[QUOTE=Steve MB]
Hokay. I will interpret your statement to mean that you advocate the socioeconomic platform of Pol Pot…
[/QUOTE]
An utterly repulsive suggestion. I trust made hastily, and instantly regretted. If I am mistaken, please accept my invitation to lick my rosy radical rectum.
Here’s an ongoing GD thread: What would a Green America be like?
(The Green Party, of course, != Greenpeace.)
[QUOTE=elucidator]
Suffice to say that future historians (knock wood…) will gasp in awe at the wealth we have generated
[/QUOTE]
I rather doubt that, for the same reason most moderns are not impressed by the wealth generated by the Renaissance (considered fairly and in context, yes, it’s impressive, but most people will consider it based on what they know in their own time and find the best of the past to represent appalling squalor).
Enough to be sure of finding one that meets your needs. As to a numerical value, YMMV.
That’s a typical example of where you end up when the government tries to create grand plans for socieity.
Well, the details of how you propose to “educate” and “stop” people are precisely what I require in order to evaluate the initial conclusion I stated upthread.
Man, what is it with you? Do you reallly think you throw a stink bomb like your “Pol Pot” crack above, and then engage me in polite discourse as though it never happened? Is this how they do things on your home planet?
[QUOTE=elucidator]
Man, what is it with you? Do you reallly think you throw a stink bomb like your “Pol Pot” crack above, and then engage me in polite discourse as though it never happened? Is this how they do things on your home planet?
[/QUOTE]
I didn’t think he was serious with the Pol Pot comment. I thought he was trying to make the point that he could make all sorts of outlandish assumptions if you won’t clarify what you mean.
FWIW, I didn’t think that, Swan. I’m hopeful that SteveMB recognizes elucidator’s second “demand for satisfaction”, as it were, as being sincerely tendered, and responds accordingly before attempting to resume the dialog.
[QUOTE=kaylasdad99]
I’m hopeful that SteveMB recognizes elucidator’s second “demand for satisfaction”
[/QUOTE]
So… pistols at dawn?
What does “kill the consumer economy” mean, anyway?
[QUOTE=elucidator]
I’ve offered a bit more than that, that is what you have seized upon in an effort to portray my opinions as hopelessly compromised by ideology.
[/quote]
No, I’m afraid you really haven’t. Up until I addressed you, your contributions were:
Which of these contains your nuanced and carefully observed viewpoint, gained over a span greater than my lifetime? Because from my no doubt all-too-callow perspective, it looks like you came in here determined to achieve no more than hollow sarcasm in an attempt to deflect attention from Greenpeace’s very specific idiocy. Maybe I’m missing some subtle point you were attempting to convey through your one-line snipes, but I am apparently far from alone in this failing.
Really? Then perhaps we might interest you in advancing an argument on the grounds of feasibility, reliability and risk, rather than your increasingly boring pseudo-axiomatic rants that if someone is making money, it must be wrong. Perhaps I am didactically unhanded today - it’s been a long one - but I fail to identify a single actual argument that you have made in the morass of anti-capitalist cliche.
Once more you appear to wantonly extrapolate where my plain words will suffice. I believe that the OP has identified a clear area of dishonesty and outright mendacity, which you appear to be at pains to protect. I would like to know why you seem so keen to deflect attention from such blatant fearmongering, and why your methods of doing so are so depressingly oriented around mocking the idea that someone, somewhere, might be making money.
Funny; I thought this was a Pit thread attacking a specific piece of Greenpeace propaganda. Were this a GD thread inviting debate on the pros and cons of nuclear policy, then my use of this advert as an argument in favour of nuclear power would indeed be fallacious. As it is, it appears that you are simply lost. I’m glad to be of help; you want a different thread, and should feel free to start one.
Then one wonders once more why you feel so motivated to deflect attention from their stupidity/malice. One also wonders how such a large organisation can with mere “stupidity” make such a blatantly fallacious advertisement, which so plainly plays on the popular fears which the Bushes of this world are regularly castigated for exploiting. Why is it, exactly, that when I’m told I should surrender a further freedom because of thar Terr’rists, it is a blatant piece of fearmongering, but when I’m supposed to discount a major source of energy for the same reasons, I’m told it is prudent and ecological reasoning? But I suppose Greenpeace make no money from this advert, and are thus beyond reproach. That’s almost certainly it.
If you’re going to chuck in such a facile “solution” to the problems people are trying to address, I think you should be prepared to be called on it. If you’re not bothered to actually explain what you mean by “kill the consumer economy”, and prefer rather to focus on specific instances of what you consider to be excessive consumption, then I suggest that in future you start at the level at which you’re willing to converse. Grand rhetorical flourishes are all very well, but substance is sometimes expected, I’m afraid to say.
First off, there really isn’t any need to list all of my comments up to a given point, anyone who gave a shit could easily find them. Its a needless strain on the hamsters. (Don’t know if you got the memo, but the amphetamine budget has been cut again…)
Which case you already insist is proven beyond debate. Don’t think so. But even if it were, the threat of terroristic attacks on nuke sites is a “second tier” argument, if it were to be thrown out entirely, its overall effect would be pretty minimal. I’m not at all convinced that a terrorist attack on, say, a chemical refinery would not be more devastating than an attack on a nuke site. Your insinuation as to my motives is simply that, an insinuation.
Not at all. Only that when gleaning testimony, I am, just as I said, skeptical of testimony from such persons and institutions who have an economic stake. Would it help you if I type slower?
This is a chestnut! Consider it stolen. It sounds like an excerpt from a Penthouse Forum, “…she then proceeded to wantonly extrapolate…”.
Whoa, there, big horse! Steady up! Cant have it both ways, either you want to expand the thread to include the entire spectrum of my social and political views, or you want to protect the pristine purity of the OP. And if the whole debate is nothing more than the validity and relevence of this one Greenpeace advert, well, then, the game is not worth the candle. As the thread morphed into larger issues, you were not at pains to prevent such, being perfectly happy to make your larger points until the water gets a bit deep and the denizens toothy then you want to protect the OP from “wanton extrapolation”.
And one minute later, you’re sniffing about my failure to produce the entire spectrum of my social views. Heads, I lose, tails, I lose double.
Again, your inference as to my motives. Absent a Certificate of Telepathy, it doesn’t mean shit to a tree.
Yes, they are “regularly castigated”, and for very good reasons. Precisely why such a comparison needs to be made eludes me. Should I criticize Bushiviks less, because Greenpeace makes an ad of questionable accuracy? You gotta be kidding, that be like putting a food poisoning outbreak at a church picnic on a level with the Black Death.
Oh, I rather doubt that. You have sufficient grasp to twist and distort, that is at least adequate to your needs. As in the following example:
“Wanton extrapolation”. I express skepticism of opinions proferred by persons with an economic interest, nothing particularly strange about that, most folks do. But you stick a hose in it and pump it up, blowing up a Japanese condom into a dirigible! Now I’m said to be making the case that if someone is not making money from something, their veracity is unquestionable, they are “beyond reproach”? Honest Native American, that’s what you think I said?
Facile? Bless your heart, its no such thing! Goddam difficult, vexing and complex, much effort expended, little enough to show for it. But once again, just after castigating me for taking lascivious license with the OP, you demand the complete series, Thoughts of Chairman 'Luc. Kinda unfair to be double teamed by just one guy.
[QUOTE=Dead Badger]
…Grand rhetorical flourishes are all very well, but substance is sometimes expected, I’m afraid to say.
[/QUOTE]
I can well understand how you find this daunting.
Answer the damn question about what “kill the consumer economy” entails, already. Luci, you got some ‘splainin’ to do.
Tell you what, Brian. You’ve always given me a fair shake, you really want me to, I 'll do it, just name the Forum. If I bore you to tears, ain’t my damn fault, I warned you. But you got to follow and comment! on each and every installment of the magnum doofus.
Your call.
Well, I was hoping for a 100-word (or so) definition of a particular slogan, with a few examples thrown in, not a commitment.
I’ll just assume it doesn’t mean anything; not even to you. It just sounds sort-of cool and dangerous and edgy and radical. Cry the yellow freedom!
Upon reflection…no. This is a bad idea. I’ve been ruminating on this, and its clear to me that I’m not interesting in “starring” in a thread about what I think. And I realise I’m talking about great big slobbering chunks of verbage, just to set the premises for the conclusions to rest upon. Doctors say I only have about thirty-forty more years, sounds extravagant. As well as the energy expended responding to insightful criticism from stimulating minds and responding to snide ankle bites from dipshits (And I will, because I can’t help it, I always gotta hit back…) Perhaps I could carve the Rock of Gibralter into a bust of Eugene V. Debs, but I don’t crave challenges.
As to this thread, my criticism of “consumerist” culture need only be so mundane an insight as “If we spent less, we’d have more, and wouldn’t have take risks to get more.” And the risk remains real, only opinions vary as to the extent of that risk. With wise stewardship, it may never be necessary. It is bad to need what you don’t have, better to not need what you don’t have. Best to not need what you do have, leaves some margin.
These ends require enormous change, to end consumerism, you have to change consumers. It is a wholly democratic project, working to change minds and habits. It is massive, vexing, and quite possibly Quixotic.
But I haven’t anything better to do.
(Upon preview, I see I have overestimated friend Bryan’s generosity, I shan’t make that mistake again. Above find a sketch, a rough outline, with very broad outlines painted with a fire hose. If it works for you, fine, if not, we’ll no doubt have occassion to discuss these things again…Peace on you.)
Oh, get the fuck over yourself. I wanted you to clarify a four-word slogan, not tell me your life story. Geez.
Its a slogan, dim bulb, not a position paper. The intent is to arouse thought, in the faith that the arousal of thought is sufficient to acomplish one’s end (being: the arousal of thought). Whole books have been written on the consumerist economy, you could go read one. I’d be flattered to think that you hold my authority in such high regard that you’d prefer, but I don’t think that’s it. I think you’re just jerking my chain.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
The intent is to arouse thought
[/quote]
But if the thought is “hmm, I wonder what that means?”, you’re too elitist to explain?
Man, no wonder a Green can’t get elected dogcatcher.
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
But if the thought is “hmm, I wonder what that means?”, you’re too elitist to explain?
Man, no wonder a Green can’t get elected dogcatcher.
[/QUOTE]
Hey, not funny. Well ok, maybe it was.
For the Record, you are funny but wrong.
Cite: Green Party members holding elected office in the United States
I know it is not impressive, but at least there are a few.
Jim
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
But if the thought is “hmm, I wonder what that means?”, you’re too elitist to explain?..
[/QUOTE]
And I gave you a respectful answer, until I realized you weren’t intending a respectful question, you were just counting coup, racking up points.
And “elitist”? Howzabout you go suck pimpled donkey balls?
Well, this ankle-biting dipshit is disappointed. Forgive me if I afford your “death to consumerism” theme the same response I grant to all other forms of shallow bumper-sticker sloganeering, like “Subvert the Dominant Paradigm” and “I’d Rather Be Bass Fishing”: a hearty Bronx cheer.
I’ve read and admired many of your posts for a long time, elucidator. But while your sarcasm undeniably sizzles, the steak turns out to be a pretty hollow slab of gristle sometimes.