You must log in or register to comment.
I left my comment on the repost. Here it is:
He goes on to have, what I believe, is a valid complaint: Leftists have ideals which block progression towards our goals.
One example: Instead of building a wind farm, we are arguing about economic impact, and then still stay on coal while we that argument occurs.
I think overall the video misses the point. The complaints are that bureaucracy/red tape/seeking perfection (in states such as CA) prevent society from doing things with impact such as building high speed rail, creating 15 minute communities (Shout out to !15minutecity@slrpnk.net), and providing shelter for all.
This is completely valid, but it has nothing to do with solarpunk.
He goes on to have, what I believe, is a valid complaint: Leftists have ideals which block progression towards our goals.
Not letting your ideals block your goals is called fascism. Letting go of truth and decency and just doing the thing you’re planning on doing, proclaiming whatever ideals are most convenient for pursuing that goal. Unable to check that goal against ideals like viability or realism and always finding reality coming short. Burning through every resource you have violently pursuing an impossible dream until you’re finally weak enough to be put down.
What can happen is that you have poorly thought out ideals that block good goals, or on the flipside that you have poorly thought out goals that are blocked by good ideals. But making this kind of mistake is part of life, and it’s made by everyone who has any ideals at all.
When conservatives block renovations to a shopping district to make it a walkable neighborhood because they need it to be accessible by car, preventing the shopping district from becoming a massively profitable neighborhood that would have made every rich person in town considerably richer, isn’t that ideals blocking progression towards conservative goals?
When conservatives refuse to fund preventative care for poor people because they don’t want them to get a free ride, preventing a massive reduction in government healthcare expenses, isn’t that ideals blocking progression towards conservative goals?
Or on the flipside: When liberals let billionaires fund and prescribe school curriculums to close the budget, isn’t that goals transgressing where they should be held back by ideals?
When liberals increase police funding because gosh we need to do something about increasing crime rates, isn’t that goals transgressing where they should be held back by ideals?
Liberals tend to present themselves as heroes of their ideals and practical about their goals, but that’s just language. I don’t think they make the mistake of sticking to ill-considered ideals more than they make the mistake of focusing on ill-considered goals.
As for leftists, so many movements fall apart because they focus on goals so much that they lose their raison d’être, it’s not even funny. So many protest movements focus on numbers that they become funny festivals, so many activist slogans get watered down for public acceptability that they become meaningless virtue signals, so many community spaces turn commercial to help more people until they’re just small businesses.
So I really don’t think the left has a problem with sticking to ideals too much either, relative to their willingness to abandon ideals. Leftists are very cautious, but that comes naturally with acting on their beliefs usually being a crime in liberal capitalism. Making the translation from leftist ideology to actions that won’t get you arrested but that still help is difficult.
Liberals are often cautious too, but they should be - they’re on the wrong side of history. If only they were more cautious, stepping back far enough to realize that liberal capitalism is always going to be immoral. And conservatives, jesus, just stop making mistakes and learn already.
Look, you don’t have to convince me that capitalism is ultimately problematic and we should live in more anarchistic communities. You have some fine points here but the thing he specifically mentioned was as follows:
We need to build wind farms in order to shut down coal plants, but then environmental reviews (and NIMBYism) are blocking projects. You might argue the solution is to consume less power, but I think that we’ll find that an unconvincing argument until the big collapse arrives.
Another example could be CA’s high speed rail which has been continuously derailed (heh).
My main point is not in support of fascism but instead we often let perfection be the enemy of good enough.
As a final comment, I believe liberalism is morally bankrupt and that is specifically why I used the term leftist instead.
p.s. I don’t think conservatism is making mistakes. they are fulfilling their agenda but they have different (and IMO problematic) goals. I’ve heard two things that can help put their arguments in perspective: (a) they believe the world is zero-sum; (b) hierarchy is something to be embraced instead of challenged
News at 10: guy watched yoghurt commercial on Youtube and is now expert on Solarpunk 🤦
It’s like he looked at a picture and invented a whole damn political movement and ideology behind it
If I recall correctly he also used the terms leftist, progressive, and liberal as if they were all interchangeable. Truly a horribly researched video with nothing of substance. The critique of some visual depictions had merit, but god forbid he pick up a book as a part of a reviewing a literary genre.
If you enjoyed the straw-men in this video you may also enjoy:
- The Wizard Of Oz
- The Wicker Man
- Burning Man festival
“Degrow is bad” You lost me there
That not the only weird thing in the video. Basically he is proposing Soviet style government led infrastructure development, yet implies California is somehow communist and bad because of that.
It really doesn’t make any sense, unless your have a very specific uniquely US american brainworm.
Right? It was so confusing what random assortment of contradictory believes the author had.
Slight contention: the video title is “The flawed aesthetics of solarpunk” now. Not sure if they changed it following criticism or what.
The content of the video was outstandingly disappointing.
I’m subscribed to this guy and don’t watch him much because he’s generally overly negative, somehow even when talking about things that deserve negative feedback.
I’m glad it seems like we are all on the same page, to the point that I don’t feel the need to list out any of the problems.
I would love a critical look a solarpunk, especially the gap between the execution and theory, but I’m unable to find a single argument in this video thats worth discussing.
Also @MrMakabar, even if this post doesnt get (or arguably deserve) many upvotes, I do appreciate you posting this to the sublemmy so that we can comment on it.
The hard part about arguing against renewables is the argument is a very complex, economic one. People love to have a single reason as the explanation for something but reality is far more complex. This makes it very difficult to present in an elevator pitch style.
The most coherent segment of this video was the advertisement
