-
Well, if your argument is that things aren't so bad, then yeah, that's my TL;DR.
It's what you say almost regardless of the topic and the other person's point, in the bad faith assumption that anybody talking about anything else is implicitly making that argument. It's the reductio-ad-absurdam version of "You're treating the symptoms, not the cause". In case you care, the unavoidable consequence of not caring what others say is that you have nothing interesting to say.
itsbruce-
bad faith assumption
Hang on a sec - no. I may well be in the habit of making some faulty assumptions, but certainly not in bad faith.
that anybody talking about anything else is implicitly making that argument
Sorry, I don't quite follow; would you mind expanding and clarifying that? You seem to have a pretty strong impression you're trying to convey there. Seems to me that it's probably somewhat mistaken, but then again, that's how it would seem to me in either case. And I dislike being mistaken so much, I'll freely admit when I realise I am.
In this instance, it just seems vanishingly rare to me that folks are capable of recognising the collapse of civilisation is probably less than a couple of decades away, and that truly radical action is required to avoid the worst. I want to discuss the nature of that action, but it seems very difficult to find others who agree that we've hit the iceberg and there aren't enough lifeboats.
I'm super curious in what other contexts you see an echo of the underlying dynamic there. It's hard for me to imagine that I've cooked my whole impression of humanity's impending doom in order to play some dismissive psychodrama on others...
Kimmo
Well, if your argument is that things aren't so bad, then yeah, that's my TL;DR. If you want it to be otherwise, then wishing that rearranging deckchairs will cut it, won't cut it.
It's more a matter of, how do we smash enough furniture quickly enough to provide the material for enough lifeboats to minimise the inevitable consequences of our indifference.