I seriously cannot have any degree of nuanced conversation here.
Like I get it, we all know capitalism is bad, but it feels like every time I or anyone go towards discussing the steps that need to be taken to address current looming problems in the short term, someone has to jump in and shut it down with "capitalism bad >:[ " and tear down any idea presented because its not complete and total destruction of the current economic model.
The result just feels like an echo chamber where no actual solutions get presented other than someone posting whole ass dissertations on their 33-step (where 30/33 steps are about as vague as “we’ll just handle it”) plan to fully convert the world to an anarchist commune.
Edit: I still vastly prefer Lemmy and the fediverse and a whole, my complaint here is that many of you are TOO INTENSE. You blow up small scale discussion.
Is there an /s missing or not? Genuinely hard to tell. Your comment is so fitting to what OP is complaining about.
There’s no /s missing. Just because the op complained doesn’t make the facts less true.
I think we agree on capitalism for the most part, but do you see how OP and others might find your comment unhelpful?
As OP says themselves, yes, they know capitalism is bad. Pointing it out and leading every discussion onto it doesn’t make for a very interesting or nuanced debate.
As others have said, capitalism is here to stay for at least several decades, probably closer to a century. Major societal change is unrealistic on the short term. I think OP (and I think I largely agree) thinks that it would be better to talk more concretely about the small incremental changes we can make to make society better today.
“we’re moving straight towards that iceberg, we’re all going to die!”
“I agree but this reaction is not being helpful. Now help me rearrange these deck chairs…”
I mean, this kinda comes back to OPs complaint again. As I attempt to enter in this discussion with a more nuanced take, you reply to me in a sarcastic tone with a metaphor (that I don’t think fits very well to reality) that seems to imply that either I fully agree with you or I am part of the problem or at least not doing anything helpful.
Surely you realize that these topics are complicated and there’s not a black/white dichotomy? Can you understand how OP and others might find comments like that off-putting, as you either need to fully agree or you’re part of the problem?
I also don’t think this stance or attitude is helping your case actually. If you want to convince people to action, this is not the way to do it. This just puts them off and pushes them away.
Not every post I make is meant to be a convincing call to action. Not every situation is going to be helped at this. I surmised that this thread - full of smug centrists pointing out how we “have to be realistic” and downvoting everyone pointing out that being this way has led us directly to a climate apocalypse - is not going to be worth the effort.
I think it’s the most apt analogy there is. There, the only possible solution would have been an effective mutiny, to wrest the wheel from the captain and sail to safer waters, and damn the journey time or company profits. Much like the only solution we have right now it to wrest the “wheel” of society from the rich an d damn company profits.
But I saw you elsewhere engaging in unscientific climate denialism, much like every capitalist apologist has to in order to stave of cognitivie dissonance, so I have no patience to talk to antiscientific people.
There is no complications in saying that an Anthropogenic extinction is underway and we need to stop the system powering it.
Where? I’m sorry if I’ve offended you but I am definitely in favour of doing all we can to stop climate change and I am definitely not anti-scientific or in denial about climate change (I fully believe climate change exists and is caused by humans, for the record).
Please, let’s not devolve to name-calling or insults.
This implies that climate change would have happened on its own.
That’s not what I meant. I meant that there’s many different types of societies and capitalism is just one of them. It’s perfectly possible that we could’ve had something other than capitalism (if only) and we still would’ve dug oil out of the ground and burned it to cause climate change. Capitalism is bad and causes climate change, but I’m sure many other types of societies (maybe not all) would also do it.