|
man who has never travelled rails against what he imagines travel to be like
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2020 17:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 00:26 |
|
|
Aphex- posted:Have you been abroad at all? Genuine question. I've not been abroad a stupid amount, but I have been and I am not too sure that just "going abroad" is really a big eye opener just because.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2020 17:52
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Sure, because rail is a very efficient mode of travel, and can be easily converted to low emssion electric power, I don't really see any reason to object to it. I think there are two separate threads of thought occurring here: the lack of value you (and others) personally place on long-distance travel for its own sake - which is a perfectly valid view for oneself, and something worth discussing on the worldwide societal level - and the practicalities of long and very long distance travel in a world that's being destroyed by carbon. On the latter, you're right, cover each continent in a strategic web of high speed lines, and regular speed lines with sleeper trains, and then sorting out the station-to-destination transport will definitely be simpler than trying to sort out intercontinental travel without using any carbon. On which subject, I'd happily take a high-speed train to North America, which my extremely back of envelope calculations suggest might take a day or two - and I'm sure BJ and Trump will sort out the necessary bridge 
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2020 17:53
|
|
|
Especially not when the most accessible places, by virtue of their accessibility, develop primarily around tourist industries which I do not think are reflective of the indigenous culture or way of life or anything, they are reflective of efficient methods of extracting money from people with money to spend. Which is part of the wonderful effect of capitalism combined with globalization. Which you can see very clearly in parts of the UK too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2020 17:54
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:we don't know all the circumstances here - money issues, work issues, childcare issues, family relationship issues can all stop someone travelling even just for a weekend ...And? So you can't visit mum this weekend. Not a big deal. There are 55 other weekends to cover. Lt. Danger posted:. it doesn't really matter either way, however. if it's selfish to refuse to take on the burden of travelling to see someone who moved away, it is exactly equally selfish to create that burden in the first place by deciding to move away and demanding people visit you On the one case the person will live the rest of their life in a region they don't want to be in. In the other case the person would have to sacrifice maybe a week out of a year to go visit them. No it's not equally selfish. Lt. Danger posted:I have a friend who moved out to Japan and they were pleasantly surprised when our group went out to see them, because they never expected anyone to take on that expense - their family hasn't been out to visit and in fact they only really speak with just their parents, maybe once or twice a year. Like you said "we don't know all the circumstances here". Can either the friend or his parents afford a trip to Japan? Do they have any family they were previously close to apart from their parents? And why did they move to Japan? Lt. Danger posted:I had a relative who moved abroad and it destroyed his relationship with his daughter, because it was the latest in an ongoing history of neglect and favouritism. migration isn't easy for anyone involved and you can't unilaterally demand people take on its costs. loving learn to deal with it Doesn't really seem like him immigrating "destroyed" the relationship so much as solidified the one that was already there? And as an immigrant I know immigration isn't easy. It's why I'm wondering why you and others seem intent on making it even harder.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2020 17:55
|
|
|
I want to go to mars.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2020 17:55
|
|
|
like yeah not everyone enjoys travelling, that's fine but extrapolating from "I don't enjoy travelling" to "therefore travelling is worthless to everybody" is just incredible
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2020 17:57
|
|
|
I am entirely willing to believe that people find travel to be personally fulfilling, but I object to the attempt to try and portray it as objectively good for its own sake and therefore necessary.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2020 17:58
|
|
|
Travelling is fun and it is good to visit other cultures but you don't need to be flying to multiple countries every year to get those benefits. I think more mindful travel is the way forward - if you've not got a specific destination in mind why not look at where you can get with lower carbon options? And if you have got a specific place you want to get to and flying is the only way, make that your only long haul flight for a few years and explore other places in the meantime! (obviously this is a very general statement based only on travel for leisure and not any other reasons people may have)
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2020 17:59
|
|
|
I dont really care about travelling personally, but i care about the ski resorts and carribean sailing holidays at the other end of the travel. Although some of the nice places I've sailed before have been pretty much obliterated by hurricanes and theres never as much snow as there used to be either.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2020 18:02
|
|
|
NotJustANumber99 posted:I want to go to mars. And start a Martian UK themed pub. As in how martians would see the UK. Every night at 8pm you force everyone to stand up and clap in the direction of Earth. Pictures of Margaret Thatcher dressed up as the Queen on the walls. All staff have to speak in an aussie accent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2020 18:03
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:mum had every right to move to Spain but she can't compel other people to travel there as well. if anything you lot sound like you're having a tantrum Yeah I'm seeing a couple people projecting hard here...
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2020 18:11
|
|
|
I would genuinely be curious to know how you could have places where people travel to regularly and interact meaningfully in that time with the local culture, but that does not turn, slowly, under inertial pressure from all the people coming and going, into a monoculture of hotels and fast food chains and other poo poo that's there to give people a sense of familiarity. And in so doing it erodes the local way of living that used to be there. Like that's what capitalism especially does but I also think that it does that in response to a genuine human need for some degree of grounding and familiarity, which is hard to achieve if you're travelling and thus it incentivises places to develop into that monoculture. That's why it's profitable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2020 18:18
|
|
|
Strom Cuzewon posted:Two birds with one stone: Build loads of trains with antiair rocket launchers on top. loving hated those things in Just Cause 3.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2020 18:22
|
|
|
Travel is good, but there's also a cost to it. Maybe we can use this as a driver to minimise the bad things instead of the good things? Like we don't need to revert to feudal times, especially since that would cause massive damaging disruption to the world and a lot of people would suffer for it. We could focus on replacing old dirty technology with better, cleaner stuff, and then we can work on providing that to others and ensuring everyone has access It's not just about cleaning up air travel, we're causing a ton of environmental damage and a lot of the consequences are pushed onto the global south, they're the ones who have to live with our trash and pollution, the ones who have to industrialise with dirty infrastructure and power, the ones that produce the stuff we need - just travelling less isn't going to fix any of that. Developed countries with all the wealth and resources and technology have a responsibility to fix this stuff, and provide it where it's needed, because international socialism or not we're all part of the same global community, we're all intertwined and we're all going to face the consequences like yeah, cut down on travel, try to leave cleaner and more mindfully, that's all important because it cultivates the right attitudes and makes you demand change instead of resisting it. But restricting travel should be seen as a necessary sacrifice for a more urgent good, not something that's good in and of itself. Localism is good, but you have to watch out for isolationism too, especially now when there's a global crisis everyone needs to be pulling together on
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2020 18:25
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:loving hated those things in Just Cause 3. For the longest time i thought that series was called "Just Cause" as in "just because".
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2020 18:26
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:For the longest time i thought that series was called "Just Cause" as in "just because". I think it's supposed to be both.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2020 18:27
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I would genuinely be curious to know how you could have places where people travel to regularly and interact meaningfully in that time with the local culture, but that does not turn, slowly, under inertial pressure from all the people coming and going, into a monoculture of hotels and fast food chains and other poo poo that's there to give people a sense of familiarity. And in so doing it erodes the local way of living that used to be there. Like that's what capitalism especially does but I also think that it does that in response to a genuine human need for some degree of grounding and familiarity, which is hard to achieve if you're travelling and thus it incentivises places to develop into that monoculture. That's why it's profitable. Visiting a commune in the south of Italy that doesn't really see tourists and chatting with the locals in a bar is a way to "interact meaningfully" with local culture. But honestly, going to the centre of Rome and taking a tour of the Coliseum is an equally valid experience.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2020 18:30
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:Travel is good, but there's also a cost to it. Maybe we can use this as a driver to minimise the bad things instead of the good things? No consumer travel. Only crusades.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2020 18:31
|
|
|
The Monarch posted:...And? So you can't visit mum this weekend. Not a big deal. There are 55 other weekends to cover. what if you can't visit any weekend because that's when you have the kids from your dickhead ex. or when you have to work shifts and there's no cover. or you have a health condition that makes travel difficult. or a severe fear of flying. or literally anything if you make a life-changing decision then your life is going to change, and it is unreasonable to require that other people change their lives to make yours more comfortable, no matter how trivial or reasonable it may seem to you (of course it's trivial and reasonable to you, you don't have to do anything). lmao that someone will have to "live the rest of their life in a region they don't want to be in", we're not a prison state yet I am very much not going to litigate the personal details of my friends and family with you. gently caress off. how rude
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2020 18:35
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I think it's supposed to be both. Yeah it definitely is. It was originally a reference to the US invasion of Panama, given the setting and plotline of the first game, but they definitely leaned into the other meaning as soon as they realised the fuckabout potential of the grapple mechanic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2020 18:38
|
|
|
Necrothatcher posted:Visiting a commune in the south of Italy that doesn't really see tourists and chatting with the locals in a bar is a way to "interact meaningfully" with local culture. But honestly, going to the centre of Rome and taking a tour of the Coliseum is an equally valid experience. In the sense that you can enjoy both, sure. But what can't happen is everyone going to the commune, because if they did that they would obliterate it. The coliseum is already a commodity, the way it is presented is designed to accomodate vast numbers of people, but this also limits the depth of interaction possible and it also means that it is to a degree, removed from the people who live next to because it has to function as a tourist attraction. Which if that happened to say, your local church, or some other communal hub, I think you would probably find a bit objectionable? Places, people, cultures, they can be worn away just as easily as a path can if you walk on it too much. And this may not necessarily be a bad thing, I certainly don't think immigration poses that sort of risk and to the extent it does change places I don't think it's harmful, people settling in new places can simply bring new ideas which create a somewhat different but still distinct culture, but if you're going to say that just travelling is a good thing and everyone should do it as much as possible? Then yes I think you're absolutely going to destroy a massive amount of diversity of culture if you do that, it already happens with tourism now. I don't think it creates new cultures as much as it just spreads an existing monoculture.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2020 18:38
|
|
|
Re air travel, As a EU migrant it's kinda weird to read some takes here, mostly because of how UK-centric they are (to be expected in a UK thread i suppose but still). Like sure, I get that crowds of tourists flying round on huge 380s, or scores of businesspeople crossing half the world to attend a meeting that could've been covered by a zoom call, or middle classes sorta half-migrating to Spain or wherever is wasteful and Not Good. But there's also stuff like family emergencies (good example mentioned earlier in this thread), and actual migrants (that is, who moved due to economic/social/survival factors and not just for pleasure) getting to actually visit their families. There's also the whole business of accounting for 2% of emissions only according to that graph posted here a bit earlier, which doesn't look like the most pressing concern to me. Though maybe I'm biased by being able to not spend 4-5 days in transit per every 2 weeks a year I get to see my nan lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2020 18:42
|
|
|
had a p good afternoon sunbathing in the alley next to the rubbish bins today good weather in london for lockdown
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2020 18:46
|
|
|
some of the worst takes this thread has ever produced in the last few pages
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2020 18:51
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:For the longest time i thought that series was called "Just Cause" as in "just because". going around tying planes together and rocket boosting people into the sky just for a laugh is definitely more fun and wholesome than the chudly in-game story, being a literal terrorist destabilising a poor country for the CIA because they dared to resist US hegemony, helping out violent ethno-nationalist insurgents, and buying guns off some John McAfee expat who moved to Asia to run a black market... in death!! rear end in a top hat Simulator is way better than Killing Hope: The Game bump_fn posted:had a p good afternoon sunbathing in the alley next to the rubbish bins today av cat is out of cat jail, and posting! baka kaba fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Apr 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2020 18:56
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Also isn't nuclear power kind of difficult to do because it sometimes 1) explodes and 2) takes ages to set up to ensure that 1 doesn't happen. Modern generation nuclear reactors (Gen III and the realistic but not yet built Gen IV) all include passive safety as well as active safety. A good example of this is a moderator with a negative temperature coefficient, i.e. as it gets hot it gets less effective, which means the reactor cools, which means it gets more effective, which means the reactor heats, which means... So a reactor like that can't enter a state of meltdown, it just (at worst) hunts around a sweet spot. Older generations could enter a state where the overall reactor system had a positive temperature coefficient, i.e. the hotter it gets the more effective it gets, which means the reactor gets even more hot... This is another place where you don't want to see an exponential curve. 2) Even in the worst case scenario, this is still better than our current power generation. From a pure months lost due to air pollution basis it's safer to live in Fukushima or 90% of the Chernobyl exclusion zone than it is in London Zone 1-3. quote:Thus the person relocated [from Pripyat] in 1990 receiving the average dose will have achieved a gain in life expectancy of about 3˝ weeks as a result of the decrease in radiation exposure achieved. These figures on reduction of life expectancy may be put into an initial context by noting that, according to Levchuk (2009), preventable alcohol-related deaths in Ukraine reduced male life expectancy by 5.2 years in 1995. Meanwhile the average Londoner currently loses 4.5 months of life through air pollution in the nation's capital (9 months loss of life expectancy at birth (Darzi, 2014)). Fukushima, in perspective, estimates about 3 months loss of life expectancy in most of the exclusion zone. It would be better to build a nuclear plant in the old Battersea building and deliberately blow it up for larks once a decade than to continue doing what we're doing. nurmie posted:Re air travel, I've traveled to places with actual war zones before then and had little more than some displays of land mines and grenades behind a glass panel at the bus station and a sign saying "If you see Air travel now is worse than that by degrees.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2020 19:12
|
|
|
OwlFancier does this about travelling every time. It's just his personal bee in his bonnet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2020 19:23
|
|
|
Oh this discussion is still being dragged on? This thread really needs pissflaps, the least unbearable poster here when the circlejerk is broken on a slow news day
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2020 19:29
|
|
|
I love it, thank you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2020 19:36
|
|
|
Ratjaculation posted:Oh this discussion is still being dragged on? i guess we could talk about england
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2020 19:36
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:what if you can't visit any weekend because that's when you have the kids from your dickhead ex. or when you have to work shifts and there's no cover. or you have a health condition that makes travel difficult. or a severe fear of flying. or literally anything All these also apply even if the family member moves one town over. Also it seems like these are things that might come up during the initial discussion regarding the decision to emigrate. It's not like people just go click and they live in another country. Emigrating takes a lot of time and effort. Lt. Danger posted:if you make a life-changing decision then your life is going to change, and it is unreasonable to require that other people change their lives to make yours more comfortable, no matter how trivial or reasonable it may seem to you (of course it's trivial and reasonable to you, you don't have to do anything). lmao that someone will have to "live the rest of their life in a region they don't want to be in", we're not a prison state yet No it's not, not when "change their lives" means "sacrifice the occasional weekend to visit someone". And not when "make yours more comfortable" means actually living where you want to live. Yes denying the right to movement is despotic. People should have the right to live where they want to live. Lt. Danger posted:I am very much not going to litigate the personal details of my friends and family with you. gently caress off. how rude Lt. Danger posted:we don't know all the circumstances here - money issues, work issues, childcare issues, family relationship issues can all stop someone travelling even just for a weekend. So when it comes to telling people not to emigrate, the circumstances are important. When it comes to reasons why someone might emigrate, asking about the circumstances is rude. Got it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2020 19:41
|
|
|
I found a chocolate orange I'd forgotten about since Christmas today and I thought of this thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2020 19:54
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:OwlFancier does this about travelling every time. It's just his personal bee in his bonnet. I resent the notion that my bonnet contains merely one bee rather than an entire hive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2020 19:56
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/BernieTranders/status/1254409968306008064 someone photoshop this please
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2020 19:56
|
|
|
Gyro Zeppeli posted:Who would have guessed the bourgeoisie wouldn't like a left wing proposal? It's not a leftist proposal, it's just a very, very stupid proposal. As long as borders exist the entire idea is just pointless authoritarian wanking.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2020 19:57
|
|
|
I'd be more or less happy to ditch international travel and honestly the UK has some lovely and actually quite diverse natural landscapes alongside some cool cities. One thing I would miss a lot though is the café culture where most town squares are surrounded by little bars and restaurants and you can sit outside and watch the world go by with a glass of wine. On a hot, lazy day there's nothing better. You never seem to get that so much in the UK, even in the more touristy medieval cities like York. I like dark dingy pubs as much as the next guy but the continental style can create a really nice atmosphere.bump_fn posted:https://twitter.com/BernieTranders/status/1254409968306008064 someone photoshop this please Which even vaguely left-leaning person thinks Marx is bad lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2020 19:57
|
|
|
HopperUK posted:I found a chocolate orange I'd forgotten about since Christmas today and I thought of this thread. Dale Farm do an amazing new chocolate orange ice cream pop. Would recomment. happyhippy fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Apr 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2020 20:01
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:Which even vaguely left-leaning person thinks Marx is bad lol Marx was a very racist idiot whose ideas have repeatedly not even slightly worked out and that's understood by like 90% of left-wing who have read the drunken fool. He identified a lot of the problem but man none of his supposed solutions are worth a solitary poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2020 20:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 00:26 |
|
|
what is the soft left 
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2020 20:04
|
|