So he was on self-destruct mode? Anyway, it's not important really...

I remember seeing something like the huge volume of 90 degree washes plus chemical detergents plus extra treatment for more rashes etc can make washing nappies worse than disposables. But maybe that was Big Nappy propaganda.

ZMM wrote:

I'll never understand this view. If the majority voted green then they would be elected? It's making democracy kind of pointless by thinking that political allegiances are so entrenched. If there is a global climate emergency, I think a lot more people will vote green. But also their policies used to be what Labour were about until a few months ago

 

It's a consequence of first past the post.



But it's complicated in the UK by Scotland & Wales, and the Lib Dems. Personally, I'd be willing to let the Lib Dems in in my area as a consequence of Labour voters going Green, because Labour don't have enough pressure on them from the left , but I wouldn't be willing to let a Tory in.

Living in a safe Labour seat, I have no issue voting Green, because even if the Labour vote almost halved, going to Green, the Tories would be third, with the Greens going second. I think there are a lot more of these seats than people think, but I do also understand people where Tories winning is a realistic proposition voting against them rather than for someone.

nick_md wrote:

...and noxy you can't call for breakages and not be ready to break stuff yourself.

Okay, let's clear this up once and for all: 

I didn't.

Didn't say i hadn't. Didn't say i wouldn't. Not even once. From the very start i have been consciously aware of myself not being drawn on this; of not lowering nor trivialising the subject matter to make it about any one person. People kept repeating it as if it were true, and i kept ignoring it as if it were irrelevant, because it was, still is, and always will be. 

It's actually ridiculous that it's come to this. I wouldve thought at least one person would pick up on the fact that i hadn't actually said the things that were being claimed, but apparently not. hey ho

nope that's your angle, and you can keep it to yourself. but do fuck off with the inference thing because it's baseless

Paul the sparky wrote:

Paul the sparky wrote:

As far as comfort blankets go, fucking lol. The world is going to shit, I think we need to break things but I can't be arsed to do owt about it, thank fuck this guy stepped up for me:

I wonder what sad song was playing in his head

Noxy, is this you?

I risk a Lib Dem. No thanks

Lib Dems are shameless shits that will morph into Tories on you in a heartbeat.

Paul the sparky wrote:

You start us off

equinox_code wrote:

check the news. other people have first gear covered already.

This only reads one way to me and it's an admission that you haven't done shit and won't be for the foreseeable future.

I wasn't clear on what Noxy was actually suggesting, but suggesting something is the most constructive strategy doesn't automatically follow that it is something that you would do.

monkey wrote:

Luckily the days where nappies were a daily part of my life are long gone and not coming back.

Every day brings that closer to returning.

equinox_code wrote:

Paul the sparky wrote:

Why couldn't you just have said "I have" or "I'm going to" and we could have discussed it? What was the point in walking the line?

okay and who tf are you to erect pointless rhetorical hoops and ask me to jump through them?

It's a discussion you dozy twat. What's the point in posting anything if we can't discuss it?

Diluted Dante wrote:

I wasn't clear on what Noxy was actually suggesting, but suggesting something is the most constructive strategy doesn't automatically follow that it is something that you would do.

No it doesn't but the thing he's saying is best
a) probably isn't
b) is very difficult with huge personal cost
c) was being talked about in the context of people not doing enough.
So calling him out about whether this is something he'd do personally is fair enough.
And I read his response as saying no he wouldn't.

Anyone who thinks the “majority” of people are doing “as much as they can” within even generous limits of personal inconvenience is kidding themselves. You may well be; nowhere near enough are. The simple fact remains that as a market driven democracy, if people behave en masse in certain ways, the electoral candidates and the corporations selling you stuff will react to that. They don’t: this literally means undeniably that nowhere near enough people are doing what they can to help reduce their emissions within generous inconvenience tolerances.

This is a truism for all market driven democracies.

Does it matter? Like, if enough people did sacrifice more, and democracies and markets responded accordingly? Maybe not: that lack of tolerance of inconvenience means we may still need to use too much fossil fuel energy and forest land for agriculture and so on.

But to argue that personal responsibility has no meaning is simply to say that you either don’t understand how our world works, or (more realistically) that such a hypothetical situation won’t happen because too many humans are highly intolerant of any real inconvenience - and as such, there is little point pursuing it.

Blaming governments is indeed blaming us humans and our personal responsibilities en masse: we get the governments we (collectively, by a majority of voters) deserve. If everyone voted green we would have a green government. But “they” (we) won’t so what’s the point, right?

So this is a pointless circular argument. The only way to move on is to
- either discuss ways to get more people to inconvenience themselves and/or believe and act in ways that bring about change
- accept that this won’t happen and talk about video games and the weather

Arguing chicken and egg about personal vs governmental / corporate responsibility is dumb sorry

I don't think anyone has said they it's the majority. Hence the point that personal responsibility is not going to get the world where it needs to be.

either discuss ways to get more people to inconvenience themselves and/or believe and act in ways that bring about change

That's what's been happening. And whether tactics like JSO are going to help that or not.

It isn't about whether people are going to be inconvenienced. They are. It's just how effective that is when they're doing that as individuals instead of in a unified and coordinated way, organised by their government.