I would rebrand this as the "Let's get SERIOUS" moment in the effort to disrupt the inexorable destruction of the planet by the fossil fuels-capitalist economy.  The only question is how many people are committed enough to take the risks involved in doing any kind of worthwhile sabotage?  Probably a decent number in France, not sure about anywhere else.

Definitely a wise idea not to stick around and martyr yourself with an arrest, and also wise to use encrypted communications.  Still, any large groups like Extinction Rebellion are likely to already be thoroughly infiltrated by Deep Cover operatives and even just going to meetings will get you on a watch list.

Definitely though protest isn't working, so some change in tactics is called for.

'A new phase': why climate activists are turning to sabotage instead of protest

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/mar/08/a-new-phase-why-climate-activists-are-turning-to-sabotage-instead-of-protest

RE

Sabotage would not be necessary if more people were active.   As things are now, both Trump and Musk would be fools to travel anywhere in America alone.  But what does this have to do with sabotage?  Actions should be proportional to the number of people willing to take them.  That is the connection.

If I am pissed enough to go postal should I meet either Trump or Musk with at a 1% chance, meaning there is a 1% chance I would use my bare hands or any close sharp object to make a strong political statement should I met them.  Then what is the chance from a million people feeling exactly like I do of a single person actually taking an action?

It turns out there is a 88.62 chance from a million people feeling as I do, a chance that 950 to 1050 people would go carpe diem given the opportunity.


The situation for Musk and Trump is the exact reverse of the situation Spock and Kirk are in here.


I like it, the video is terrible so you have to pay attention to the dialog.  How does it relate?

     * In probability theory and statistics, the Poisson distribution expresses the probability of a given number of events occurring in a fixed interval of time if these events occur with a known constant mean rate, and occur independently of the time since the last event.  Spock was more accurate and used the full binomial calculation which is harder to do.

Here 'occur independently of the time since the last event' would not apply, but as in the case of school shootings, the lack of independence means a greater frequency.
     Get some popcorn.  But not for the video, it is only a minute long.  Get popcorn is for the Trump / Musk show.  I think it is a matter of time before this show has another cliffhanger moment.  If normal people are walking around muttering 'Sic semper tyrannis.' under their breath, I'll guess the probability of action is high.

You also have to factor in the differences in skills of the 1% of Sic semper tyrranis people.  If one of the pissed off people happens to be a recently fired former FBI Sharpshooter, odds are different than for a recently fired USAID food distributor.

RE

Quote from: RE on Mar 09, 2025, 02:30 PMYou also have to factor in the differences in skills of the 1% of Sic semper tyrranis people.  If one of the pissed off people happens to be a recently fired former FBI Sharpshooter, odds are different than for a recently fired USAID food distributor.

RE

True that,  and age could be a factor.  This woman says things are up to gen Z.


Luigi Mangione Might Be the "FIRST SHOT", Trump-Musk Protester VOWS

She makes a lot of sense.

QuoteI don't think we can, I think anyone that says oh we're going to look to the next election, they're delusional.  Honestly we're done with that old system gen Z is the first generation to kind of look at this like decorum, and everything we call it, and be like why are we doing this.  It is not working, so unless the Democrats want to seriously look at themselves and uproot and become a real left party.  Not a like moderate right, and shill for corporate donors.  Listen to the people.  We don't want you shilling for corporate donors.  We want you putting in policies that are going to make us safe, that are going to make us healthy, that are going to give us healthy food.  Like it's not hard!

Hey Hey Ho Ho Elon Musk has got to go

Quote from: jupiviv on Mar 10, 2025, 12:37 AME- just to clarify, the term "the individual" as used in my brief comment on Protestantism refers to individuals who really matter, i.e not peasants, proles, slaves or servants.

Why don't peasants et al matter?

RE

Protestantism developed in tandem with capitalism?

500 years ago, German peasants revolted – but their faith that the Protestant Reformation stood for freedom was dashed by Martin Luther and the nobility.

Five hundred years ago, in the winter of 1524-1525, bands of peasants roamed the German countryside seeking recruits. It was the start of the German Peasants' War, the largest uprising in Europe before the French Revolution. The peasants' goal was to overturn serfdom and create a fairer society grounded on the Christian Bible. Conflating Protestantism with capitalism is hard to sell.  You could just as easily tie Protestantism up with socialism.

Rejection of abstraction is a key component of a personal relationship with god, but capitalism requires abstraction to function.  If you are confused, abstraction is when you do not care how sausages are made, you just like to eat them.   It is when you make your own fucking rules without regard for anyone else. The commodity fetish depends on abstraction.

The religious element of the peasants' war was central to it. The German peasants were among the first to try to unlock the revolutionary potential of Reformation teachings to fight social and economic injustice.

"Considering that Christ has delivered and redeemed us all, without exception ... it is consistent with Scripture that we should be free." this scream's equality based on Christ's redemption of all without qualification.  It is from the third of the twelve articles that were never actually nailed to a church door.

Concerning The Peasants War, Martin Luther pussied out.  He did not want to die in Rome.

Hard core Christians are very anti-capitalist.  Christians who say otherwise are posers who do not have personal faith.  Same thing with war.  You can be a phony Christian and claim whatever, but if you are a real follower of Christ, thou shall not kill is serious business.  If you say otherwise, all you have it the t-shirt.

Protestantism whether religious or secular.   And a dog who is really a cat. Are you taking speech lessons from Trump?  The art of obfuscation?   Secular Christianity is faith without regard to gaudy mystification, life after death and such.  That I get.  But you are going to have to explain how Protestantism can possibly be secular.  That is ridiculous.

QuoteThe peasants' revolts rejected both feudal Catholicism and modern Protestantism,

How something that happened five hundred years ago can reject anything modern
is a dimension of thought which with I am unfamiliar.

I think we have a new troll !

Quote from: K-Dog on Mar 10, 2025, 01:48 PMHow something that happened five hundred years ago can reject anything modern
is a dimension of thought which with I am unfamiliar.

Perhaps he has a philosophical Einstein-Rosen bridge?


Or maybe he is Q?


RE

Yeah, AI is amazing.

QuoteBoth sides of the climate debate share the belief that "we" have practically infinite reserves of fossil fuels and minerals.

Is a dead giveaway.  That is a total crock of shit.

1. Abstract and Sweeping Claims Without Evidence

    The text makes broad, unsubstantiated assertions (e.g., "both sides of the climate debate share the belief in infinite fossil fuels") without citing specific sources, studies, or real-world examples. This lack of concrete evidence is a common AI trait, as models often prioritize rhetorical coherence over empirical support.

2. Unusual Terminology and Phrases

    "Interdetermined": This non-standard term (likely intended as "intertwined" or "interconnected") suggests either a typographical error or an AI-generated neologism.

    Mixed Register: The juxtaposition of academic jargon (e.g., "structural crisis of capital") with colloquialisms like "cloud cuckoo land" is stylistically inconsistent, a pattern seen in AI outputs trained on diverse datasets.

3. Rhetorical Questions Without Resolution

    The series of rhetorical questions (e.g., "What do the globalist elites have to gain...") are posed but dismissed with "No one knows, no one cares," avoiding deeper analysis. AI often uses such devices to mimic critical thinking without engaging substantively.

4. Awkward Phrasing and Punctuation

    Grammatical quirks, such as the clunky comma placement in "deny its, by now palpable, reality," reflect AI's occasional struggle with natural syntactic flow. A human writer might streamline this to "deny its now-palpable reality."

5. Overly Cohesive Yet Simplistic Argumentation

    While the text transitions smoothly between topics (climate discourse → capitalism → religion/politics), its argument reduces complex issues to binary critiques (e.g., "both sides are oblivious to reality"). This flattening of nuance is typical of AI, which often synthesizes ideas superficially.

6. Ideological Consistency and Repetition

    The text relentlessly frames all issues through a singular critical lens (e.g., "capitalism subordinated religious irrationality to political denial"), a hallmark of AI mirroring the tone of its training data (e.g., critical theory texts) without introducing original perspectives or counterarguments.

7. Dismissive Tone and Hyperbole

    Phrases like "cloud cuckoo land" and accusations of systemic denial ("hierarchical structures require religion/politics to function") employ hyperbolic language common in polemical writing, which AI can replicate but often without the depth of human experiential nuance.

Conclusion

While a knowledgeable human could theoretically produce this text, the combination of abstract reasoning, terminological inconsistencies, unresolved rhetorical questions, and stylistic unevenness strongly points to AI generation. The text reflects a model trained on critical theory and political philosophy, synthesizing ideas coherently but lacking the specificity, evidence, and nuanced engagement typical of expert human analysis.

Quote from: K-Dog on Mar 11, 2025, 04:19 AMYeah, AI is amazing.

QuoteBoth sides of the climate debate share the belief that "we" have practically infinite reserves of fossil fuels and minerals.

Is a dead giveaway.  That is a total crock of shit.

Indeed.  Practically all discussion regarding resources since publication of the Limits to Growth study in the 1970s has focused on the fact you can't have infinite growth in a finite world.  Energy in particular has been examined in excruciating detail WRT the diminishing number of new discoveries and the decreasing EROEI of new discoveries.  The whole reason Fracking has become necessary is because conventional oil fields are mostly played out, or on their way.

Besides energy, resource constraints on everything from topsoil to sand for concrete have been subject for discussion, not to mention rare earth elements, phosphates for fertlizer and high quality coal for steel making.  The statement is so blatantly false and dropped on right at the beginning of the post I didn't bother reading the rest of it.

Far as the use of AI for generating arguments goes,  IMHO it diminishes the validity of the arguments and reflects lazy thinking on the part of the poster.  I'm not interested in having a debate with a machine, anymore than I enjoy playing chess against the computer.   It's too sterile and lacks humanity.

RE

My AI is bigger than his AI.

Quote from: K-Dog on Mar 11, 2025, 03:57 PMMy AI is bigger than his AI.

Yah.  It's the latest competition between Billionaires.   Instead of who has the biggest Super Yacht, it;s who has the biggest AI Data Center.





How many terawatts of power did you consume this year Mark?  How about you Elon?

RE

Quote from: jupiviv on Mar 12, 2025, 03:19 AMAll I got from that is you've invented a very interesting form ad hominem - ai-generated accusations of other people writing or talking like ai, and it's a follow up to the earlier, more affective troll accusation you made through that bot account. You have a problem with me bc you don't like what I'm saying yet can't articulate that beyond criticizing my use of terms you're unfamiliar with, which backfired. Stop being chickenshit and just blatantly say that and then we can start talking like humans.

That is a non-denial response.

Do you deny your post was AI generated?

RE

Quote from: jupiviv on Mar 12, 2025, 03:34 AM

Quote from: RE on Mar 11, 2025, 05:34 AMPractically all discussion regarding resources since publication of the Limits to Growth study in the 1970s has focused on the fact you can't have infinite growth in a finite world.

Practically all discussion about that study ranges from calling it alarmism to a kooky eugenics manifesto.

Visit the Post Carbon Institute for another opinion.

RE