a basic fact of life: The climate is always changing. Always. Sometimes for the worse. Sometimes for the better.

doomsday prepper?

What will flood barriers do to reduce the heat?

Ice.

Oh, you are saying the ice melt will flood the world.

I reckon a flood wall surrounding the country would also drastically lower illegal border crossings.

What are you doing to stop the climate change other than being snarky towards those that aren't alarmed?

Then why did you suggest building flood walls?

😄

You are losing me here -

What are you doing, besides sounding the alarm, to stop climate change in it's tracks?

The fact that the discussion only revolves around floods is so cute.

YOU LITERALLY SAID LOOK AT THE PICTURE! THE PICTURE IS ICE! No wonder your name is low rated comment everywhere.

Never heard of FEMA?

WOW

Baloney!

What do you propose we do?

What does that entail?

Overthrowing the yoke of the capitalist class, expropriating their land, dismantling their institutions, organizing all workplaces, establishing decentralized federalism and redistributing land and resources according to need.
In this context, we would also get rid of all pipelines, stop CO2 emissions and incorporate clean energy into our production

Oh, you are a seditionist.

You are one that believes socialism will be different the next time?

I predict, if successful, you would reduce CO² emissions by a factor of zero just the same as climate alarmists today.

You may prefer anarchist but that would be a misnomer.

I have seen none of the socialist successes you describe.

Reactionary? Perhaps. Ally of any group? Nah.

When you use words like bourgeoisie, etc., I get the impression you are an idealistic teen that heard some stuff in a class and then read a book on anarchism and maybe Ché Guevara...possibly Karl Marx.

No hate. Just a chuckle. We all wanna change the world.

Let me ask -

How do you keep order and ensure every working person gets an equal share ?

How is your head of state selected?

Who organizes and assigns the workers?

You haven’t seen them because I’m guessing you don’t read a whole lot. Anarchists practiced effective workers’ self-management in Spain, anarchists defended a successful territory in Ukraine for 3-4 years, and the revolution in Burkina Faso resulted in the erection of thousands of pharmacies, millions of vaccinations, planting of millions of trees, the end of female genital mutilation all in 3 years time.

I was a conservative in my freshman-sophomore days of high school. In 2016, I became a right-wing libertarian because I was sick of making arguments to people defending things I knew weren’t true. As a right-wing libertarian I struggled to be anti-authoritarian yet defend capitalist tyranny, plus was dissuaded by the anti-semitism of right-libertarian historians. Austrian economics rejects empirics. So many things about the ideology were discrediting to me. At the suggestion of people online, I read the Conquest of Bread and it made me an anarcho-communist. I have since read much more anarchist and socialist theory, from the likes of Berkman and Goldman, my favorite Rudolf Rocker in addition to contemporary abolitionist literature, such as that from Angela Davis.
I’m halfway through a Luxemburg book and 20 or 50 pages into Capital Volume I. I generally disagree with Marxists and Marxist-Leninists, as I don’t believe the state can be transformed into anything but the reactionary organ it already is, serving the interests of a wealthy few and being an antagonist to the economic equality and political rights of the people.

So none of the success stories you described exist today?

Those places, like Cuba, aren't considered a success by any metric.

They simply exist. For now. Until someone wants what ever their land holds.

Being said - how do you handle national defense? Or community defense?

I admit i don't spend much time reading about things in which i have no interest.

That's why i ask questions of those with different views/opinions.

More entertaining and engaging than poring over some dusty tome.

Where in spain did this occur?

Why only successful in ukraine 3-4 years and what territory?

How is Burkina faso doing today?

Ok.

But if some is lazy and will not work?

If someone does steal?

I saw a Monty Python movie about this.
They were an anarcho-syndicalist commune.

How do you deal with those that are lazy?

Those that steal?

Please restate more concisely.

You described that these shouldn't be an issue.

Simplify your answer for me please,

If you are lazy then this happens...

If you steal then this happens...

A man steals, you've given him the talk but he will not right his wrong and continues to steal - then what?

And the lazy lad - he doesn't work but still enjoys the fruits of the labors of others?

How long would you let someone going idly through life take advantage of your labor before you became resentful?

I mean as long as I am provided for I’m glad everyone else is too.

Wage slaves prefer exchanging the hours of their lives for consumer goods and processed edible products. They find it comfortable and easier than providing for the self by one's self.

I do not share that view.

You do not work, you do not eat.

That is fair.

You just said that was the motto of a socialist dictator you lived under, and that it was tyranny.

It's tyranny because your productivity should not be a determiner of whether or not you have the sustenance you require to survive. Every human deserves that because of their intrinsic value.

You don't work you don't eat

That was my socialist dictator's motto the whole life until I escaped the tyranny of that place.

Being said, I would run off someone not doing their part at the very least

Even bourgeois economists say the goal should be less people in the workforce, the problem with their model is that, fewer people in the workforce, or even robots taking jobs means people won't have income, and you require money in order to afford goods under capitalism.
Under socialism, we can have automation, we can shorten the work day and have fewer working people and not have it adversely affect our livelihood.

Social revolution should aim to abolish capitalism and the state along with it, not put "workers" at the helm of the latter and pretend as if we have abolished class antagonisms.

You have the right to provide for yourself and not have your labor stolen by another - lazy comrades, taxing governments, thieves, etc.

Did you want some industrialization or return to at-home artisanship and regress our agricultural progress to where each home provides for themselves? We produce multiple units every day and this isn't a problem, we should produce for the community. We do now, we just expect people to exchange goods for dollars and that system must come to an end.

The science has been saying "the Earth will end in 20-30 years unless..." for at least the last century.

The science also says men can get pregnant and that prepubescent children are mentally developed enough to decide they're the wrong sex, and that women should now be referred to as "non-men".

Not for an entire century. Most of the apocalyptic predictions originate from the first Earth Day in 1970. Part of the reason some have not come to fruition is due to actual regulations that made real-world changes.

Trans men can get pregnant, that should be obvious. Indeed, science suggests children as young as three explore their gender identity or feel dissuaded with their current gender identity. Older trans people today recall having feelings like this at very young ages, so this appears to be demonstrably true. I've never heard the last one.

Sorry for the delayed response, missed this somehow until now.

1) Ok yeah, I accidentally got the timeline wrong. I was thinking about this image I'd used before, which was so long, with so many "science" doomsday predictions, that I forgot it only covered 60ish years.

2) Transmen are not men, they're transmen.

3) Prepubescent children explore a LOT of things, often dangerous, because their brains aren't fully formed. In fact "the science" says human brains aren't fully formed until about 25.

Children are living mirrors, they reflect what's around them in order to find acceptance while they grow. It's an inherent survival trait, much like neoteny. That's one reason you see more "trans" kids in places like California. Another is parents *pushing* the ideas on their kids for the sake of the parents' own acceptance. In other words, it's less nature and more nurture.

What if there was a child whose father, or best friend, had amputated legs, and that child felt like their own legs were bad and should be amputated, even though they were perfectly healthy. Should that child be allowed to have their legs cut off just so they can feel acceptable to their father or friend?

Letting children explore who they are is one thing, allowing them to begin procedures that are undeniably and irreversibly harmful to them is straight up abuse.

And if one can argue a prepubescent child is mentally developed enough to decide they're the wrong sex, how long will it be until one argues that a prepubescent child is mentally developed enough to decide to HAVE sex? Both are equally harmful to young children, but the first is literally happening, and the second is getting closer every day.

Bear in mind, I do know there are genuine trans people out there, either due to mental issues (caused by sexual molestation, for example) or straight up birth defects that caused the wiring to get crossed, but not nearly as many as are claiming association with the trans community - especially "enbys", who are in no way trans, and are actually harmful to the true trans community.

4) As for the "non-men" thing, that was a directive from Johns Hopkins University, a bastion of wokeness.