darq

So, global warming is gonna happen. We no longer have control, it’s not our choice to make.

You’ve flipped flopped between we don’t need to take drastic action, and no action we can take can help.

Conveniently, both means you get to ignore arguments to actually do something to mitigate the damage.

Which really is your entire motivation.

I’m not going to watch a whole youtube video just to pick up on the latest lingo.

Deny it’s happening, then claim we can’t change anything once it’s happened. The moment where we could do something about it is skipped over.

Like you are doing now.

No, mitigation does not require “drastic” action, fortunately. We’ve significantly mitigated it already, concerning our own emissions, and can do so further.

What world do you live on? Certainly not the one the rest of us do. Our emissions have only been increasing.

Yes we require drastic action. In fact we required drastic action decades ago. Now we require radical action.

Do you have an idea that might mitigate it overseas, or change domestic politics enough to speed things up here?

First and foremost, stop pointing your finger overseas. It is nothing but a distraction, a convenient excuse to not do what needs to be done domestically because “oh but China and India”.

Secondly, investment in equipping developing nations with clean energy infrastructure can help.

I don’t think nonviolent protest is going to do it, there’s not enough of us willing to do so.

Ultimately it is going to have to come down to protest.

I am hoping non-violent methods, such as general strikes and direct action will be enough.

But that does require solidarity, motivation, and mutual aid.

You’re responding to a point I didn’t make. Even mitigation requires the drastic action you are arguing is impossible.

But also, no, y’all don’t get to slow-breakup this.

Even if the western nations pollute less, developing nations will still pollute a lot more and will get us to tipping points anyway, albeit perhaps slightly slower.

Ehh, it’s worth noting that developing nations tend to pollute a lot less per capita. And as they develop they can transition to cleaner forms of energy, as they gain the economic ability to do so.

Pointing at developing nations is a convenient excuse for developed nations to avoid taking the actions we need to take.

I don’t only see disaster. But I do see a specific problem, with a very obvious answer, that continues to get worse and worse with catastrophic future consequences. A problem that we continuously refuse to address in a meaningful manner.

In my opinion, this position requires some cherry picking to avoid evidence of times when different things have improved over the past few decades.

Quite the opposite. The times when we have made improvements have come precisely because we have made the sorts of decisive changes that we needed to make, that we are currently pretending are impossible.

We actually solved the issue with the ozone layer, precisely because we took action and passed regulation banning their usage, despite the objections of businesses.

Same thing with leaded petrol. We took decisive action and addressed the problem at a systemic level, rather than just softly appealing for people to make the “right choice uwu”.

In our current unprecedented circumstances, drastic change on a short timescale is going to require one of two things: the suspension of our democracy, or wide-scale bloodshed. Neither of these is actually particularly likely to result in positive change either.

I agree that unrest seems basically inevitable. Because the people with the power to make the changes required have shown us in no uncertain terms that they never make the changes required.

So I’m not sure why continuing to pander to those delusions with half-measures is preferable.

I’m hoping change can be accomplished through general strikes and direct action. So that widespread bloodshed can be avoided.

The problem is there may not be survival at the end of this tunnel. But only one way might work in time, and that’s the one we’ve been using for a couple centuries and seen okayish results with.

Oh. So you are completely insane. Because we absolutely have not been seeing okayish results.

Honestly the protesters that everyone hates kinda have the right idea.

The problem with that being that the “minor solutions” aren’t really solving the problem. We’ve been doing “minor solutions” for many years now, and we have only accelerated in our destruction of the environment.

We need drastic change. Failing some deus-ex-machina-esque invention that quickly and cheaply solves the issue with no sacrifice needed, then we have to be demanding radical change. If that isn’t possible, our other option is to just fail and die.

Because the truth has limits on how hopeful and how simple it can be. Whereas the lies of billionaires have no such limitations.

I agree with your point that the messaging isn’t working. But pushing hope without radical reform of our current systems is basically just trying to diffuse the reaction to the facts without actually changing the facts leading to the reaction.

They are going on adventures together! Maybe one day they’ll both read the same book at the same time, and go on the same adventure!

Nobody at Google has heard of the concept that controls at the edge of the screen are harder to aim accurately at.

Interestingly, that’s the exact opposite of how it works on non-touch interfaces. The edges are prime control areas for pointer-driven interfaces.

Slight challenge to optimise a UX for both.

So they didn’t rule if the “no hats” rule should go, they were asked if such a rule - if it exists - is applicable to religious hats or if the right to religious freedom protects such symbols. So they rule on half-theoretical questions that are often narrower than the case itself.

And I find that very structure harmful. Because by formulating the question asked of the court in a specific way, then limiting the answers it can give to only that question, you can force these kinds of discriminatory judgements while pretending that that wasn’t the point.

The court should be able to say, as part of the ruling, that while exemptions should not be given on religious grounds, justification for rules that are considered to infringe on religious freedoms may be asked for.

We can easily give a reason why discrimination should not be allowed while serving the public, and similarly why antlers cannot be worn in a workshop.

The “no hats” rule in this case wasn’t a “no hats” rule, but a “no religious symbols are allowed to be worn by anybody” rule. The court saw such a rule as justified because it did not discriminate against specific religions or symbols.

Which is ridiculous because a hypothetical religion could use pants as a symbol of their faith and suddenly pants are banned.

If the rule by itself is dumb or not is another matter.

No. It’s not another matter. It’s the entire matter. That’s my point.

I know what I described is your second option. But I’m deliberately putting the focus on the original rule, because that is where the problem lies.

The rule disproportionately affects people who wear headwear. The rule basically makes that job inaccessible to those whose religion requires headwear. The rule is discriminatory in its effect, even if not in its wording or intention. So the appropriate action is to rethink the rule. If there is no strong reason why the rule exists, and it has these discriminatory effects, then the rule should change.

Now there is a rule that employees aren’t allowed to wear head coverings at work (for whatever reason)

And maybe that rule is the stupid one.

So if one religion is allowed to claim special status for their head covering (Head scarf), can an orthodox jew wear their hat? Can someone believing in druidism wear antlers to work?

Except it isn’t necessarily claiming a special status.

The argument can simply be that the headwear ban should be removed, unless there is good reason for it. So yes, anyone can wear any headwear, so long as it doesn’t interfere with the task at hand or other people. The antlers would probably fall afoul of those requirements.

And what is with people who happen to have no religion they believe in. Why are they granted less rights by the state than the religious people?

They wouldn’t be. The removal of a ban doesn’t somehow mean that atheists have fewer rights. They’d be allowed to wear their desired headwear too.

So: Which other possibilities does a state have to resolve this besides

Still a false dichotomy here.

To be clear here: the second option is not “ban religious symbols alltogether”, it’s “we have our rules, there is no way for you to get an exception with the reason ‘religion’”

The option is not to allow “religion” to be used as an exception, but rather set rules that are permissive to everyone, including religious people, within the limits of the task at hand and inconvenience to other people.

A headwear ban is pretty clearly discriminatory towards Muslim people, and probably also to certain Jewish people though I’m not 100% sure of that. The goal should not be to give them exceptions, but rather rethink the headwear rule.

If there isn’t a specific reason that something cannot be worn, such as a safety concern or an obstruction to others, then it should be allowed by default. A headscarf doesn’t affect anyone. Same way a kippah doesn’t affect anyone.

That is completely non-comparable to denying someone service on the basis of religion. And the idea that the only two options are allow religious people to discriminate on the basis of their religion, or ban all clothing that indicates religion, is a false dichotomy.

That is a very false dichotomy.

Yeah honestly living there for a while, I came around a bit on doing things by paper.

It’s slower, certainly. But the Japanese are scary efficient at it, and there is a lot of infrastructure to support it.

And in the case where things go wrong or are confusing, at least you can take the forms and actually go and talk to someone, rather than staring at a computer screen that offers nothing.

Japan has been in the year 2000 for the past 50 years.

Those are not the trans people being spoken about I’m sports discussions though. Pretty much every sport that allows, or has previously allowed, trans people to compete in the division fitting their gender has had regulations around HRT and maintaining target hormone levels for a period of time before being allowed to compete.

I mean you can be offended by whatever you want.

But “cis” is a Latin prefix which is simply the antonym of “trans”. It holds absolutely no value judgement.

So it’s a strange thing to find offensive.