherwise need a medical intervention of course I’ll look for a doctor qualified in modern medicine and not a witch doctor. But I’m also aware that doctors get paid by Big Pharma to push expensive meds on patients. I’d have no option but to trust that doctor, but that doesn’t mean I’d have blind faith in him or her.
I don’t take issue. I questioned the wisdom of carbon offsetting in general. I did not claim that Framework, or even CarbonFund for that matter, is doing it out of malice or cheap virtual signalling.
I really didn’t start reading this thread thinking I would fall on the side of @offtobettershores but here we are
People are inherently suspicious of things they do not understand and science is complex and our understanding of the universe is ever evolving so of course there is suspicion there
No, @offtobettershores takes issue with “green-washing” by which corporations can claim to be green while in fact doing very little. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle-that is the order in which you help the planet. “Carbon Offsets” do none of that, it allows some companies (perhaps not Framework) to pollute as much as they want and claim that the net result is zero when that is simply not true. Perhaps Framework truly has cut carbon emissions to zero and these offsets are for the last bit that cannot be eliminated. I doubt it but we will never know.
Because it is political it invites itself open to criticism and analysis whatever form that may take.
Having said that, I firmly believe in human-caused or accelerated climate change and think that the whole debate on it is pointless. Even if it were a natural event, the results are catastrophic and must be dealt with expediently
Terrible logic, people are motivated by their self-interest and large groups of people tend to absolve themselves of responsibility as they look to the others to do something before they do anything-thats just a basic psychological principle
Why else do you think world hunger and disease continue to be a problem? It’s not for a lack of resources, just the unwillingness of others to solve the problem-after all(to be completely heartless) why should I care who lives or dies of Malaria or Hunger or Conflict in insert place that isn’t my home here
There are multiple topics in this thread that could be debated, from basic economic/political theory to climate science and the greenwashing that has resulted
None of which has anything to do with the original post and the debate of which will ultimately solve nothing at all
I agree it was badly worded. My point was that, if climate change were indeed an extinction-level threat, at least some members of the elite would start banging pots to rally the rest for meaningful action, not action that would benefit the poor, mind you, but action that would save their own asses and, more importantly, assets. My reasoning is that rich people did not get rich nor remain rich by being stupid. But I’ll admit that in a society with increasingly reduced social mobility that particular piece of wisdom can be questioned too.
It remains the option that climate change is real and bad, but not Armageddon-bad. In that case it would affect only the vulnerable and the elites would not care the least about it. But in that case I pointed out that there are many other environmental initiatives that can produce tangible results now and which have the added benefit of also reducing carbon if that turns out the be indeed a problem. One of those initiatives is the very founding principle of Framework, which I hope they’ll stick to.
You assume “the elite” as a class are monolithic and move together
My contention is that concept is a logical fallacy, and not only that but that some members of the "elite: do in fact bang pots together and make a commotion, just look at Bill Gates and Warren Buffet
You can argue that the whole foundation is just a smokescreen and does not actually wish to achieve its stated goals but ostensibly, the BIll and Melinda Gates Foundation does wish to fight climate change and is spending money to do so
Some wealthier individuals do have assets that would be damaged by a cleaner economy, such as oil tycoons to name an obvious example
Also a logical fallacy, you are imparting characteristics to individuals that have nothing to do with being wealthy, how many heirs and heiresses are on the Forbes list? Plenty, I bet you the Walton family does very little managing of Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club day-to-day operations and instead contemplates which boat to fish from next. But I guess you knew that when you said
I would agree that there is not really a way to determine if climate change is extinction level but that’s only because of the flaws in Malthusian theory. If nothing else changes, yes it would be extinction level. Desertification, flooding and numerous other things would pretty much cause society to collapse if nothing else changes
Having read the comments, I will say this. Organizations of all types be it Political, Commercial, or Religious have too much power over us. They are too difficult to control and too difficult to ensure that they are acting in a moral, responsible way.
I gave the example of my birthplace city having a river become so polluted that it famously caught fire. Why did that happen? Because the organizations (companies) that were dumping pollutants into the river controlled the Organizations (State and local governments) who were supposed to stop it. Meanwhile people suffered and were hurt and it went on and on until the results were obvious as a result of the fire.
I don’t know the answer to this. I think there are individual policiants in both parties who want to do the right thing. but they are hampered by the corrupt organizations which waste too much time demonizing the others to do anything about it. And I think an honest politician who actually looks at issues and is willing to make reasonable choices will soon be eliminated by the machine politics of everyone else.
Where does that leave me as an individual? As a reasonable person, when I buy something, I try to keep it in good condition, so that when I pass it on, it will maintain it’s value. We all have a responsibilities as people to be honorable and ethical. And where organizations are willing to buck the trend and behave ethically, then I commend them and want to do business with them.
And to @Stephen_C Yes the earth is an oblate spheroid. That statement is a fact. As is the statement that the earth is not the center of gravitational motion in this solar system. To change either of these facts would require unimaginable levels of power that would surely end all life on earth. So yes, in just about any frame of reference we could possibly imagine, truth is truth.