Jesus…

Why are they allowing this man to continue? It’s not like they’ll lose the seat. How bizarre.

In that moment, while Mitch McConnell’s dying brain struggled and failed to make sense of its present reality, all the dourness was gone from his face. All the downward gravitational pull from a lifetime in the DC swamp. All the seriousness. All the scheming. All the warmongering, tyranny and abusiveness.

In that moment of amnesiac innocence, you’d never be able to tell from looking at Mitch McConnell how many people he’s helped kill. How much suffering he’s helped cause. How much health and thriving he’s frozen out of humanity in his joyless facilitation of corporate dystopia.

All you’d see is a man. A cute, harmless, befuddled old man. All the dark, dense, contracted energy gone from his form in a sweet tender moment of intimate indivisibility.

— Caitlin Johnstone

But that wasn't my aim. — Amity

Fair enough!

I'll grade you as Excellent!
And I am in a position to know. Being an authentic Goddess. True that. — Amity

:grin: Can’t argue with that.



Appreciate the response.

So, you thought that I was attempting to situate the questioning as a kind of psychological therapy? — Amity

No, but the aim (provide no answers but assist others in discovering their own) seemed similar.

Does having a psychology background hinder or help you in forum interactions? Both/Neither/Other. — Amity

Both.

Are you always trying to figure people out, according to some little test? — Amity

:lol: I suppose so. But more like getting to know them better. And I don’t consider this a “test,” really — although I can see how it would be viewed that way. I’m in no position to grade anyone’s work.

People trust who they trust, and more often than not they’ll trust Uncle Buck before they trust some state-run or state-influenced mouthpiece. — NOS4A2

State-run or corporate-run mouthpiece. But I repeat myself.

Maybe this thread has had the unintended consequence of separating those brave enough to take a stab at it and those finding excuses not to. :joke:

'Rogerian'? — Amity

My fault. It’s my psychology background— Carl Rogers was a therapist, and the technique I was referring to was one in which the therapist provides no answers, but creates a conducive atmosphere where the patient discovers the answers for himself/herself.

That is, I hope the above tells the careful reader something about myself, or at least about the way I think that I think. — unenlightened

I think it does. Still digesting some of those…

In Plato's Dialogues, is Socrates searching for a definitive definition of a concept?
Or the reality behind the word? — Amity

Neither.

In any case, I think my title has led some to believe I’m really asking that this list be definitive. I think I’ll remove that from the title, as it’s misleading.

This surprised me a little so far:

Mind
(See consciousness above.) — 180 Proof

Mind
Consciousness — Wayfarer

Wasn’t expecting too much agreement.

Yes, and usually triggered by the meaning of x. Whether justice or piety or virtue or whatever.
— Mikie

It's an idea of 'justice' related to action or behaviour. — Amity

Ideas have meaning. The dialogues pretty quickly transition into what is meant.

“Curiosity.”
— Mikie

Desire to know or discover. — Amity

Sure— but I was responding to your question of “why do you want to know”. If the kid said “curiosity,” then we’d either say we have no idea what an aorta is, or what it means as a word, or try our best to describe or define it in some way.

I don’t think using a kind of Rogerian technique in these circumstances is appropriate, however well-meaning the intention.

“What’s the aorta Dad?”
— Mikie
The first response:
Why do you want to know? — Amity

That’s what your response would be?

Okay: “Curiosity.”

I agree with — Amity

I'd use the term, and encourage them to use it, so the child can see how it is used. — Banno

All kind of sounds like a cop out to me.

“What’s the aorta Dad?”
“Let me use the word so you can see how it’s used.”

Explaining what we mean, or think a word means, doesn’t require universal application or ultimate truth.

If the current fashionable state of philosophy is to answer with a slogan like “it’s how it’s used,” I think we’re in real trouble.

I prefer I use the term ... — 180 Proof

Fair enough.

Interesting list!

Definitive list of definitions.

Of course, there is no such thing. — Amity

Of course. The title is tongue-in-cheek.

Off the cuff nonsense. — Amity

Your answers didn’t seem nonsensical to me.

If this life student is asking questions about such things, then they already have a degree of knowledge. — Amity

Sure. So what?

He asked questions of students. He made them think things through for themselves. — Amity

Yes, and usually triggered by the meaning of x. Whether justice or piety or virtue or whatever.

Perception

Discrimination. — Moliere

I like this. A good synonym. It assumes a kind of interpreting. :up:



Interesting.

I realize you and me and “Being” have a long history haha— so I won’t go there.

There's a way of understanding each, that is not given by setting out their definitions in words but seen in the way they are used. — Banno

Okay…so how do you use them?

But further, any such string of words will be inadequate, failing to account for all uses. — Banno

True. Still, I’m sure you use these words like anyone else, and usually mean something by them. So that’s what I was asking for. If a kid would ask for your own take on these terms, would the answer be “it depends on use” or would you have some (albeit provisional) answer?

It’s hard not to be tribal, I think. Especially when tribalism has been encouraged for 40 years.

In the specific case of US politics, the best approach is simply not to identify with either party. There is no labor or socialist party, like in any other comparable country, so it’s not that difficult to extricate oneself from the duopoly. The biggest political group in the US (besides non-voters) is independents, I think largely for the reason that many are turned off by the blind, cult-like following of party politics.

The Republicans have taken it to the next level of insanity. It’s a sign that their values simply no longer align with majorities, or reality. So the lies and gaslighting and demonization of the other side has to reach extremes to make up for it.

Trump says the election was stolen? We’ll find some way to believe it. Trump tries to overturn the election? Fine. Incites an insurrection? Fine. Major donors like the fossil fuel industry is causing environmental harm? There is no environmental harm — or China needs to lead the way.

And on and on.

Because your questions are inane and condescending. You ask insulting questions like that, expect responses of like kind.

Also, what’s truly “appalling” is your long line of thoroughly debunked, misleading, minimizing comments.

Feel free to chit chat with fellow climate deniers. Leave me out of it.

Adults are talking. Your random, fatuous questions are irrelevant.

Roomer are strong in political circles that Ron DeSanctimonious, whose Presidential run is a shambles, and whose poll numbers have absolutely crashed, putting him 3rd and 4th in some states, will be dropping out of the Presidential race in order to run, in Florida, against Rick Scott for Senate

Spellcheck fails him again. Kind of like “looser” when they mean “loser.” Since it’s an actual word, it doesn’t correct it, but who would think “rumor” is spelled that way in the first place? :lol:

Anyway, this is the buffoon we’re discussing here. One of the biggest political losers of all time, and yet he had a wide enough platform to work his con man magic on millions of people, who will apparently go to their graves defending him. It’s hilarious to watch, but also quite sad/pathetic.

It's not the economy, it's Schopenhauer's Will. — schopenhauer1

Yeah but a lot of Schopenhauer is just bullshit.

In any case, we’re talking about making production better by not having it controlled by a handful of elites. The person to read in this respect is Karl, not Arthur.

Many in that audience believed their country was being taken away from them, and that they'd lose it if they weren't willing to fight for it. It was in that context that the protesters didn't stay out on the street but broke into the Capitol in search of members of Congress. — GRWelsh

Exactly. Which anyone that isn’t in the cult can see— and could see even before it happened. There were warning signs that it could turn violent, based on the weeks of escalation Trump was sowing on social media alone.

I predicted violence — I didn’t expect them to breach the Capitol building, but violence was obvious. Fortunately, the entire thing was based on a delusion, so 4/5 the people there had no clue what exactly the objective was and were just going along, mostly wandering around.

Nick McDonell, Quiet Street: On American Privilege

Still, the rich like to believe in meritocracy, even fairness. These ideas are beloved by the media, and are one of the few bipartisan talking points. Barack Obama: “Anything is possible in America.” Donald Trump: “In America, anything is possible.” Famous examples demonstrate the seductive drama of economic mobility. Henry Ford was the son of a farmer. Steve Jobs, Oprah Winfrey, George Soros—and so on in every profession. Such examples not only make one-percenters feel good; they distract from the reality that, in the United States of America and elsewhere, success almost always, and predominantly, depends on wealth—and frequently comes at the expense of the less wealthy. I could afford to spend a month writing a book at a fancy hotel, which, when it came out, took attention away from novelists who were not as rich or connected as I am. I could afford to buy a drink for that producer, who bought the rights to my book, not someone else’s.

[…]

The fear they shared was loss of wealth. Without ever saying so, they were very much afraid of losing their country houses, the space for the grand piano, the greenhouses, the pied-à-terre where their mother-in-law stayed without being in everyone’s business. They were afraid of processed supermarket cheese; they much preferred the organic stuff, which, they emphasized, would keep them alive longer. The same could not be said of their clothes, but they were afraid of losing the Prada bags anyway, the heavy zippers, the cashmere. They didn’t want to wear polyester windbreakers, or sit on Ikea sofas, or drive a Hyundai. They were afraid of losing the safer, sleeker Mercedes. They were afraid of losing all of it, any of it. And who wouldn’t prefer a Mercedes, anyway?

But the quality of the car was not what lay at the root of the fear. They feared losing wealth not for its own sake but because it was justified, in their own minds, by intelligence, hard work, determination—that is, by character. If they lost their wealth, then, well, who were they? The true fear was not loss of wealth but loss of self.

Perhaps climate change is just a manifestation of the notion that production itself is not necessarily a positive thing. It keeps us alive, but it's instrumental in nature. We are always dissatisfied and our need for production and consumption, and work and justification of work are manifestations of this. — schopenhauer1

I mostly agree with this. I’d add an obvious point: production can be done smarter. It doesn’t have to be in the hands of a small group of people motivated almost exclusively by profit.

So they care about climate change but won't take a couple hours every two years to vote about it? — RogueAI

I don’t think they realize the importance of voting. Some rather take stronger actions, for some it’s too difficult, etc. For some it’s apathy, yes, but not 3/4.

Good question. I’m not one of them, but would like to know how many we have (if we have any at all).

Only 1 in 4 young people are voting. That's really sad. That shows they don't really care about climate change. — RogueAI

I don’t think that’s what it means at all.

You want people not to be burdened with this, at least be a situational antinatalist. — schopenhauer1

Buddy, does everything have to come back to this one issue? Makes you sound a bit like a one-trick pony. I say this in a friendly way.

People want to combat climate change, but they don't want to sacrifice their standard of living while doing it. — RogueAI

People do things they don’t want to do all the time. It’s up to us to make it easier or harder. Bad habits, addictions, etc— I doubt many people want to continue with these things, but often times it’s simply “easier” than the alternative. It should be made harder. The reverse is true of good behavior — it should be made easier, regardless of what one thinks about it.

We can shape society through policy. Look at smoking. Or through technology — like streaming or digital music. I miss old record stores — but yet I’ve found myself defaulting to YouTube or Spotify because it’s that much easier — there’s less friction involved. Plus car (and computer) producers don’t bother selling their products with CD functions anyway.

None of that was my choice— if it were up to me, I’d go back to how it was before everything was on a phone. But things change and I go along because it’s easier or cheaper or more convenient somehow. Plus I don’t feel like it’s a major moral failing.

I suspect many Americans are in the same boat with climate change: they want a cleaner environment and a better planet for their kids and grandkids, but it’s expensive to buy solar panels and EVs— public transit either doesn’t exist or sucks, etc. Plus, not a lot is known about the best use of time.

That’s why it’s up to those who both care about and have a good understanding of the problem to educate and organize, to affect the necessary changes of economic and productive policy. The tobacco industry is a good example, but the fossil fuel industry is much more politically powerful, and more embedded in everything we use. So the task is harder.

So there’s no need to sacrifice much if we implement sensible changes. It’s a false choice. We subsidize fossil fuels right now. Going from an oil furnace to heat pump isn’t sacrificing anything. It’s actually an improvement.

Or shall we tell a few jokes and shoot the breeze? — unenlightened

Right, because there's no reason to be "mean" or "overthink" or be "so serious" about ...anything.

Let's just take it easy and turn every thread into the Shoutbox.

Climate change, no matter how much footage of ice caps melting and X phenomenon isn't perceived by people as their problem. — schopenhauer1

Polls have shown people do care, and think governments should be doing more. There's large turnouts at protests, there's increasingly bold direct actions taken all over the world to stop drilling, new coal plants, deforestation, etc. On local levels, especially in cities, you see all kinds of innovative policies being implemented. Some will work well, others won't.

Not to mention that the media is finally starting to report on climate change more seriously. This is partly because the effects all around us are undeniable. It's no longer a future problem, or one that "other people" have to concern themselves with. The evidence is everywhere on earth, and there's no longer anywhere to hide. Even here in New England, a fairly insulated place, there are very real effects.

There's a lot of work to be done. There's some movement, but not nearly enough -- and there may not be enough time, unless there's a drastic change in political will. Right now, the obstacles are twofold: corporate and political. The fossil fuel industry has massive pull, and outright owns the "conservative" media and major political party (Republicans). Through their propaganda, campaign funding and lobbying, they've sown "doubt" among their audience and inaction among their beholden politicians.

Some of the denial you see on this very thread, including stock phrases like "nothing can be done," "it's good for the planet," "the climate always changes," "people don't want to change," etc., all serves in a minor way to divert from what we should be doing, which is acting. Not just individually, but collectively. Discussing local energy committees or public utilities commissions and ways to attend/influence them, local organizations to involve oneself in, individual actions like more efficient energy use/electrification (heat pumps, solar panels, induction stoves, community solar programs, better insulation, energy audits, available tax credits and rebates), and so on and so forth, is what should be going on. There's lots of information all around us.

Instead we're left talking about cows and how they're really not a problem because they "don't contribute any 'additional' warming". Wonderful. Meanwhile the planet is burning.

The attitude that nothing can be done because "human nature" strikes me as another useless position -- one more impediment, more dead weight.

Yes, you’ve introduced all kinds of issues— one silly thing after another, all shown to be ridiculous. But by all means continue— it’s good for others to watch new denialist “views” get debunked over and over.

Three in five Americans say Trump should stand trial before the Republican primaries or 2024 general election

Roughly 60% of the country thinks this guy is a crook and should stand trial before the election.

My fellow Americans really aren’t as dumb as their reputation would suggest. Polling shows only that the Republican Party is out of touch. They’ll continue paying for it.

(Democrats are out of touch too…but not by the same distance.)

killing all cows, goats, and sheep — Agree to Disagree

How odd that it’s this one issue — cows — that you want to dwell on, and yet repeatedly get wrong.

No one is suggesting we “kill all cows.”

Your particular brand of climate denial hasn’t even been very entertaining.

If two idiots agree, that doesn't mean they're right. — Benkei

Thank you for saying what we’re all thinking.

I have to say, the remark “Not everyone is x” is fatuous.

If you think we all are like that, that may say something about you. — Noble Dust

What I’m describing is an unavoidable psychological fact. Whatever else is being projected on to the word isn’t my business.

I had read that climate scientists said that a certain amount of global warming was "locked in" even if we stopped emissions today. — Agree to Disagree

Right. It is. From your own quote:

Temperatures would then plateau but remain well-elevated for many, many centuries.

This corresponds with what @unenlightened was saying. At least how I read it. So your talk about how climate scientists “changed their thinking” was a red herring, and the quote you provided from NASA only reiterates what was said.

The diversion of talking about CO2 and temperature lag is exactly that: a diversion.

Are you saying that the climate scientists at NASA are wrong? — Agree to Disagree

I’m saying you don’t have a clue about what you’re talking about. There’s nothing to “re-think.”

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/3/031001

Your original claims were ignorant and bogus - as usual:

The time it will take to stabilise, and the temperature it will eventually stabilise at, are extremely difficult to model but the time-frame will be decades, if not centuries. — unenlightened

This is the view that most climate scientists believed and they have told the public about this. — Agree to Disagree

Try reading what was said.

started rethinking this issue. — Agree to Disagree

No they haven’t.

However, if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases today, the rise in global temperatures would begin to flatten within a few years.

If we stopped. Not if we keep emissions constant. And within a decade or so the RISE in temperature should flatten.

Temperatures would plateau but remain elevated for many centuries. Not hard to understand.

I wondered if they made this up — Agree to Disagree

How ignorant and arrogant a person has to be to think this is astounding.

Yeah, so let’s just forget about it and relax. That’s worked wonders so far.

This is an existential issue. We could use more thinking, not less.

Having said that I’d say climate change is real and that within a short time frame we’ve sped the global warming cycle up a little bit — simplyG

More than a bit. At an alarming, unprecedented rate.

14% contribution to emissions, not to mention 80% of deforestation of the Amazon (and much of the rest to grow feed) for cattle.

But there’s no reason to worry, because some guy on the internet recently learned the term “biogenic carbon cycle” from a meat-producer website.