I think it is just basic tribalism. — I like sushi

:100:

I am interested to learn more about what people think of Critical Race Theory — I like sushi

I don't know much about it. During the recent dust-up over the issue, I remember the "right" running with it, as if it were being taught in public schools, while the left explained it is a university, if not graduate school and law school level subject that didn't mean what the right thought it meant. This compelled me to look it up once on the interwebs and it didn't pique my interest so I moved on to other stuff. All the best in your efforts.

So where did you study public policy and administration and what books do you recommend? — Athena

Colorado State University and University of Idaho, a life-time ago. I don't recommend any books.

There can not be socialism without this change in bureaucratic order and the change in bureaucratic order crushes our individual liberty and power. — Athena

When I hear "bureaucratic order" I think of "deep state." If the "deep state" is what kept fascism from a successful coup in January, then I'll tip my hat to it. Having a bunch of Masons acting as back up couldn't be all bad. I used to hate the two-party system (and still do), but I have also come to understand how a party might be useful, especially if a newbie gets in office and needs some institutional memory to keep the ball rolling. I'm all for throwing out the bathwater, but not the baby. Especially if a fascist is doing the tossing.

Anyway, my point is, I'm not as quick to disparage institutions as I once was. What we need to do is take our government back from the Plutocracy. Good luck with that.

Before we adopted the German bureaucratic model, our government was too small and too weak to do what it is doing today. — Athena

I don't know anything about the German bureaucratic model, but I will stipulate that you are correct, except on one point: You said "we" adopted. I don't think Americans sat down and said "Hey, let's adopt the German bureaucratic model!" To the extent that is what "we" have, it was just part of that tool I was talking about. The Plutocracy might very well find the German bureaucratic model more efficient it accomplishing their goals. But you know what? The Plutocracy absolutely LOVES you blaming government. That is one reason they keep government around: a punching bag for you, so you don't blame them for what they are doing to you (and "family").

I'm also reminded of Mussolini. Didn't he make the trains run on time? Didn't he coin the term "fascism". Isn't that a condition where there is no distinction between the corporation and the state? Hmmm.

Again, follow the money.

Follow the money, Athena. It will not lead to the government you rail against. Government is merely the tool, bought and paid for by that same money.

"Socialism" is just the family writ large. It was actually the norm for the majority of the last 200k years and it is what got us to where we are today. Once we left off of hunter-gather lifestyles, we started working toward what you rail against.

Nationalism and patriotism seem to me to be like fandom.

I feel a certain amount of pride in finding commonality with others who have done something admirable, but for the life of me, I cannot understand why. I think it is, objectively, delusional. So, rather than give in to it, I check myself.

I may try to do admirable things myself, and I may applaud and admire others who do admirable things, but I'll not pat myself on the back for charging up a hill that I did not charge up, just because the guy who did is a white American male like me.

The same analysis applies to ancestor worship. Ancestors may have set a standard that one should try to live up to (maybe not), but just because one is cut from the same cloth does not a garment make.

Fans and nationalists and patriots remind me of the chicken-hawk. And I don't mean the bird. The bird is okay.

Admirable things need to be done. Get out there and do them if you will. But don't take credit for things done by others just because they look like you or live where you do. If you want to feel good about yourself, that ain't how it's done.

Such delusion is just conservative feel-good politics.

I see it has been four months. Did you finish? I'd love to read what you came up with.

P.S. I hope you didn't walk into a library and have the audacity to ask the librarian where to find X. They might very well have told you to go do your own research.

so we know "the benefit of the doubt" is not to your benefit, in enabling you to assure yourself that he or she needs no assistance from you. — tim wood

On the other hand, I believe it is a function of my tax dollars to provide that assistance, and I'd hate to remove a burden from the broad shoulders of government by picking up it's weight and carrying it for it. After all, I want my government to be strong that way, not a leach, becoming weaker in it's dependence upon individuals like me, the church, the NGO, etc.

The failure I have in mind is in a Rogerian-Aristotelian sense, of happiness as described by A, and self-actualization by R. The given being humans are social animals, and thus find greatest happiness and accomplishment as members of communities. — tim wood

On that, I think I might agree. But I'm not sure happiness and self-actualization require community for confirmation. Sex, maybe. And accolades and confirmation itself, maybe. But happiness and self-actualization can come from a job well done (i.e. art, construction of shelter, etc.). Not everyone needs a pat on the back. Yeah, it can be nice, but not necessary.

Distinguish between being alone and a loner. I do not think there is any such thing as a "successful" loner. To be a loner is already to have failed at life in perhaps the most significant ways - and probably not the loner's fault. — tim wood

I think I agree with this assessment. But then I want to quibble with the definition of "successful" and "failed" and "significant. I think of the houseless (not homeless) person who looks, from the outside, to be unsuccessful and a failure, but who, for all practical purposes, might be akin to the yogi on the hill top.

They might be dependent upon their fellow man for some things, and may die without those things, but utilizing available resources does not by itself render one a non-loner, or a social butterfly. I think a lot of the words we are using are subjective and relative.

I know a lot of social types think it is best to give others the benefit of the doubt, while loners might assume the worse. A lot depends upon what people have seen. As you acknowledge, a negative view of people may not be the person's "fault." If they see the Twin Towers fall, they may not see a bunch of innocent people die. They may wonder instead how many wives were at home thanking their lucky stars that SOB abuser was killed. Or that child might be glad they will no longer be molested. There can be a "bright side" to anything.

So, when I see a houseless person scavenging the streets, I try to be a social optimist and think: "There goes a happy loner who might very well have the secret to life." I give him the benefit of the doubt like any lover of humanity would do. :wink:

Thank you insecurity, for honing my edge. Let's get it on!

Too many questions this early in the morning, but I will say this: Some folks can't stand having themselves around. So they distract themselves, with books, T.V., other people. Constant diversion. Many of those who are comfortable in the absence of other people will "occupy" themselves with projects, building, creating, engineering their environment.

I've spent a great deal of time alone, without any man-made distraction. But even then, I hunt, I fish, I gather. I'm perfectly comfortable being naked and alone with the best people I've ever met (Earthlings other than Homo Sap). I'd love to have North America to myself and them. Not gonna happen.

But I'm socially literate and functional too. Last I heard there were upwards of 7b of the vermin running relatively unchecked across the globe. So I kind of have to be.

Instead of the arrow, you're just not perfectly charming to the opposite sex. Some other people don't get along with you, and you meet with failure in your life that is the product of a will or an exchange of wills. Not to say you should go around intentionally screwing things up or accepting your failures in themselves; that would be a pretty dismal approach to life.

I'm sure there are times in your life where you've asked yourself "why didn't I just do x and everything would have gone fine." and so forth. Well if you were perfect everything would go fine, and one only need think shortly over the consequences of that over a broad group to see how that could end in an overall failure. This all reminds me of the Radiohead lyric Just: — kudos

You lost me. :smirk:

And why should it not be the case in our civil lives as well? — kudos

I haven't even made that jump yet, because I'm still in the natural world, predator/pray assessment from the OP.

We miss the mark. Shoot the arrow to the wrong place. We give the prey a chance to escape, because that's how we survive. — kudos

I don't know what that means. Is it a metaphor? Guessing, I'd say we don't miss the mark. We domesticate the prey. We don't shoot the arrow any more; we use a retractable bolt to the brain. We do not give them any chance, and that is how we have survived (so far).

We are physically weaker, but we not only utilize our differently-evolved brain and tongue to make up for our lack of tooth and claw, fur and hair, but we over-compensate due to our feelings of insecurity. This causes us to marginalize and devalue our fellow travelers, beyond what is simply necessary to consume them. We also tell ourselves lies/myths about our superiority/specialness in the scheme of things.

But, as others have pointed out, weak and strong are not only ranked, but they are relative and situational.

I have not read the rest of this thread, so what I am about to say may have already been said. But I don't think weakness is necessary. Contrary, as was once said (I forgot who): "Just as the leg of the deer is chiseled by the tooth of the wolf, so too, the tooth of the wolf is chiseled by the leg of the deer." It is not weakness, but resistance that has the predator and prey building each other into who they are.

As to weakness, it might be said that in the survival of the fittest, that which is consumed must have also have been fit. Otherwise, that which consumed it would not be the fittest, or as fit as it could have been. So the cow does us no favors by being a fat, stupid, lazy, bawling, fly-covered, shit-smeared, stinking creature that drinks putrid water, breaths the flatulence of the neighbor doing the same, eating rotten corn silage, standing on 3 feet of it's own shit, and then laying down to be killed without a fight. But it is not the cow's fault. We do this to ourselves. And look at us. Are we fit, simply because we survive? I think not. Besides, it's only been 10k years. The jury is still out.

So weak people are not good in their weakness. If anything, they are good in that they may contain a gene that helps us survive a pandemic, climate change, or some other shift in the existing paradigm. They might also serve as a weight to be lifted upon the shoulders of the strong, making them even stronger. The problem is, too many of the self-identified "strong" refuse the lift. They are greedy, selfish, and searching for reasons to disparage and marginalize the weak. We haven't always been this way. Maybe we are getting soft.

I find a disconnect between this:

We now worship the power of the state and instead of family acceptance and values, we want to be absorbed by the state and identify with a social unite bigger than the individual, bigger than the family, even though this means being like the Borg, with no individual power of authority. Groupthink, dependency, the end of family. — Athena

And this:

which prepares the young to be products for a society controlled by Industry. — Athena

I see the latter as being more accurate. We don't worship the power of the state. We worship the power of the dollar, which is controlled by the plutocracy. The military industrial complex is only related to the state in that the complex owns the state. Government is just a punching bag for the people to blame when things go wrong and the plutocracy loves that. It keeps the heat off of them.

The family was never autonomous or powerful. They just pretend to feel that way, at home, at night, in their "castle", where they might be allowed to sleep in peace at night before returning to the machine. Even then, the man ruled the woman.

And the state is not the machine. The state is now a fully owned and operated subsidiary of the machine. Politicians are bought and paid for.

Some define "family" in the conservative capitalist way of a "nuclear" family. In the old days, and especially among indigenous people, family was more communal. One had many brothers and sisters and mothers and fathers and grandfathers and grandmothers. Blood was not determinative.

Some would divide and conquer this traditional notion in order to better utilize the individual human resource. Nuclearize him and he becomes less dependent upon the group and more dependent upon his employer.

Socialism is just the family writ large. If we were to make a virtue of necessity, and exalt the giver instead of the taker, then positions of authority would be filled by the provider that no one would be required to follow, suffering only ostracization if they upset the family apple cart.

Listen to the givers. Pay attention to how they got what they give. Realize you and your spouse aren't much good at raising well-rounded humans all by yourself. It takes a village. Look around at how fucked up the world is right now. Not enough mothers, brothers, etc. Too many who think they are an island.

Do you see the "potential energy" being given?? — PseudoB

I do. And I see a single tool, a two-edged sword laying there upon the ground, and I wonder who is going to pick it up first? If some wise one out there would not pick it up, and would pretend to stand between the sword and any who would pick it up, they had better come up with a pretty compelling argument to the others as to why they should turn from it. So far, I haven't heard the argument which would convince me to turn my back and walk away.

And so being is part of – not apart from – non-being? — 180 Proof

When I said:

But I don't want to go that far right now. — James Riley

I was trying to stay down to Earth and away from my A = -A rant (which I have annoyed my my son with for years and myself for decades), at least for the purposes of my discussion about "conscious' with him. So, in that limited light, "being a part of" would not be a part of non-being because there would be no such thing as non-being. Everything "is", and, whether it wants to be or not, it is a part (much to NOS's chagrin). In other words, it is impossible to be apart when everything is a part.

That which pretends to perceive separateness (or which we perceive as separate), is pretending to unconsciousness. And, while it/we might be in denial about the matter, it/we are still not separate. It is still a part of conscious. In light of the OP, it's not one conscious replacing another, or a greater and a lesser. Rather, it's all one. So it is not a matter of "to be or not to be." It's simply being and thus being a part.

But if I were to step back into my old A = -A rant then yes, "being a part of" is both apart from and not apart from being and non-being.

Off to bed! :sweat:

My son is taking an intro to philosophy class and asked me just the other day, what is "conscious". We had the following exchange:

Me:

“The problem is, all words we run to in aid of a definition of "conscious" suffer from the same need of definition: What is "awareness" "perception" "cognition" "contemplation" "sense" "feeling" etc.
So I think, then, maybe we should go by contrast: What does it mean to be "unconscious"? When that is asked, people usually look to the comatose, the dead, a P-zombie, or, ultimately, a rock. All things which we think distinguish conscious from unconscious.

But when I think of a rock, I am not so sure it is not conscious. After all, where an objective view might see the Ancestral Rocky Mountains rise and fall, like an ice cream cone on a hot summer sidewalk, only to rise and begin melting again, then who is to say that such a time-lapse is not lapsing, and the rock is just is on a different plane that we are not (and cannot be?) conscious of?

And what if the rock is an integral part of a different consciousness, without which that consciousness could not exist? For example, when does an automobile cease to be an automobile? When you take away the body? A tire? All tires? The engine? What makes an automobile and automobile? If "we" are conscious, what parts can be removed without removing consciousness? The leg? An arm? Our heart? The blood it pumps to the brain? Can we do without some parts of our brain while still being conscious? And, as to that last piece of the brain without which consciousness cannot be, how much of it can be removed while still retaining consciousness? And if that part has no blood to serve it? No heart to bring the blood?

Are there different levels of consciousness? Low, medium, high? Or consciousness for different purposes? Accomplishing the job in the cubicle to earn a living? Fixing/rigging a broken farm implement because it's too far to town? Wandering around Athens in a robe, contemplating the nature of consciousness? Is consciousness brought to us by leisure, purchased by a full lung and belly, rested?

I say conscious is to be. The rock is conscious, because it is. We are no better, not higher, and maybe, from an objective perspective, not even different. Do not dismiss the rock so lightly, or we might be just as guilty as those who discounted the sentience of the non-human animal. And who's to say that rock is not to a different consciousness as that last individual cell is to the last part of the brain without which consciousness cannot be?

As one wag once said: "You know what a rock says? 'It's your move.'"

My son:

“Interesting, so from there, out of sincere curiosity I ask to you: what is it to be? Because, we may think that as a simple answer to be is "well.. to be." but I don't think that to be is simply to exist as a body, potentially it lies in that definition of consciousness that you provided me, if so then that is the answer but I have to ask can you be without being conscious? Can you be conscious and not be? I feel like this sounds elementary on my end but It's the first question that popped up when reading this, as basic my question is it was the initial question so I ask that to you in hopes of an answer despite how abstract or undefined it might be. What is it to be? Liked reading your response it was very good to read and to help me think!”

Me:

“Well, as you know, my opinion is that A not only = A, but it also = -A. So, yes, you are, and are not, and conscious, and unconscious as to each. After all, if A could not be not-A, then it is a weak sauce indeed. ("A" being All, or God, if you will.) But I don't want to go that far right now. I would rather submit that there is a greater conscious (A) of which we are, in all our manifestations, simply a part. Like the rock to the Earth if the Earth were a being, ala Gaia (which she is, and is not). Check out Gaia. Could she continue to be without that rock? I guess it depends upon how you define her. Like the automobile. What is an automobile? Or, better yet, there is the old philosophical argument about "All swans are white." What happens if you find a black swan? Well, it depends upon how you define "swan." If all swans are indeed white (i.e. whiteness is an integral character of swanness), then that which is black is, by definition, not a swan. But if you define swans in some other way, then a black swan proves the statement false. So, what is "conscious"? Is there more than one? Are their levels? That brings us back to my previous argument. Who are we to say what conscious is?

So, to answer your question, to be, is to be a part of. Since it is not possible to not be a part, then to merely be, conscious or not, is to be conscious. No man is an island; the Earth does not belong to us, we belong to the Earth, etc. So, we are conscious whether on an individual level, or as part of a greater consciousness. But our conscious is to the greater conscious as a rock's conscious is to that greater conscious.

To be is to be a part, not apart.

I am curious as to the utility of such a lie? — PseudoB

I think it's utility is in spinning people up to kill. Can you imagine getting anyone to fight the Nazi's or Imperial Japan today? The MSN would have talking heads on the screen, debating the issues, and your average Joe would be like: "Well, there are two sides to this, there is disagreement on the matter. I'm not going to put my war on if there are 'fine people' on both sides."

While a professional soldier doesn't need to hate, or believe in evil, to kill an enemy, a civilian needs propaganda to spin him up to leave his home and go fight. Nothing will do that like "evil."

I've got a better idea: Let's allow Hitler and Tojo to have some air time; let's hear what they have to say. After all, they have a huge following and all those people can't be wrong, can they? Maybe they have a point? Isn't it better to spit on the graves of all the U.S. soldiers who died fighting racists in the Civil War and WWII while I "do my own research"?

Thanks for this. :up: — 180 Proof

:up:

On a side note, the only "video game" I ever played was "Space Invaders" back in the late 70s. So acronyms are hard to keep up with. .gov is the worst. I feel very uncomfortable with and conflicted about war, so making a game out of it never appealed to me. My son used to do Counter Strike (?) but now he's distracted by his "intro to philosophy" course. LOL!

I agree with Abdulelah:

"I am disgusted that this is something that will be producing profit when people like me suffered the consequences of this war and will have to watch people play it for fun," Abdulelah, 28, told CNN. "I just can't get past the inhumanity."

While I take issue with the word "inhumanity" I get her point and think there is no "history" being taught here. It's simply a money-maker at best, and a confederate-statue of history at worst.

Some will say that evil is evident, and preexisting. — PseudoB

I don't believe in evil, but I understand the utility of a social construct called evil. Does the fact we construct something that does not exist render it extant? I don't know. Maybe it has something to do with caves and shadows and whatnot. But I wonder if we could have gotten American's all fired up to kill Nazi's and Imperialists in WWII without calling them evil?

At most, I think there is sickness, aberration, mens rea, etc. But "evil" will suffice.

It's somewhat scary when a tone set during and after WWII begins to fade with the passing of those who set it; all to the point where today we have MSM giving equal time to "evil" in the name of "both sides" objectivity. Are there any men and women who are willing to kill before it's too late? Or has the tone left our culture altogether?

Why give equal time to a filthy POS racist white-supremacist fascists NAZI? Does doing so give you cred back in the MSM boardroom? Don't hide behind the denials, or obscure the dog whistles, lest it become too real, too late.

There is always room in academia to entertain argument, both sides, and objectivity. That is what academia does best. But don't shovel it out, uncontested, as propaganda. You may not get anyone fired up next time around when it's time to kill.

That's cool, had no idea you had that deep of a background in RPGs. — darthbarracuda

Continued reading contextualized what you all were saying. In my circles, RPG is rocket propelled grenade. I could see you and in your basements prepping god's good work. :lol: There has likewise been some confusion around BLM of late (Bureau of Land Management, or, as the enviros call it, Bureau of Livestock and Mining). I much prefer the new "Black Lives Matter." It's a chore keeping up with the changing acronyms.

Thank you little cloud, for mocking/teasing my tilt toward entitled privilege back in the day.

This is exactly the type of thing that I resent my government doing; my government too often sticks my American nose in where it doesn't belong. Frankly, I feel the same about Iraq and Afghanistan, save for bringing some pain (killing a few people...mostly the Taliban which sheltered Bin Laden, and of course breaking some shit) to the Afghanis as strictly a punishment, a chastisement in the wake of 9/11 (maybe for two or three months or so, but then get the heck out of there). Generally, I do not pay those in my government for being busybodies all over the world, though, and can't understand where they get off so doing. — Michael Zwingli

It brings to mind Smedley Darlington Butler "War is a Racket" speech. Nothing has changed.

I reduced the quote to memory many decades ago. Turns out I was close, but not exact: https://www.bartleby.com/90/0306.html

:100:

Initially I was going to have to vet the sincerity of your curiosity before I deigned to satisfy it. I was going to ask what was it that I said that caused you to ask me that question. Then I read and found that he answered quite nicely. So there you have it.

:100: :up:

You're a better man than me. I'm going to cede the floor and ban myself for a couple of weeks for unprofessional behavior. I'd say "Hold down the fort" but that might be a curse. :rofl:

Adios, amigos.

But other than worrying about food, threats or a mate - ie sex they do not appear to worry. — David S

What else is there to worry about?

Here, let me dumb it down for you. You said:

You care very much about those people who don't want concern from others. It is obvious from your posts here. If you didn't, you would respect the individual's right to choose rather than getting so butt-hurt about people declining the vaccine. After all, if you and your loved one's have all been vaccinated, then you all are not at risk from the nonvaxxed, and there is no need to be concerned over anyone's health, right? — Merkwurdichliebe

You say that if I didn't care about those who don't care about others then I would respect their right to choose. WTF? Why would I respect the rights of anyone I don't care about? Your words. Jeesh.

Then you say the vaxxed are not at risk from the non-vaxxed, right after you said:

And even though we are vaxxed, that is no guarantee we won't need "a bed" someday. — Merkwurdichliebe

DOH! They are called pass through or variants. Jeesh. Take a seat.

Really? What are you gonna do? whine about it on TPF. — Merkwurdichliebe

I'll rip the fucking vent out of your mouth and throw you ass out the nearest window and make the doc tend a deserving human being. How's that? :rofl: Or maybe I'll do what you've done for the Arab kids. Nothing. :rofl:

Oh no! Variants, so scary!

Guess what else? Fuck your vaccine, I piss on it. — Merkwurdichliebe

It's not my vaccine. Well, except that which is in me. Try pissing on that and see what you get.

I'll make you a deal, ill keep "your filthy fucking virus" out of other people's lives, if you keep all your fascist bullshit in your spiteful little skull. — Merkwurdichliebe

Deal.

Good for you, you want a cookie? — Merkwurdichliebe

You asked, I answered. Don't want the answer, don't ask.

Momma always said: "stupid is as stupid does". ~Forest Gump — Merkwurdichliebe

Momma was right.

I've always owned myself, — Merkwurdichliebe

I know. You make a fool of yourself all the time.

I am owning you right now in fact. — Merkwurdichliebe

Not with that moronic shit you aren't. You're owning yourself.

I can care about myself just fine. — Merkwurdichliebe

Try caring about others.

My reasoning stands, otherwise you would have been specific in pointing out where it fails. — Merkwurdichliebe

So you re-read what you said and didn't see it? LOL! No wonder we can't fix stupid.

Damn right! It will be my problem, not yours or anybody else's. — Merkwurdichliebe

It will be if you are taking up a bed I want for my friends or loved ones. It ain't all about you.

And even though we are vaxxed, that is no guarantee we won't need "a bed" someday. — Merkwurdichliebe

Especially since so many unvaxxed, non-masking, non-distancing people are spinning up variants; not to mention the dolts that vax but throw shade on vaxxing.

Don't worry about me, whether or not i got vaxxed. Mind your own business before you get stepped on foo. — Merkwurdichliebe

Keep your filthy fucking virus out of other people's lives and we're good. Until then, it is my business, fool.

Let me get this strait...you say you did something about covid, and nevertheless, there are more fatalities... sounds like you didn't do much. — Merkwurdichliebe

I go the shot, I mask, I distance. And nevertheless there are more fatalities because the stupid people say stupid people have rights to be stupid people.

I have done nothing to stop the bombing of Arab children, and as you say, there are less fatalities than with covid....seems that my strategy is more effective here. — Merkwurdichliebe

I think you just owned yourself. Okay.

did those children get their free shot so they don't put me at risk? — Merkwurdichliebe

Nobody cares about you.

You are obviously a born servant the state. You would have made a great Nazi. — Merkwurdichliebe

:rofl:

You care very much about those people who don't want concern from others. It is obvious from your posts here. If you didn't, you would respect the individual's right to choose rather than getting so butt-hurt about people declining the vaccine. After all, if you and your loved one's have all been vaccinated, then you all are not at risk from the nonvaxxed, and there is no need to be concerned over anyone's health, right? — Merkwurdichliebe

Your reasoning fails you. Re-read what you just said. Think. Try harder.

Oh, and there is this:

And even though we are vaxxed, that is no guarantee we won't need "a bed" someday. — Merkwurdichliebe

You're stepping on your own dick. Slow down. Think.

Should have been 12%, now amended. That said, one article I read claimed that only about 200,000.000 could be supported using organic farming methods. Petrochemical based fertilizers destroy the micro-organisms in soil, and so are long-term unsustainable. I don't know how you envisage supporting a growing population in anything like the level of prosperity we (in the developed nations) currently enjoy in a world of diminishing resources. — Janus

200m is too many for me. Unless they are all attractive women.

This is an excellent point and, now that you articulated it, I realize this is definitely a big reason for my participation here. It helps me hone my arguments and familiarize myself with counter-arguments. Most of the counter-arguments are so often idiotic it makes it really an exercise in controlling my temper than anything else, but there have been several which have been worthwhile (although almost never in the political realm). — Xtrix

Yes indeed. The rock upon which we hone our edge must be hard, but smooth. If it's soft and mushy or rough and flaky it won't do you any good, at best, or even dull you, at worst. LOL! I know I feel dumber after engaging some of these rocks.

Is it possible to give a rigorous definition of 'reality'? — Cidat

I think reality is circumstance. I think reality is nature. It brings to mind an Emerson quote, emphasis added:

"Here we find sanctity which shames our religions and reality which discredits our heroes. Here we find nature to be circumstance, which dwarfs all other circumstance, and judges like a god all men that come to her."

I once stood on a chair-shaped rock, high on a peak where a friend died in the remote wilderness of northern British Columbia. I looked out over what he looked out over as he died, and Emerson is all that came to mind.

I doubt our vote really counts for much unless Big Oil (etc) already agreed ahead of time... — Yohan

Well, there's that too. LOL! I've no doubt that the plutocracy has the best and brightest advising them on when to move and on what to move. While they do have a vested interest in gleaning the maximum possible return on their historical investments, they also want to have a penthouse seat on the next new thing. Anything we can do to convince them that it is time to jump forward is a good thing. As a shareholder, one can always whine at shareholder meetings and they have to listen to you. I've done so for clients in the past, and at least it's on the record. Environmentalists will buy a share so they can have a voice.

Also, with the exception of Trump and kids, many of the old school have kids who are more progressive and they can be influenced. When little Billy and Sally are rolling your socks at the dinner table, you sometimes bend.

The real is that which hurts you badly, often fatally, when you don't respect it, and is as unavoidable as it consists in whatever preceeds-resists-exceeds all (of our) rational categories and techniques of control (e.g. ambiguity, transfinitude, contingency, uncertainty, randomness). The real encompasses reason (Jaspers) and itself cannot be encompassed (Spinoza / Cantor) ... like that 'void within which all atoms swirl' (Epicurus). — 180 Proof

Awesome.

Nobody serious about in-acting change would come here to initiate that start. This is where people come to kill time. — Yohan

And to work out arguments. I don't think anyone is going to change anyone's mind here. But it's better to engage and work out anticipatory argument in your own head, with the help of others, for use where it does count: representatives, community organizing, etc.

Voting for those who agree with you is better than trying to save the world by saving a gallon of gas. Voting to force everyone else to comply is good. They don't have a "right" to fuck the planet. We can tread on them if they are treading on us.