Never underestimate the psychological impact of the look and sound of a guillotine.

you're right dude, the snowflake has all the agency here. not the storm that created it, nor the wind that blows it around. if only it would melt itself then the energy consumed by phase transition would cool the earth in an imperceptibly small way, bringing us that much further away from global warming catastrophe. really, it's the snowflakes' fault for selfishly getting frozen in the first place.

ok but three "literally" is too many.

So history started with the industrial revolution, I see.

So, vampires. They're vampires.

Environment destruction did at scale.

They'll find new executives, bud. Executives are just the lackeys for shareholders and the board of directors. A new one will grow for each one lost.

The stock drop would be expected, but is there any credible source that denial rate dropped?

That's true, and my bad for implying otherwise.

But I also think much more critically, they're back to denying coverage exactly the way they were before Thompson died.

Yes I'm sure the corporations beneath these people will simply evaporate and everything will go perfectly fine.

That's not efficient. You gotta line them up for real efficiency.

If you took out certain key people you would absolutely change the course of history. Probably a certain 5-10. Maybe less. Who? No idea.

Then you are one ray of light that helped to create the pressure difference that caused the storm.

You have free will. You have the power to make change a bit bigger.

Okay, you can't just mention a desire to be an agent of your own will to power and expect me not to discuss the differences between Nietzsche and Schopenhauer...

The phrase "will to power" has an origin, and it was coined by Nietzsche as an adaptation of Schopenhauer's "will to life."

In my view, power is a means to an end and not an inherent good worth pursuing for its own sake. Life, on the other hand, is an end in itself and is an inherent good worth pursuing for its own sake.

It makes sense to ask "Why do you want power?" But if you ask "Why do you want to live," it seems kinda pointless like asking the wrong question.

This is because living is the reason for everything else that we do: work, get paid, buy food, eat. We fight for better systems because they're more conducive to life. We might sacrifice our own lives for an ideal that makes life possible or better for others, presumably people we care about, and even then, life is the goal, just not for ourselves.

A will to power requires further justification. A will to life does not.

Then maybe the treatment needs more than a single dose.

I'm really trying to read a coherent argument into your comments which you're not making easy. You said that "all economic systems we tried so far destroy the environment" which is demonstrably false as you kind of acknowledged by now. All economic systems that grew out of the industrial revolution did, which is a very different statement. Or is your point that economy started at that point? Which is kind of true because seeing economy as a separate sphere outside of social life and ethics is relatively new. I think Adam Smith popularized that idea in his book "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" in 1776.

And I'm still not sure what your conclusion is. You don't seem to blame the industrial revolution but see it as a given not even worth mentioning. Neither do you see it worth interrogating, how and why each system does what it does. The industrial revolution is about two centuries ago. We know about climate change for less than one century. Pollution is a different story but at least its long term consequences were not obvious 200 years ago. This is nothing in historical scales. Money exists in one shape or another for 5000 years. Even feudalism existed much longer (than the industrial revolution). Yet, you are sure we tried everything and there is no alternative. Nothing we can do. There is no hope.

Let me end with a quote of a very great author:

“We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art, and very often in our art, the art of words.”

― Ursula K. Le Guin

Giving up hasn't worked yet.

that feels, for some reason, profound.
I mean, sure let it be 200 or 400, 1000. It's still a rounding error compared to all of humanity.

maybe that is why there is a period of prosperity after large wars.
The losing side being wiped out reduces that number by half and everyone can breathe a bit more freely.

Hell, look at all the shit epstein was involved with and think about how much better the world would be if he was baby hitler'd

Sure, but before that was feudalism, or similar systems where the state owned the means of production with no competition besides foreign powers and sometimes the church. Capitalism doesn't give much power to workers, but it's definitely more than serfdom.

Those people never die in the wars. The reason there are periods of prosperity after wars is because when many young adults have died, labour has more bargaining power.

damn. somehow my version, which is pretty dark, is still not that dark.

It’s a reminder that large problems are often tied to concentrated power. Holding systems accountable while still pushing for collective change is probably the most constructive path forward.

There is something to be said for the sun glinting off the blade.

So if you can be a smug doomer about it while putting off tangible action for an indefinite period while you work on being able to do more, then why can't everyone else?

I just don't get the point of criticizing people for not doing the things that you're also not doing. You're not the only person with a disability or other socioeconomic disadvantage that might get in the way.

If someone is an able-bodied, white, hetero, cis male with generational wealth, then chances are they don't care too strongly about changing the status quo. So who was your intended audience exactly?

500 people with over $7.57 billion...
Every single one of them could use their money to bring some serious change to the world but choose not to :(

There also tend to be periods of great prosperity following plagues, due to inheritances and what not. But capitalism has made sure to rinse you of every past penny to prevent generational wealth from being passed down to the poors.... So that didn't happen after COVID

Ps. Fuck magnum pi and kurt browning for scamming seniors out of their homes and into reverse mortgages

I'm just saying the aim isn't the most effective. Shooting someone's foot certainly will hamper someone, but the pain will go away eventually. Gotta aim for a more lethal part of the body

Ok so not 90 people. But more like 2,000. Still a rounding error that is willfully exterminating the rest.

Operant Conditioning

Operant conditioning, also called instrumental conditioning, is a learning process in which voluntary behaviors are modified by association with the addition (or removal) of reward or aversive stimuli. The frequency or duration of the behavior may increase through reinforcement or decrease through punishment or extinction.

I had an implicit point, which is "we are not going to de-invent the steam engine or anything that came afterwards, so discussing Neolithic societies and economic systems is kind of moot". I guess there you have it spelled out for you.

historians estimate about 200,000 to 300,000 germans were directly involved in the Shoah. many more profited from it.

So if one death changes at least a little bit. Can't you believe that 100 deaths might change something?

Hmm. I guess in our current system, burgers require oil, yes.

But I don't see why in an alternate oil free world there would be no burgers anymore. (Or at least cheap burgers).

It should be possible to actually get cheaper energy renewable than with oil, which should give the possibility to. Make burgers even cheaper, or?

This still doesn't address much of what I was saying but it shows that you are dealing in absolutes. There is a lot of time between the Neolithic and the steam engine. The steam engine is about two centuries old. A small fraction of this already short period is environmentalism a priority for anybody. What makes you so sure we've seen it all?

Also, to again reiterate, why not interrogate each system separately? Capitalism is about infinite growth which is ad odds with nature. The steam engine doesn't necessarily led to that. Bolshevism had other reasons. Other movements which try to make it right, fail because of the global hegemony of systems that don't. But for you, there are only two options and one isn't even an option.

It’s a real crowd pleaser.

So call a convention and when they all bus in, 3 RPGs could clear a lot of air

You're imagining our alternate oil free world after a few decades of no oil. A few decades of no oil and we'd all be much happier and our lives would be more convenient. But I'm talking about one year from now if the communists win the revolution and blow up all the oil refineries. We'd have to cut back on a lot of luxuries until we find the time and labour to retool the economy for the renewable order. It would be hard work.

And no, I have no interest in winning the revolution and keeping the oil refineries until we make the transition. We need net zero yesterday. I'm not gambling away the lives of future generations for a few years of ease right now. That's selfish.

Wait what did Magnum PI do? We’re not talking about the mustachioed investigator, right?

And?

Make them find new ones. And new ones after that. And after that.

Eventually that well will dry up.

Should I be worried that my initial response to this is "Hmm, so we might be able to improve the world with a serendipitously timed anthrax outbreak at the next WEF summit?"

A box is typically between 20 and 50 rounds.

Less than a case though.

Within a week of the killing, BCBS backed out on some of their upcoming bullshit and United Heathcare's pre-authorization rejection rate has decreased dramatically in the aftermath.

Thimpson's death (at the hands of someone whose identity we'll never know for sure) was objectively good for the insured.

I mean, somebody is going to have to do a little terrorism...

Just a little bit, as a treat.

Again not my point: all economic systems since the invention of modern industry have destroyed the environment, singling one out is naive at best,biased more probably.

I even mentioned three different ones, no idea why you accuse me of only accepting two...

I have no knowledge to refute that latter point, and I am inclined to think it is very likely true.

Money like that, you fly in on your own helicopter, so you don't have to ride in the less comfortable helicopter for your entourage.

About the response itself? No.

About the situation that made that response understandable? We're way past "worried".

Then? More people have the incentive to break from this than not