I’m not doing either of those things (I’m not even sure what I could be gatekeeping here, political philosophy?). Your words carried this meaning whether you wanted them to or not, which is why I carefully explained how that meaning relates to the specific ideas you promoted. If you do not want them to carry this meaning, just take the time to interrogate how you arrived at this understanding and how it relates to your understanding of other things in the future.
You clearly took their prediction of the likely outcome (given the world we do live in and the obviously shitty priorities of the powers that be) as an endorsement or acceptance of that outcome, when they did not say anything to indicate that they found it at all acceptable. While your overall points about the options that we as humans have are valid, your positioning of this poster’s values in opposition to your own is baseless and unwarranted. Pessimism about humanity’s ability to successfully mitigate or overcome the problems of our own making is not the same as saying we shouldn’t try. For example, even the most ardent advocates of ending fossil fuel usage understand that in the past 50 years we have done far more to exacerbate climate change than to mitigate its effects, let alone reverse the damage already done. Predicting the most likely outcome of a situation is not at all the same as saying that nothing better than that outcome is possible.
“When we just accept that there is no avoiding or mitigating events like, “a lot of people” starving in colonized spaces, and then promote technological utopianism as a solution (even if inadvertently by only imagining tech as a solution), we are naturalizing the root cause of this violence, which is colonialism. Doesn’t seem like you intended it, but this is also a markedly ecofascist narrative in the way that the inevitability of that death also means that it is a prescribed trajectory for this system to take to “improvement,” much in the same way that fascists precribe the removal (genocide) of an arbitrary group of people in the metropole (US or EU) as a solution to inequities there.”
Right, could you point out where I said OP holds these values or endorsed them?
Even more, it is very difficult to read this as something other than purposefully distortive. In what way is criticizing ecofascist narratives a refusal to recognize the material conditions of climate change? You have a name about killing fascists, and yet cannot seperate socially constructed values from material relations, or individuals’ desired moral values? You’ll note that my first comment asked the commenter to also clarify if they did indeed mean to say that this is what they think would happen in a hypothetical where, despite reality, all gasoline and fertilizer disappeared. I did that to avoid exactly this kind of reading, since liberals so often subscribe to fascist values without realizing it due exactly to their refusal to interrogate their own understanding of things without fear that internalized values reflect their quality of character or, “moral purity.”
As always, scratch a liberal, and a fascist bleeds.
Please stop gatekeeping and putting words in my mouth
I’m not doing either of those things (I’m not even sure what I could be gatekeeping here, political philosophy?). Your words carried this meaning whether you wanted them to or not, which is why I carefully explained how that meaning relates to the specific ideas you promoted. If you do not want them to carry this meaning, just take the time to interrogate how you arrived at this understanding and how it relates to your understanding of other things in the future.
You clearly took their prediction of the likely outcome (given the world we do live in and the obviously shitty priorities of the powers that be) as an endorsement or acceptance of that outcome, when they did not say anything to indicate that they found it at all acceptable. While your overall points about the options that we as humans have are valid, your positioning of this poster’s values in opposition to your own is baseless and unwarranted. Pessimism about humanity’s ability to successfully mitigate or overcome the problems of our own making is not the same as saying we shouldn’t try. For example, even the most ardent advocates of ending fossil fuel usage understand that in the past 50 years we have done far more to exacerbate climate change than to mitigate its effects, let alone reverse the damage already done. Predicting the most likely outcome of a situation is not at all the same as saying that nothing better than that outcome is possible.
“When we just accept that there is no avoiding or mitigating events like, “a lot of people” starving in colonized spaces, and then promote technological utopianism as a solution (even if inadvertently by only imagining tech as a solution), we are naturalizing the root cause of this violence, which is colonialism. Doesn’t seem like you intended it, but this is also a markedly ecofascist narrative in the way that the inevitability of that death also means that it is a prescribed trajectory for this system to take to “improvement,” much in the same way that fascists precribe the removal (genocide) of an arbitrary group of people in the metropole (US or EU) as a solution to inequities there.”
Right, could you point out where I said OP holds these values or endorsed them?
Even more, it is very difficult to read this as something other than purposefully distortive. In what way is criticizing ecofascist narratives a refusal to recognize the material conditions of climate change? You have a name about killing fascists, and yet cannot seperate socially constructed values from material relations, or individuals’ desired moral values? You’ll note that my first comment asked the commenter to also clarify if they did indeed mean to say that this is what they think would happen in a hypothetical where, despite reality, all gasoline and fertilizer disappeared. I did that to avoid exactly this kind of reading, since liberals so often subscribe to fascist values without realizing it due exactly to their refusal to interrogate their own understanding of things without fear that internalized values reflect their quality of character or, “moral purity.”
As always, scratch a liberal, and a fascist bleeds.