For help, advice and discussion about stuff not related to aviation. Play nice: no religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
  • 1
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 49
By Cessna571
#1793512
@johnm

You are mixing up representation with the point I made about becoming an MP

2 completely different things.

Now, you can easily become an MP, all you do is pay the £500 and if a majority in your ward agree with you that you represent their views

Then you ARE an MP, it’s that simple and it’s that pure.

There’s never going to be an XR MP is there. Not enough voters agree with Anarchy/ vandalism.
By johnm
#1793513
Cessna571 wrote:@johnm

You are mixing up representation with the point I made about becoming an MP

2 completely different things.

Now, you can easily become an MP, all you do is pay the £500 and if a majority in your ward agree with you that you represent their views

Then you ARE an MP, it’s that simple and it’s that pure.

There’s never going to be an XR MP is there. Not enough voters agree with Anarchy/ vandalism.


Hmmm I wish it was as simple as that. The party system and FPTP make it much less "pure" than it ought to be and that's exacerbated by misinformation. That is the reason why protest movements develop, it's voiceless people within the representative democracy. If we had PR then the Green Party might be strong enough to provide that voice and the raison d etre for XR may be reduced. We're drifting into politics now if we're not careful, albeit political systems rather than philosophies :-)
By Spooky
#1793524
Nigel Farage managed to push through his plans to leave the EU trade block despite never getting far in government. What’s the excuse for Extinction Rebellion? Or is a realisation that outside the BBC and Guardian bubbles they actually have very little support?
By johnm
#1793548
Spooky wrote:Nigel Farage managed to push through his plans to leave the EU trade block despite never getting far in government. What’s the excuse for Extinction Rebellion? Or is a realisation that outside the BBC and Guardian bubbles they actually have very little support?


We are in serious danger of getting donked through politics but Farage had a great deal of support within the 2 main political parties, one more than the other, as well as certain parts of the media and that whole movement had no interest in facts.

It's quite telling that environmental issues still don't garner anywhere near that support, so climate, litter, the plastic catastrophe, species in danger etc. are pretty much ignored both by politicians and much of society.
One of the many depressing aspects of the Covid saga is the number of discarded face coverings lying about :-(
User avatar
By Flyingfemme
#1793554
The covid saga has set back the environmental agenda by years. We are now told to use more water (for washing hands, people and clothes), plastic bag things for "safety" (outdoor clothes, working uniforms, face masks), shops are wrapping things that they had just got started with not wrapping (individal rolls in their own bags!), use more energy to wash things hotter, space ourselves out using bigger rooms (they will have to be heated very soon) and use cars not public transport. Communal living brings its own set of problems and most people are not prepared to make the sacrifices.
johnm, eltonioni, skydriller liked this
By masterofnone
#1793608
Flyingfemme wrote:The covid saga has set back the environmental agenda by years

Yes, especially now that people have had a small taste of the economic impact that some of the more extreme policies would entail.

A very brief scan of the literature forecasts Covid impact to be an 8 % reduction, the highest annual reduction on record. Doing this for a year is breaking most countries.

This is approximately the same annual reduction you'd need to achieve every year for a decade in order to limit warming to less than 1.5C above pre-industrial temperatures. And that doesn't even get close to XR's target of net zero in 5 years. Hard to imagine people wanting to sign up for that level of hardship, even for the most righteous of reasons
By johnm
#1793609
climate change merely requires some creative thought to change the economic model, another industrial revolution if you like. The current economic model is less than 300 years old.
By masterofnone
#1793620
"Merely" :lol: I don't know what's so elusive about world peace....it "merely" requires people to want to get on more than they want to fight.

I've no doubt there are less impactful ways to achieve GHG reductions, but it probably does require a rethink in the way we go about pretty much everything we do. It may not take the 80 years the industrial Revolution lasted, but it'll take a lot more than 5!
johnm, skydriller liked this
User avatar
By kanga
#1793723
<longish rambling :oops: >

Joining in a philosophical (not partisan) manner in the drift from the OP's topic of the young lady's whereabouts and activities towards discussion of 'when is what sort of action to bring about change justified or, indeed, useful rather than counter-productive ?'; some observations and postulations from a politics and history nerd:

In a democratic society most citizens are more or less happy, and apathetic or quietly uneasy about suggested 'change' of any sort, 'small c conservative'. This means that any advocates of change start at a disadvantage compared to the supporters of the 'status quo'. Furthermore, in societies with a 'free(ish) press' (sic), the supporters of that status quo are likely to have a considerable, and often commanding, interest and influence over that press, and be inclined to use it to influence their readers against change. The monopoly of the printed media in influencing wider society has, however, been attenuated by radio over ~100 years, TV (~70 in UK, longer in US), and social media (~20, international). All those newer media may also, of course, have a bias which may be slight or extreme to support or oppose change, and may usually (in a freeish society) be chosen by an intended audience for broadcasting by switching off or retuning; but for social media increasingly by sophisticated targetting of the 'likely sympathetic', thereby in many cases now mirroring the early 'broadcasting monopolies' but now as antagonistic duopolies. And social media can easily accommodate and propagate outright mendacity without accommodating any voices in rebuttal.

For any proposed change, there will be a spectrum of support/opposition from extremes (will do whatever it takes including physical violence against opponents), through broadly sympathetic/opposing willing to take physical but non-violent and occasionally illegal or disruptive action, through sympathetic/opposing unwilling to take such action, to sympathetic/opposing but positively put off by any such action, even to withdrawing their support. And then, finally, the apathetic/uninterested centre, who, I postulate above, may be at least slightly inclined to 'no change', and may be a majority, likely in particular to oppose (passively) any disruption to their own lives, at work or leisure. As may be currently seen with BLM (regularly lethally violent in US, occasionally violent and certainly disruptive in UK), the extreme opponents have been at least as violent as the proponents, and seem (at least to me) more likely to attract the 'cheerfully but unthinkingly thuggish, grateful for the excuse'. It does not help when the rhetoric of some politicians seems to favour or at least to excuse the thuggery. But there was similar violence, occasionally lethal, and supporting political and press rhetoric in the past opposing women's suffrage, decriminalisation of homosexuality, etc; issues where that previous opposition let alone its virulence is incomprehensible to most of today's younger people in UK, at least. But the opposition can be long lasting: the Equal Rights Amendment has still not been ratified in enough US States ~50 years after being passed by Congress, usually stymied by obstructive filibustering in the legislatures of the remainder, despite local polls clearly favouring passage.

The challenge for the proponents of (any) change, then, is to win over enough of the less extremist and conservative centre without alienating too many of their existing (but less activist) potential supporters, and the 'apathetic and slightly resistant' centre. Governments can help or hinder by 'nudge' (example) or 'shove' (law or regulation); or may choose not to, or to backpedal. And 'events' (such as pandemics) can intervene.

All of which, I suppose, is fairly obvious, but interesting at least to me. :?
Last edited by kanga on Wed Sep 02, 2020 11:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
johnm, Rob P liked this
User avatar
By eltonioni
#1793918
kanga wrote: ...
The challenge for the proponents of (any) change, then, is to win over enough of the less extremist and conservative centre without alienating too many of their existing (but less activist) potential supporters, and the 'apathetic and slightly resistant' centre.
...


That is indeed the challenge but it's not so difficult really. The difficulty that some proponents have is that they are firm in their belief that they are entitled to special facts, truths and insight which entitles them to force change on their terms.



In truth, most people have a decent grasp and interest of the issues - climate change in this case - and are quite willing to adjust their own day-to-day life to some degree. This very forum is full of pretty conservative types demonstrating that nicely. From CFCs to catalytic converters to plastic bags to banning gas boilers by 2025, change has generally been accepted graciously and industry has made transition easy within a sensible legislative framework.

The Malthusians never went away, they just keep finding another disaster cult to attach themselves to because in reality it's them who have the problem.
Spooky liked this
By Cessna571
#1793963
Did the same XR people who said they don’t care if they spread COVID also “clap for carers” I wonder.

Regardless of whether you support XR or not, how can anyone support someone saying they don’t care if they spread covid.

Haven’t people been prosecuted for deliberately spreading AIDS ?

I’m finding them quite reprehensible now.
rogerb liked this
User avatar
By Rob P
#1793966
A new political party was launched in London on Thursday by a group of activists from Extinction Rebellion, who marked the event by shoplifting a haul of supermarket goods to highlight the instability of global food distribution.

The stunt involved five members of the nascent Beyond Politics party walking out of Sainsbury’s in Camden with shopping trolleys filled with food but without paying.
By Cessna571
#1793972
Rob P wrote:
A new political party was launched in London on Thursday by a group of activists from Extinction Rebellion, who marked the event by shoplifting a haul of supermarket goods to highlight the instability of global food distribution.

The stunt involved five members of the nascent Beyond Politics party walking out of Sainsbury’s in Camden with shopping trolleys filled with food but without paying.


Surely they were arrested weren’t they?

I know John Lewis had a massive problem with shop lifting during one of the May Day demonstrations.

They had to shut the store.
  • 1
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 49