|
Dusz posted:I think you haven't paid much attention to this thread. The cynics are posters whose whole ideology is that there is no solution, and that is what they are proudly declaring in this thread. I have highlighted solutions proposed by others in this thread, including the post which you quoted but apparently didn't read. So I am not going to accept your ridiculous misrepresentation that I am not offering any more of a solution. I am not trying to boast to being exemplary in this but both me and practically every poster in this thread other than Yiggy and the other cynics has offered more solutions than them. I've paid plenty of attention to this thread, I just don't think you're offering anything more to the discourse than the "cynics" as you call them. You aren't offering more of a solution. Talking about how liberalism isn't enough (we all agree on this) isn't a solution. Name dropping revolutionary marxism isn't a solution. You have offered zero as a solution, all you've done in this thread is attack people for having views you don't agree with. quote:I do not think there is some kind of unbridgeable chasm between revolutionary and liberal practice. As I said in my post that you ignored, the two approaches can and have cooperated with each other. Liberal approaches, anything from non-violent activism to an ecological lifestyle are somewhat useful as preventative measures. Revolution comes in when the non-violent activist measures prove insufficient. The disparity between them becomes relevant only during a time when revolution is already imminent, which is not now obviously. In so far that I argued for revolutionary measures, it is for people to acknowledge them as a potentially necessary option, and preferable to the defeatism of the cynics when more peaceful methods fail. Non-violent activism is not useful as a preventative measure. It's comedy that you would put that forth as some kind of solution to the problems we're facing. This is my major problem with you, where the cynics say "we have no hope" you say "we must have hope in everything". There certainly is a middle ground there, and pretending like most of the cynics in this thread wouldn't be gleeful to have a global marxist revolution centered around protecting the environment is intellectually dishonest, they just view it as a place that's impossible to get to from where we're standing now. And you haven't shown anything otherwise. quote:Third, you are disingenuous to demand me to give a comprehensive solution to a problem of such magnitude. The way you phrase your challenge sets me up to a standard nobody can match, least of all you or the cynics. In fact, the cynics have failed the standard no matter how you phrase it because they have resigned themselves to the futility of collapse. If you want complete answers, I recommend you stay away from politics because you will not get them. However, that does not mean partial solutions or discussion about solutions is worthless. That is in fact why I repeatedly call the cynics defeatists - it is quite possible based on the melancholy of their language that they are disappointed a solution is not spontaneous and immediate, and have thus reduced themselves to despair. What is "the futility of collapse"? What do you think the collapse of society entails? Why is it so terrible to view it as an inevitability? I'm not trying to defend it, but you're using words that aren't very well defined so I'd like to figure out exactly what your issue is. Why are plans like changing our lightbulbs to CFLs have some worth when we're talking about an issue like this. It's like you're in the hospital for a gunshot wound to the head and you're telling us we should have hope because while they haven't managed to stop the bleeding in the head, you had a scraped knee when you came in and you're not losing any more blood there. Some "solutions" are worthless, namely the ones whos impact is negligible. quote:Then, I am not going to change my tone. I do not see my statements as insults any more than I consider calling a fascist a racist an insult. I use strong terms but only because they are applicable in this case. After all words like coward and despicable have a meaning beyond just being incendiary, and I think they describe people like Yiggy and the other cynics accurately. And unlike them, I choose to be accurate and honest about my opinions, instead of the deliberately vague language that they use to make themselves appear better. It is especially fetid of you to use "emotional" in the way that you do - I have yet to see goons in D&D and elsewhere consistently apply the "unemotional at all costs" maxim while arguing against people who deserve no respect and thus I do not feel obliged to do so now. I'm not saying unemotional at all costs, I'm saying that when you coat your posting in ad hominems it takes away from your argument. I don't really care if you change your tone, personally I disagree with you and am happy to watch you shoot your own "arguments" (I use this word lightly because you haven't really voiced anything but opposition to those who aren't optimists) in the foot. It was more advice on how to be a more effective arguer, your choice to listen or not. quote:So I do not think they are deserving of "insults and ad hominems", they are deserving of accurate and critical language that highlights their foolishness and immaturity. I do not think that they deserve to be punished for their opinions, but I think I am obliged to kick out the soapbox from under their feet and to reveal the misguided nature of their arguments, what little they have. Viewing people who voice pessimistic opinions regarding the actions of today's major geopolitical actors as "defeatists" is just intellectually dishonest. For you to start talking about revolutionary marxism is even more absurd. You aren't kicking the soapbox out from anyone, you're just pushing some liberal feel good bullshit because you're too terrified to actually think about this problem past "NOBODY FREAK OUT" which is why I suspect it's not so much that you haven't shared your solution, it's that you won't even think about one because you're terrified of reaching the same conclusion held by those you despise.
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2012 16:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 07:12 |
|
a lovely poster posted:I've paid plenty of attention to this thread, I just don't think you're offering anything more to the discourse than the "cynics" as you call them. You aren't offering more of a solution. Talking about how liberalism isn't enough (we all agree on this) isn't a solution. Name dropping revolutionary marxism isn't a solution. You have offered zero as a solution, all you've done in this thread is attack people for having views you don't agree with. I think it is by now painfully obvious that you do not understand a single word that I am saying. I honestly do not even feel obliged to respond to most of this because I feel that my last post, which you quote here but do not address in any way, covered all the points you reiterate here without any additional strength behind your arguments. Your first paragraph was probably written before you read my whole post. That much is obvious because you ascribe an opinion to me that I clarified in the rest of the post, but which you apparently didn't read. That is why "piece by piece" responses like yours are worthless - they separate meaning from context and so give banal results. Then, you paint me as some kind of starry-eyed optimist on the basis of nothing but your low-attention reading of my opinions. Again I reiterate that your idea of "starry-eyed sheeple Dusz" is an illusion you have created, it has no relation to what I am actually saying and so I refuse to engage that opinion according to these deceitful parameters that you set. I have repeatedly emphasized the severity and magnitude of the problem we are facing, so for you to create this false effigy of me reveals that you do not care to comprehend, or pay attention to the people you are talking to but are at the same time pompous enough to claim to have a "full picture" of them. Your hole in the head analogy is disingenuous. To clarify, when someone is shot in the head, I think there are two things that can be done. First, you give elementary palliative care to the patient, such as reducing the bleeding and delivering him to a hospital. That is what is done by liberalism. Then you carry out more complex and direct intervention - a surgery. That is what is done by revolution. The third approach, of you and your fetid compatriots is that of someone who stands next to the patient doing nothing, filled with schadenfreude and obstructing the work of both the surgeons and the people who are trying to give the patient palliative care. Finally, I am quite aware that you choose to paint your fable as something transcendental, that requires "opening your eyes to see the light" so to say. However, that has no relation to what is actually happening. When you submit absolutely to despair and inaction, as you and the other cynics, it appears to you as a revelation but is actually the unconscious effort of your brain to rearrange reality to compensate for your insecurities. As a result you assume a self-serving false consciousness and although it appears to you to be revelation, it is actually a submission to indolent cowardice and nothing else. And I do not see my argumentative style as ineffective. It is in every way quite fitting with regard to the despicable opinions you hold and the bawling stubbornness with which you defend them. It is not my purpose to be incendiary, I intend to establish my argument. And that is impossible without deconstructing the less consistent arguments of others.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2012 16:30
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:Name dropping revolutionary marxism isn't a solution. You have offered zero as a solution, all you've done in this thread is attack people for having views you don't agree with. How can he be a liberal feel-good bullshitter and yet be somehow related to 'revolutionary marxism' at the same time, to the extent that you question his ideology in your post? How can you deduce from his criticism of those defeatists who live in a global position of privilege, that he holds the extreme opposite opinion from them ('dont freak out')? What is the conclusion of those that he despises that you are talking about? That nothing short of global revolution will make meaningful change? It is overtly obvious from his fourth post on page 67 that he already thinks that same thing, but doesn't want to abnegate (hope in) the utility of interim, reformist changes in the meanwhile. Your post is filled with incongruent statements to the point where quoting the above one-and-a-half paragraphs and reading them thoroughly leaves me with more questions than I started with. It doesn't look like you actually read posts. There seems to be no internal congruence to your assumptions past creating opportunities for yourself to have a go at whatever flavor ideology (or the facile understanding thereof) you don't like. Chillax a bit and let's see where the conversation goes first.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2012 16:31
|
|
|
Dusz posted:The third approach, of you and your fetid compatriots is that of someone who stands next to the patient doing nothing, filled with schadenfreude and obstructing the work of both the surgeons and the people who are trying to give the patient palliative care. What exactly makes you think I do nothing? Why do you assume that pessimistic people are trying to obstruct things? This is the crux of my argument, that you are projecting a whole lot of poo poo onto pessimists that simply isn't the case. I'd like to hear about what you're doing to help provide care exactly. SSJ2 Goku Wilders posted:How can he be a liberal feel-good bullshitter and yet be somehow related to 'revolutionary marxism' at the same time, to the extent that you question his ideology in your post? I think he's simply giving revolutionary Marxism lip service as a way out of actually making his own argument. I want to understand why "revolutionary marxism" is any different from "collapse". I think he basically agrees with the people he's arguing with, he would just rather use optimistic language. It's just a non-argument and the tone of his posts is completely uncalled for. a lovely poster fucked around with this message at 16:46 on Nov 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2012 16:38
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:I think he's simply giving revolutionary Marxism lip service as a way out of actually making his own argument. I want to understand why "revolutionary marxism" is any different from "collapse". I think he basically agrees with the people he's arguing with, he would just rather be optimistic about it versus pessimistic. If anything, Marxists that are expecting revolution are the least optimistic people, because we are going to have to compete with fascists for power; nationalism and xenophobia are pretty expectable consequences of societal collapse and the far right already has a pretty good foothold, even in Western Europe. On top of that, anything to the left of Rawls has been phased out of the public consciousness. It's not optimism you're seeing, it's the refusal to simply accept climate/social catastrophe as inevitable in its worst degree.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2012 16:49
|
|
A hypocrite is someone who...a lovely poster posted:What exactly makes you think I do nothing? Why do you assume that pessimistic people are trying to obstruct things? This is the crux of my argument, that you are projecting a whole lot of poo poo onto pessimists that simply isn't the case. ...applies to others the standards that... quote:I think he's simply giving revolutionary Marxism lip service as a way out of actually making his own argument. I want to understand why "revolutionary marxism" is any different from "collapse". I think he basically agrees with the people he's arguing with, he would just rather be optimistic about it versus pessimistic. ...he does not apply to himself. And no, you have not argued your points sufficiently to just throw them out without any explanation. Either conjecture is wrong for us both, or it is right for us both. So which one is it? And for that matter, I have a very good reason to think that you do nothing. You and the other cynics are arguing for an ideology of non-action, and repeatedly criticize people that propose solutions. Therefore it would be logical to assume that you behave in a way consistent with your ideology and don't seek out solutions as a matter of principle (because they are all a waste in your eyes). Either that or you don't even believe what you are saying, you are actually continually looking for solutions, which begs the question as to why you need to claim otherwise in this thread.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2012 16:50
|
|
|
Dusz posted:And for that matter, I have a very good reason to think that you do nothing. You and the other cynics are arguing for an ideology of non-action, and repeatedly criticize people that propose solutions. Therefore it would be logical to assume that you behave in a way consistent with your ideology and don't seek out solutions as a matter of principle (because they are all a waste in your eyes). Either that or you don't even believe what you are saying, you are actually continually looking for solutions, which begs the question as to why you need to claim otherwise in this thread. Where am I arguing for an ideology of non-action? I criticize absurd solutions when need be but I'm more than happy to explain why in each case. Since understanding the implications of climate change a few years ago I've given up my car, joined two environmental organizations, volunteered for a variety of political causes, and changed my career in an effort to do "more". Could I do more than what I do? Of course, I wish I could motivate myself to get there but there are a lot of modern conveniences that I'm not prepared to give up. I'm not here to toot my own horn but a lovely poster posted:This is the crux of my argument, that you are projecting a whole lot of poo poo onto pessimists that simply isn't the case. I want to hear what you do that makes you feel so superior to everyone in this thread. What action are you taking that sets you apart? SSJ2 Goku Wilders posted:If anything, Marxists that are expecting revolution are the least optimistic people, because we are going to have to compete with fascists for power; nationalism and xenophobia are pretty expectable consequences of societal collapse and the far right already has a pretty good foothold, even in Western Europe. On top of that, anything to the left of Rawls has been phased out of the public consciousness. Nobody is saying that the worst climate change outcomes are inevitable. Climate and social catastrophe IS inevitable due to the path that we're on. That being said, how bad that will be remains to be decided. The longer we wait to take action, the worse off that catastrophe will be. a lovely poster fucked around with this message at 17:00 on Nov 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2012 16:57
|
|
a lovely poster posted:Where am I arguing for an ideology of non-action? I criticize absurd solutions when need be but I'm more than happy to explain why in each case. Since understanding the implications of climate change a few years ago I've given up my car, joined two environmental organizations, volunteered for a variety of political causes, and changed my career in an effort to do "more". Could I do more than what I do? Of course, I wish I could motivate myself to get there but there are a lot of modern conveniences that I'm not prepared to give up. I'm not here to toot my own horn but I do not feel superior to anyone in this thread. This has nothing to do with me and everything to do with establishing a coherent argument against an incoherent one. Again you apply conjecture against me, making me believe even more that you are either a hypocrite or failing to understand what people are talking about. The focus of my arguments is not against pessimism or against constructive criticism of methods. My criticism is of an approach, that abuses pessimism by criticizing palliative and direct measures without offering anything in return. You barged into this thread to the defense of two posters - one who has been an absolute cynic so far, and the other one an inconsistent cynic who continues to attempt solutions in spite of the futility. So it makes sense for me to assume that you share their opinions, especially because you did not distinguish yourself otherwise. Now, I think you haven't actually comprehended what they are arguing for, and are defending something without knowing what you are defending. Remember that my very first post against Yiggy focused on the fact that for all his virulent criticism of solutions, he had himself only given vague and unclear alternatives. So far, he has exemplified the attitude I am against. The focus of my posts in general has been criticism of that ideology, that sinister attitude of schadenfraude-laden fatalism. I do think that the cynics in this thread are pessimists but I do not think that all pessimists are cynics in the way that I describe. These people take pessimism beyond the point where it is merely a useful tool and take it into an extreme, forming an utterly impotent system of thought. In fact it is so impotent, that some of its adherents like Your Sledgehammer, do not apply it consistently because they know how powerless it makes them.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2012 17:18
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:
It is a shame they lumped all electricity generation into one giant bucket; as various other types of electricity generation are much more efficient and effective than some of their other counterparts, having different ratios for line loss, thermal mass churg-bromenstein ratios, and so forth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2012 19:21
|
|
|
Dusz posted:The focus of my arguments is not against pessimism or against constructive criticism of methods. My criticism is of an approach, that abuses pessimism by criticizing palliative and direct measures without offering anything in return. You barged into this thread to the defense of two posters - one who has been an absolute cynic so far, and the other one an inconsistent cynic who continues to attempt solutions in spite of the futility. So it makes sense for me to assume that you share their opinions, especially because you did not distinguish yourself otherwise. Now, I think you haven't actually comprehended what they are arguing for, and are defending something without knowing what you are defending. The thing is, I agree with both of them for the most part. I find it especially funny that you're now going to admonish Yiggy for being vague and unclear about solutions when yours this thread was "well, liberalism is a failure, but revoutionary socialism." Not to mention I'm pretty sure you spent the last revolution vs reformism thread arguing heavily against those who said revolution was necessary (maybe I'm misremembering this, I don't have archives) From your first response to Yiggy, Dusz posted:I honestly don't see what good such an opinion will do to anyone, even if you are right about the coming catastrophe. Some people don't form opinions based on the value they give themselves. Yiggy is just looking at the world and telling us what he sees. Just because that particular opinion is devoid of practical solutions to the problem at hand doesn't make it wrong or right, and it also doesn't mean that the individual offering it has nothing to say about ways to combat climate change and its effects. Just because someone thinks catastrophic warming is inevitable doesn't mean they have given up in every facet of their life towards making the world a better place. Maybe you don't feel superior to anyone in this thread, but the language you choose certainly makes it seem that way (again, another reason to avoid personal attacks when forming an argument). You keep talking about fatalism, and all I've seen Yiggy be fatalistic about is that catastrophic climate change is coming, which I would agree with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2012 19:33
|
|
|
Drusz posted:I think it is by now painfully obvious that you do not understand a single word that I am saying. Of course he doesn't; your prose is so Goddamn lovely that it's impossible to parse. Where did you even learn to write? It's as if Augustine was your personal tutor or something. People have been posting actual solutions in the Energy Generation Megathread that I think are great; but I have to ask the obvious question if I want to be an honest sketpic: what is the status of any of these projects? When are we going to build these power plants? Who is going to fund them? The answer to all of those question right now is, "Welp, we hope the government will get on it at some point." That doesn't breed confidence. I'm a card carrying member of the 4th International - so, where's the Vanguard at? I don't really like it when someone timidly defers to revolutionary ideals. Do you have a time and place to assemble the troops? Are you armed and ready to go? Is this something you're genuinely willing to bleed-out in the streets for at lunchtime tomorrow? If the answer to any of that is "No," then don't even think about bringing it up. Revolts are not something to bring-up lightly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 00:28
|
|
|
Climate doesn't care about you silly arguing humans. If nothing else, this thread demonstrates just what does go through a rabbits mind as the headlights advance. It's really confounding and sad to watch. You've got the mental equipment to get out of the way, but is that spot in the road so incredibly comfortable you'd prefer to be run over? The current affairs shows are beginning to throw up various mind-bending schemes to alter the climate from mirrors to sulphite rockets; the tone is "certainly possible, make the the climate manageable". It has the same air of unreality the rest of this "debate" has. So much for long-term solutions. So please do continue Drusz et. al. Good bunnies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 04:57
|
|
|
eh4 posted:sulphite rockets These seem like a good idea to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 05:31
|
|
|
The Ender posted:... If you're a card carrying socialist, the answer should be "you," or do you think the card is good enough? Any movement has to have some sort of beginning and people to build it. eh4 posted:Climate doesn't care about you silly arguing humans. If nothing else, this thread demonstrates just what does go through a rabbits mind as the headlights advance. It's really confounding and sad to watch. You've got the mental equipment to get out of the way, but is that spot in the road so incredibly comfortable you'd prefer to be run over? To extend this metaphor, the car is also hurtling towards you. I don't know why the fact that the car will also hit other people leads you to criticize efforts to remove the bunny from the road. I also don't think you're actually reading what some of the solutions proposed in this thread are. Hint: It's not just geoengineering.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 06:25
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:If you're a card carrying socialist, the answer should be "you," or do you think the card is good enough? Any movement has to have some sort of beginning and people to build it. You were saying the future for averting climate change is hopeful because of the technological advances we had from 1915 till now, which is wishful thinking. "Technology will solve it" is probably the worst rebuttal that pops up in these threads all the time. We are not in any reasonable time span, especially with the current political climate and population response to the problem, going to replace our entire energy infrastructure and world economy. Nations live and die on the oil they sell and buy and the food we started growing in the green revolution is dependent on petrochemicals. You also said change can take place because of movements in Tunisia and Russia and various places in the past 100 years but you are underestimating this problem, everyone in America could become carbon neutral tomorrow and you still have pretty much the other 96% of the worlds population to consider, expecting them to not continue developing as nations the same way we did with fossil fuels. There is being defeatist and there is being a realist, which is better than being an idealist. Realistic discussion of the actual situation we face serves us better than hoping that we will come up with a new space program level of innovation for combating climate change or that any movement at any time in the entire world is comparable to getting 7,000,000,000 people to agree on anything, much less that they should endure further hardship in their lives for a long term benefit. You have to solve all of those problems while we are already past the point of being able to stop climate change, and already decades past when we should have started this worldwide movement of amazing technological advancements and forward thinking for the betterment of mankind. TL:DR we are so screwed
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 06:49
|
|
|
Space Crabs posted:You were saying the future for averting climate change is hopeful because of the technological advances we had from 1915 till now, which is wishful thinking. "Technology will solve it" is probably the worst rebuttal that pops up in these threads all the time. We are not in any reasonable time span, especially with the current political climate and population response to the problem, going to replace our entire energy infrastructure and world economy. Nations live and die on the oil they sell and buy and the food we started growing in the green revolution is dependent on petrochemicals.
I'm not saying technological innovation will save us. We have all the technology we need to stop climate change, and though incremental improvements and small adjustments will help any mitigation effort, they're not even necessary. Any mass movement needs to begin somewhere. Since the root cause of climate change can be found in capitalism, the best way forward is to have environmental movements and labor movements unite, fighting for small changes while building towards the much larger changes that will be needed to stop/mitigate climate change. I point to history as an example we can learn from. Successful popular movements can inspire actions around the world. If the US became carbon neutral due to drastic policy changes forced by a popular movement, that wouldn't exist in a vacuum. Even ignoring the US's role as a dominate military and economy power with incredibly influence in global politics, that alone would certainly inspire action around the globe. One victory can set off a chain of positive events. Again, history is an example we can learn from. The alternative to action is inaction and the deaths of hundreds of millions of people if not billions of people. Given the consequences of inaction, inaction is a morally reprehensible position to take. The immense magnitude of the challenge facing us should not dissuade us from acting. Does that clear things up?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 07:10
|
|
a lovely poster posted:The thing is, I agree with both of them for the most part. I find it especially funny that you're now going to admonish Yiggy for being vague and unclear about solutions when yours this thread was "well, liberalism is a failure, but revoutionary socialism." Not to mention I'm pretty sure you spent the last revolution vs reformism thread arguing heavily against those who said revolution was necessary (maybe I'm misremembering this, I don't have archives) I don't feel obliged to tolerate the despicable opinions of children simply by virtue of the fact that they hold them. Tell me, when people repeatedly say in the thread that there is no solution, why should I assume that they are lying and actually think that there is a solution? If the cynics are doing something despite their fatalistic doomsaying in this thread, then all they are showing that they even cannot bear to practice what they preach. And again, I feel you have no clue what some of them are actually saying and what you are defending. Yiggy has about 40 posts in this thread, and when he mentioned it solutions was the following. He has namedropped "radical" a few times and muttered something about apocalypse survival, all the while coating it with his near-nihilist fatalism. Even then, what little he has said is disingenuous coming from a guy who refused to specify anything when I challenged him on it, twice. Finally, he is some kind of privileged Western art buddhist who based on posts in other thread lives a life of comfort and revelry. I believe I have reason to doubt he has an understanding of what actual destitution would entail, and therefore I honestly think he would have nothing relevant to say about solutions even if I could somehow get him to do it.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 13:26
|
|
eh4 posted:Climate doesn't care about you silly arguing humans. If nothing else, this thread demonstrates just what does go through a rabbits mind as the headlights advance. It's really confounding and sad to watch. You've got the mental equipment to get out of the way, but is that spot in the road so incredibly comfortable you'd prefer to be run over? First, "Climate" is not a metaphysical entity and it does not have a will of its own. Second, the only people who can "get out of the way" of hardship are those who are privileged enough to do so (which you definitely are). For that matter, although I will not blame anyone who just cares about "getting out of the way", when these cowards begin to spread their schadenfraude smugness to people who care about solutions, I find that to be despicable and not worthy of any respect whatsoever. Hence, being an evil marxist who is simulaneously a starry eyed liberal and technofuturist at the same time, I sentence you to the following: pre:write: it will not give me pleasure to smugly stand by and tell everyone "I told you so".
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 13:40
|
|
The Ender posted:Of course he doesn't; your prose is so Goddamn lovely that it's impossible to parse. Where did you even learn to write? It's as if Augustine was your personal tutor or something. Again, the way you phrase your questions implies that the only answer you would be satisfied with is a complete one. Are you really expecting anyone to provide it for you? If you are hoping for gurus in something as uncertain as politics, then you are just setting yourself up to be deceived. I personally don't think my referral to revolutionary ideals was "timid", nor was it "forceful" - I do not see much reason to provoke people into it in this thread, so I can refer to it neutrally, as a useful method - which it is and has been.. But seeing as you went into some boisterous tirade about being ready for battle right afterwards...To be honest, being a card carrying member of a Trotskyist organization has about as much relevance to battle-readiness as being a card-carrying member of a local library. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDibHD11XYw&t=240s Dusz fucked around with this message at 14:26 on Nov 25, 2012 |
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 14:20
|
|
|
Dusz posted:I don't feel obliged to tolerate the despicable opinions of children simply by virtue of the fact that they hold them. Tell me, when people repeatedly say in the thread that there is no solution, why should I assume that they are lying and actually think that there is a solution? If the cynics are doing something despite their fatalistic doomsaying in this thread, then all they are showing that they even cannot bear to practice what they preach. Depending on your definition of solution and what exactly the problem is there might actually not be one. When you stick to vague generalities like you do instead of actually defending your solution (let's be honest now, you don't have one either) it makes it really easy to sit back and accuse others of cynicism. How would one "practice what they preach" with regards to the claim that catastrophic warming is inevitable. I make that claim, and I live my life based on that truth, but I don't understand why that makes you angry. You might as well define solution if you want to accuse other people of not having one. I'd be happy to share mine if you define some parameters. quote:And again, I feel you have no clue what some of them are actually saying and what you are defending. Yiggy has about 40 posts in this thread, and when he mentioned it solutions was the following. He has namedropped "radical" a few times and muttered something about apocalypse survival, all the while coating it with his near-nihilist fatalism. Even then, what little he has said is disingenuous coming from a guy who refused to specify anything when I challenged him on it, twice. Finally, he is some kind of privileged Western art buddhist who based on posts in other thread lives a life of comfort and revelry. I believe I have reason to doubt he has an understanding of what actual destitution would entail, and therefore I honestly think he would have nothing relevant to say about solutions even if I could somehow get him to do it. I actually read Yiggy's post history in this thread and I do know what I'm "defending". And wow, he refused to provide details when you asked him to specify twice, what a crime! I asked you to specify details and you didn't, should I start writing paragraphs about how you're a terrible person. I like that you managed to slip in another personal attack, I don't know what an "art buddhist" even is but I think we're all live in relative comfort if we have the freedom to post on the internet, maybe you'd like to tell us about how not privileged you are. Dusz posted:I sentence you to the following: This isn't funny, you're trying way too hard. For someone who allegedly doesn't feel superior to anyone, you've got an interesting way of talking down to people. The moral outrage you're flinging around is absurd. Most of these people agree with you more than 99% of the planet, maybe you should chill out. a lovely poster fucked around with this message at 18:10 on Nov 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 18:04
|
|
a lovely poster posted:Depending on your definition of solution and what exactly the problem is there might actually not be one. When you stick to vague generalities like you do instead of actually defending your solution (let's be honest now, you don't have one either) it makes it really easy to sit back and accuse others of cynicism. How would one "practice what they preach" with regards to the claim that catastrophic warming is inevitable. I make that claim, and I live my life based on that truth, but I don't understand why that makes you angry. I think I'm done talking with you. Your post is filled with the same weak arguments that you started this argument with and your idea of a discussion is to unceasingly repeat things I have already responded to two or three times. The only proper response at this point would be to quote my last four posts I addressed in response to you, in hopes you will actually read them this time. It is irrelevant what percentage out of all of their opinions I agree with because from the beginning my focus has been on a single attitude - that I find to be, as I have said in the past, schadenfraude smugness reinforced with hyperbole and pseudointellectual sophistry. On its own, I find it to be despicable enough and I see no reason at all to tolerate that opinion - and I have repeatedly stated why I think in such a way. I think your (admittedly modest, it seems) cynicism results from the fact that you expect one person to give complete answers. You are not alone in this attitude, either - I have talked about this in response to people in this thread about two-three times by now, if not more. I think this standard you set is by definition impossible to meet - and when people do not meet it, you retreat into the "we're so hosed" attitude. However, the truth is that your standards were unreachable anyway, so it is little surprise that they were not met. Furthermore, the standard you set does not reflect on the situation we're in - never in history have complex problems been resolved by an omniscient guru or leader-figure. I think in general you are blind to attitude and opinions unless it is the attitude of the people who you choose to regard as your enemies (and you can comprehend the opinion of neither). Yiggy and eh4 and others like them have repeatedly engaged in everything from "wow we're so hosed, how stupid you all are for trying to do anything" (Yiggy) and "oh it's going to be so great when all you sheeple die, I'll be laughing when it happens" (eh4). I think because your case is superficially similar but stated in more objective terms, you give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they are saying the same thing as you are, which they aren't. I think you have an assumption that their opinions are completely innocent and harmless. Indeed, they are not immediately dangerous - their ideology is impotence codified, so they are powerless. The danger comes from them spreading their attitude, and giving people a package-excuse to not do anything. What they say should be subject to scrutiny in principle - although small, the words we say here are not insignificant, and people need to be held accountable for what they're saying. And meanwhile, I don't even really see what stake you have in this argument. By now I am convinced you are either blind to their opinions or still have not acquainted yourself with them, so this whole endeavor of yours is probably reflexive, against opinions you don't understand, using arguments that are inconsistent, in defense of people that aren't worthy of defense.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 21:07
|
|
|
Dusz posted:I think your (admittedly modest, it seems) cynicism results from the fact that you expect one person to give complete answers. You are not alone in this attitude, either - I have talked about this in response to people in this thread about two-three times by now, if not more. I think this standard you set is by definition impossible to meet - and when people do not meet it, you retreat into the "we're so hosed" attitude. However, the truth is that your standards were unreachable anyway, so it is little surprise that they were not met. Furthermore, the standard you set does not reflect on the situation we're in - never in history have complex problems been resolved by an omniscient guru or leader-figure. I haven't even set a standard for what a solution is. In fact, I think this entire discussion is kind of pointless without that. That's why I've asked you to define what a solution is. I have no standards, I do not think humanity is capable of stopping catastrophic climate change and the social implications of those changes. In fact, I think that this is exactly what the "nihilists" you're so outraged by are saying as well. Not only that, I think YOU have said the same exact thing. When you talk about how liberalism is insufficient to address these problems you have already crossed into fringe territory. Bringing up marxist revolutions basically means you agree that society will collapse unless you actually believe we can get from where we are now to marxist revolution without the dissolution of the existing social institutions. What exactly is your issue, that we won't celebrate comical attempts to stop climate change? Should we patting ourselves on the back for switching our lightbulbs? What do you want to hear from the "cynics" that you aren't hearing. What makes us nihilists and makes you not a nihilist? quote:I think in general you are blind to attitude and opinions unless it is the attitude of the people who you choose to regard as your enemies (and you can comprehend the opinion of neither). Yiggy and eh4 and others like them have repeatedly engaged in everything from "wow we're so hosed, how stupid you all are for trying to do anything" (Yiggy) and "oh it's going to be so great when all you sheeple die, I'll be laughing when it happens" (eh4). I think because your case is superficially similar but stated in more objective terms, you give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they are saying the same thing as you are, which they aren't. Instead of just making up quotes why don't you actually quote the posts you're talking about, because I haven't read either of the posts you're "referencing" and again, I've read the thread from start to finish. For example, http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3453503&userid=153373 This is eh4's post history in this thread. Go ahead and press control and F on your keyboard and type into the search box "sheeple". See how it doesn't find anything? Now, just for fun, let's do it with your posts http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3453503&userid=75648 Look, when I search for sheeple I see YOU are the one using that type of language, six times in fact. You are the one with the poo poo rhetoric here and that's why people who follow these threads closely like myself and Your Sledgehammer just sigh when we see you start posting because we've already heard your bullshit before and we know how poorly thought out it is. quote:I think you have an assumption that their opinions are completely innocent and harmless. Indeed, they are not immediately dangerous - their ideology is impotence codified, so they are powerless. The danger comes from them spreading their attitude, and giving people a package-excuse to not do anything. What they say should be subject to scrutiny in principle - although small, the words we say here are not insignificant, and people need to be held accountable for what they're saying. Again, their ideology isn't impotence codified. This is something you've extrapolated from their posts that simply doesn't exist. Saying that warming is inevitable or that social collapse is inevitable is not saying that there is no hope for humanity. This is something you have continued to fail to grasp in spite of bringing up Marxist revolutions yourself. It's not a package excuse to do nothing. Let me just quote myself from last page... again... a lovely poster posted:you are projecting a whole lot of poo poo onto pessimists that simply isn't the case quote:And meanwhile, I don't even really see what stake you have in this argument. By now I am convinced you are either blind to their opinions or still have not acquainted yourself with them, so this whole endeavor of yours is probably reflexive, against opinions you don't understand, using arguments that are inconsistent, in defense of people that aren't worthy of defense. Please, explain to me where my argument is inconsistent. Don't tell me that I shouldn't be posting or that I have no stake in this argument. I have plenty of stake and am more than willing to defend opinions I agree with. This seems like a weak attempt to just run away when you're confronted by someone who's actually willing to address the word salad you continue to pour into this thread in an effort to argue with people you agree with. a lovely poster fucked around with this message at 23:45 on Nov 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 23:42
|
|
|
Dusz posted:...schadenfraude smugness reinforced with hyperbole and pseudointellectual sophistry. Those who live in glass houses should be careful when casting stones. Honestly there's no reason to stretch out your posts as long as you do other than to wear people down with fatigue. As a marxist (Are you a marxist? It might be buried in one of your posts but I can't tell one way or the other) you should be familiar with historical materialism (If anyone isn't there is a great essay by Stalin here.) Basically the important point here is that climate change is the product of material forces. The same systems that support, reinforce, and make up capitalism do the same for climate change. As climate change arises from ignoring a contradiction of capitalism (unlimited growth being possible in a world with ecological and resource limits) it is impossible to stop without stopping capitalism. But for the same reason, the further climate change progresses, the harder it becomes to ignore this contradiction, and the weaker capitalism becomes. Please don't read into this any advocacy for accelerationism, it's merely a material analysis. What all this means is that someone coming to the conclusion that no solution will work isn't under a "false consciousness", it's true for our current material condition. The spread of this idea is nothing less than the spread of an awareness of a fundamental contradiction of capitalism. It is your insistence that these people withdraw their criticisms of "solutions" presented by liberal capitalism that is reactionary. In short, remember the oft invoked but rarely sourced Mao quote, "There is great chaos under heaven — the situation is excellent."
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 01:15
|
|
Yeah I'll just be frank, if after reading my posts you have still somehow concluded thatquote:What exactly is your issue, that we won't celebrate comical attempts to stop climate change? Should we patting ourselves on the back for switching our lightbulbs? Then again, you aren't worth talking to. I'd honestly soldier through your post regardless, but then I remembered that another terrible poster made almost the exact same claim once already, which I responded to, with no further response from you or anyone. I honestly do not enjoy writing these 1000 word posts only to have a group of reflexive poo poo-posters attack some kind of overblown effigy of me and then expect me to validate it, getting agitated when I don't and ignoring everything that I say. Then, I am more than convinced that what I said is true - you cannot discern the attitudes of people you are talking to. You totally missed the point of my paragraph which you tried to counter with some kind of ctrl+f garbage. It came right after my actual point, which is why you seem to be unable to detect what is wrong with a post like this. And since you again reiterated that you do not understand, I am now completely convinced you cannot detect attitudes. In fact, I bet if someone literally posted a comical parody of the type of poster I am criticizing, you would still fail to see what I am talking about. Your heated efforts to rush to the defense of strangers has blinded you to their nature.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 01:27
|
|
Rogue Scholar posted:Those who live in glass houses should be careful when casting stones. Honestly there's no reason to stretch out your posts as long as you do other than to wear people down with fatigue. A substantial part of what I have said is more or less what you said, coming from a different angle and emphasizing slightly different things. Of course disillusionment is something to be expected and even welcomed in some forms but disillusionment can also be used to establish and empower destructive ideologies. I'm sure you can think of a few examples from history where this has happened.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 01:42
|
|
|
Dusz, the main issue I have with you isn't that I think you're wrong, it's that your posting style is extraordinarily condescending and you frequently spend most of your posts just railing on others for being "fatalists" or "sanctimonious cynics" without actually saying anything of substance. Anyone who'd like to see for themselves can just take a look at your post history in this thread. 90% of it is just angrily shouting down others without actually contributing anything. The last time I engaged you in this thread, I tried to tone things down a bit and find some way to bridge the gap, see if there was any common ground on which we could reach some sort of mutual understanding. You rejected my attempt, and then went on to speak of a number of theories you had heard in an attempt to answer some questions I had posited about our predicament, without having the intellectual honesty to commit yourself to any of them, with perhaps one exception (revolutionary marxism, which you spoke of in a vague and borderline unintelligible way in relation to climate change, as opposed to Rogue Scholar, whose post made sense even if it didn't delve into specifics). Most everyone who has responded to you has criticized your tone and challenged you to actually contribute something of substance to this thread. Even those that have in some way come to your defense (such as Rogue Scholar here) have criticized your tone. I don't think I'm the only one who thinks you should reflect on this pattern before posting again. Anyway, to the topic at hand - I find your material analysis interesting, Rogue Scholar, but I have a question - do you think stopping capitalism would be sufficient to stop climate change? Do you think any human actions would be sufficient to stop climate change? I'm curious, and the main reason I ask is because the thing that worries me most about our climate predicament is the existence of self-reinforcing feedback loops, and I'm concerned that we've already hit some of them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 01:55
|
|
|
bgaesop posted:These seem like a good idea to me. Like a lot of proposed solutions, the devil is in the details. The problem with such reports is that it can encourage people to think the boffins have things in hand, and not seek solutions that change the way we think about industrial processes. Uranium Phoenix posted:To extend this metaphor, the car is also hurtling towards you. I don't know why the fact that the car will also hit other people leads you to criticize efforts to remove the bunny from the road. I also don't think you're actually reading what some of the solutions proposed in this thread are. Hint: It's not just geoengineering. The bunny doesn't see the car, only the headlights. That was sort of the point. I was going to do an effortpost explaining why but I really can't be bothered. Good luck with your revolution, you're going to need it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 02:06
|
|
|
eh4 posted:The bunny doesn't see the car, only the headlights. That was sort of the point. I was going to do an effortpost explaining why but I really can't be bothered. Good luck with your revolution, you're going to need it. To extend the metaphor even further, the bunny is not just you, but all your family, any children or future children you might have, and everyone you've ever loved and known in your entire life. So once again, I'm puzzled as to why your attitude is to not just give up, but also disparage people who actually want to try and stop this thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 02:59
|
|
|
eh4 posted:Like a lot of proposed solutions, the devil is in the details. The problem with such reports is that it can encourage people to think the boffins have things in hand, and not seek solutions that change the way we think about industrial processes. It seems pretty clear that people won't really engage in any solutions until it is economically advantageous. The works of non-profits in this area don't seem to be accomplishing anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 03:00
|
|
|
One issue with transforming industrial processes is that it takes an enormous amount of 'dirty' energy to create clean energy. Solar panel factories don't run on solar power. So even if, right now, the world committed to using 100% green energy there would still be a huge amount of carbon released in the process. Of course for practical (not enough capacity) and economic (ruinously expensive) reasons this wouldn't happen anyways. My sense is that the only real solution would be to, as a whole, stop using fossil fuels altogether for a time, something that would create ruinous human suffering and death. Any other solutions, we're upwards of a decade too late. Unless someone figures out how to generate electricity by capturing carbon. The bubonic plague was pretty bad, but at least afterwards the survivors were able to recreate the world that existed before. Global warming won't pass like that, and after a certain point it will keep getting worse even if we stop releasing carbon. I'm sure humanity will survive, but I don't think it's pessimistic or defeatist to try to enjoy and remember the world and our civilization as they exist today, in the knowledge that 50 years from now we won't be able to anymore.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 03:45
|
|
|
Mozi posted:One issue with transforming industrial processes is that it takes an enormous amount of 'dirty' energy to create clean energy. Solar panel factories don't run on solar power. So even if, right now, the world committed to using 100% green energy there would still be a huge amount of carbon released in the process. There is no reason that solar panel factories have to run on 'dirty' energy - they just do now because it's currently cheaper. The only thing that matters is that the panels collect more energy in their lifetime than it takes to construct them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 05:42
|
|
|
Mozi posted:One issue with transforming industrial processes is that it takes an enormous amount of 'dirty' energy to create clean energy. Solar panel factories don't run on solar power. So even if, right now, the world committed to using 100% green energy there would still be a huge amount of carbon released in the process. Of course for practical (not enough capacity) and economic (ruinously expensive) reasons this wouldn't happen anyways. My sense is that the only real solution would be to, as a whole, stop using fossil fuels altogether for a time, something that would create ruinous human suffering and death. Any other solutions, we're upwards of a decade too late. Unless someone figures out how to generate electricity by capturing carbon. 1/5th of the CO2 released by humans is absorbed by plants each year. So fossil fuels don't have to be completely stopped to see improvements just massively reduced. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/forests/4690299/Trees-absorb-a-fifth-of-carbon-emissions-pumped-out-by-humans.html quick google for source.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 06:07
|
|
|
Dusz posted:Then again, you aren't worth talking to. So quit talking back if it's so great an issue that it's causing you this much stress. The condescending tone you've had for the past 1.5 pages isn't helping anything, and neither is the big-word salad concentration of >4 syllable words that I haven't seen since I was padding essays in college. It only winds up being irritating, even as I'm trying to see things from your perspective. Folks have responded to your posts, and we still haven't seen what your solution is beyond the most vague dropping of political terms.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 06:11
|
|
|
Can (most) people at least agree that fatalism and inaction are bad and at the very least we should try to stop climate change, no matter how herculean an endeavor that might be?bgaesop posted:It seems pretty clear that people won't really engage in any solutions until it is economically advantageous. The works of non-profits in this area don't seem to be accomplishing anything. Well, how will "stop climate change" ever become economically advantageous enough so that corporations embrace it? Corporations only are after short-term goals of profit and cannot take into account long-term costs. Fossil fuel companies collectively have a multi-trillion dollar monetary incentive to keep the status quo. Even companies that would, in the long term, benefit from stopping climate change (for example, food service and agriculture) seem very unlikely to contribute towards stopping climate change because contributing significant funds to that would give their competition a leg up and they'd be crushed. Will it happen through the political realm? Politicians and high level government workers are not only participating in the revolving door of bribery and regulatory capture, but politicians in both major parties are completely dependent on corporate contributions for elections, and are heavily beholden to those corporations. Lobbyists for the entrenched elite disproportionately have influence over legislation and politics. The current work being done to stop climate change, including that done by non-profits, is magnitudes less than what it needs to be, I'll agree there. A lot of organizations tend to only combat the symptoms of the problem, and have to do it with a (compared to corporations and entrenched interests) tiny amount of money. However, I don't see current market incentives or politics changing one bit without either a sustained catastrophe (which would mean change is way too late) or immense pressure from the masses (which history has shown is possible and effective). Again, I think the best way forward is building a powerful labor/environmental coalition with socialist ideas of solidarity, militant resistance, transitional demands, and eventually, supplanting capitalism, the root of all these problems in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 07:04
|
|
|
Balnakio posted:1/5th of the CO2 released by humans is absorbed by plants each year. So fossil fuels don't have to be completely stopped to see improvements just massively reduced. The article is very poorly written and neglects to mention that the vast majority of the CO2 absorbed by those particular plants (which are in actuality a relatively small subset of global plant life) was CO2 emitted by natural processes. Remember that these plants and their associated animal/microbial life eventually die and decompose, releasing most of their CO2 back into the atmosphere - it is only the net change in CO2 that matters, not the volume of CO2 uptake. Humans are responsible for upsetting this balance, but our emissions are only a tiny fraction of the biosphere's carbon "economy". You seem to have interpreted that if we reduced fossil fuel emissions that meaningful reduction in atmospheric CO2 would occur. If this is wrong, let met know. But to be clear; if all humans were to disappear tomorrow and all the forests were allowed to grow back, CO2 concentrations would not fall below what they were just five years ago for at least a few hundred years. Saving the rainforest isn't going to do much; emissions have to go down to zero. Although this article makes me wonder: are some biomes more "carbon-neutral" than others? Could, say, a rainforest be carbon-positive while a taiga is effectively subsidizing it by being carbon-negative? Or is there little variation in this regard? I think it would be hilarious if it were possible to offset fossil fuel emissions by selectively cutting down forests.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 07:24
|
|
|
Eyes Only posted:There is no reason that solar panel factories have to run on 'dirty' energy - they just do now because it's currently cheaper. The only thing that matters is that the panels collect more energy in their lifetime than it takes to construct them. That's true, but unfortunately you still have to make that big up-front investment, and we're at a point where even if it would reduce emissions long-term, greater emissions now will have the bigger impact. Or at least that is my understanding. Part of the difficulty of talking about this is that every aspect of life is affected. What happens if the US and Russia both have severe droughts and wildfires in the same year? For more than one year in a row? What happens when millions and millions of people start becoming displaced from equatorial regions? What happens if there's another economic crisis? What happens if all of those things happen at once, and nobody knows how to make it right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 08:37
|
|
|
Mozi posted:One issue with transforming industrial processes is that it takes an enormous amount of 'dirty' energy to create clean energy. Solar panel factories don't run on solar power. So even if, right now, the world committed to using 100% green energy there would still be a huge amount of carbon released in the process. Of course for practical (not enough capacity) and economic (ruinously expensive) reasons this wouldn't happen anyways. Perhaps - although, don't forget that classic fossil fueld generation power plants also use up a lot of dirty energy to create dirty energy. Mining equipment, transportation vehicles, damaged control chips, turbine bearing replacements, front-end loader repairs, amongst other things - all factor into the total cost of producing energy; not to mention line loss through distance, or through tranformation of electrical voltages. If you ever get a chance, Konrad Lorenz has some interesting arguments to make regarding using low-quality energy sources (fossil fuels) for heating, whereas using high-quality energy sources (electricity generation) for electronics, motors, lighting and so forth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 14:49
|
|
|
quote:New Scientist Special Report: 7 Reasons Climate Change Is 'Even Worse Than We Thought' And meanwhile... quote:Gas tanker Ob River attempts first winter Arctic crossing
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 02:37
|
|
|
What can an individual do to prepare for this disaster? I'm seventeen and this thread has me scared shitless. I keep imagining a narrative of going broke at 60, social security wiped out and being unable to afford food because I can't keep up with my health insurance. I know not to have kids. I guess the easy answer for mitigating your own misery is to get rich? I'm sorry if this isn't an appropriate question for this thread. It's just such a heavy situation to take in
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 03:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 07:12 |
|
|
Splurgerwitzl posted:What can an individual do to prepare for this disaster? I'm seventeen and this thread has me scared shitless. Here's what you can do to prepare: Don't be scared shitless. It helps to have the perspective that having no health insurance or easy access to food without resorting to straight-up robbery is a daily occurrence for large swathes of the "developed" world, and is the norm in the "developing" world. Obviously, do what you can within the standard limits of a person without huge sums of money living in the United States (I'm assuming you're in the U.S. from your health insurance comment): keep money saved as an emergency fund, have a budget, learn how to make healthy, nutritious meals without blowing the bank on food, etc. If anything truly catastrophic happens (as in, the federal/state governments are unwilling or unable to provide any kind of aid), all the personal preparation in the world isn't going to help a great deal unless you want to literally become a survivalist. What's far more likely to matter is the community you live in and how well they can adapt to the circumstances, and that has a huge number of factors that are rather outside of your own control. In essence, don't worry about stockpiling food and water or building a survival vault or whatever. It is impossible to fully account for everything that can happen in the future (especially in one's own life), so take what comes as it comes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 03:57
|
|
