• sping@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    A meaningless distinction. Assuming for the sake of argument that there are actions we can take that would solve our predicament, we are unable to persuade the people, governments, and various powers that be to take these actions. That is inability.

    To suggest that is not inability reminds me of the joke where the mathematician sees his room on fire, and sees the fire extinguisher, and declares the solution obvious and goes back to sleep. Politics is real.

    • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The distinction is a meaningful one.

      I didn’t stop the Holocaust - I couldn’t. I wish I could have, but that’s not on me. On the other hand, if I was able stop it and chose not to, that’d be evil.

      Now scale up from what seems like an extreme example of millions of people to billions of people and a huge chunk of all the life on earth.

    • Optional@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Inability to defeat republiQans then. We can address climate change in 1000 ways. We are able.

      It’s not a meaningless distinction, it’s a key distinction. If the headline said “2023 is when republiQans publicly agreed to destroy the planet” it’d have a very different effect. It’s hardly meaningless.