Og om det betyr at ikke alle kan ha egen hytte så er det fordi det strengt talt ikke er bærekraftig at alle kan ha sin egen hytte. Om man er avhengig av vei, innlagt vann, offentlig kloakk, og innlagt strøm, er man kanskje ikke helt så avhengig av å ha en egen hytte i fjellet likevel.

I get the pleasure of hanging out in well moderated communities where I feel like I am doing my part. Doesn’t need to be more complicated than that.

Of course politics is about prioritization. But some things are not politicized as we all seemingly agree it should be prioritized, like military in America.

Climate is so highly politicized because one side is refuting basic facts. They are shouting loud about it and running their propaganda, making the issue politicized. This does not seem to have happened that much in this campaign, as they are focused on other things.

For better or for worse, depending on who wins. I’m just arguing that politicization of climate is not inherently a good thing; rather, in an ideal political situation, it shouldn’t be politicized at all at this point.

I’m not passing blame, I’m just saying it might be good for it to be depoliticized a bit. Especially if it involves those more willing to act on climate actually winning.

Whichever policies work well should ideally be more of an academic/technical debate rather than a political one.

It requires political action, but this could happen without politicizing it.

If politicians recognize the need to do something, they might do it even if they do not center their campaign around it.

German support for Ukraine was in a similar situation. Though parties had different ideas and the election would very much be decisive for the future direction, support for Ukraine was not particularly politicized in the election - they focused more on other issues. In the end actors supportive of Ukraine won though, and now they are offering their support without having politicized the issue.

The conservatives had every chance of winning this election until Trump came along, and there is no way the Liberals would have hauled it in by focusing on climate policy.

Sometimes the best thing you could do for an issue is to not politicize it. Actually, I think this is the case more often than we tend to realize.

Would have been nice to see smaller, greener parties do better though.

It’s the kind of pain that will always come with being the first mover. Every active community on Lemmy faced this hurdle at some point in history - it takes a little while to reach critical mass.

Engaging with small communities and encourageing people who are trying to make it happen is a huge help. In addition to manageing your own, of course. Thank you! :)

Not to mention any attempt at making a reasonable argument is completely undermined by ending it with “… and anyone who disagrees with me is a fucking moron”. Makes it hard to agree even for someone who is fundamentally sympathetic to the point being made.

I think some of the greatest folk songs ever written recount events that have happened, and sometimes ties them together with some interpretation of whatever it might mean.

You could argue the assassination of JFK is such a monumental event that it doesn’t need a song - just as I guess you could argue the same about the Titanic for -Tempest. I’d disagree - I’d say it would need an ever the greater song, and I think Dylan delivered perfectly in Murder Moust Foul.

I think most people would agree Blood on the Tracks is among Dylan’s strongest, though it’s hard to find an obvious meaning why it matters in most of the songs. They are incredible songs that take us along for the ride, and while it’s sometimes interesting to ask “what”, there’s rarely any point in asking “why”.

The whole album is full of crazy connections. Crossing the Rubicon has an insane amount of parallels to unpack. And I wouldn’t say Goodbye Jimmy Reed is lacking in energy!

Thanks for looking into it!

I think maybe it makes sense to consider three different levels of opposition.

The first is the actively anti-human assholes. This is the direction that the US has certainly taken, that the Torys are prone to, and that trans people are at the frontlines of right now. This is where people fuelled by hate actively want to strip people of rights. As far as I’m concerned it’s really the same battle be it for trans people, women, minorities, hell, even white men who are not landowners. I think the people seeking to take our rights away here won’t stop before they have destroyed everything. Trans people first, the rest of us second. I think we’re blessed with this group being very tiny in Denmark.

The second is just pure neglect. I’d say this is where the Torys really shine. Not giving a shit and defunding the NHS gets you to the same point eventually, but just with less opposition. A lack of education could also be put in this box. Denmark is not immune to this, but I think the current government is making an effort at least it some areas that matter to me. That said, I’m not a big fan - I certainly wouldn’t vote for them if I had the right to.

Then, third, there’s the lack of action. This is just thinking that the current system is good enough. Opposition to gender quotas would be a typical example from the women’s struggle - for trans rights, it’s access to affordable trans health care. Here one depends on the realization that in order to achieve a just society, it’s not enough to simply do nothing. I think this is where the fight is mostly taking place in Denmark. It is an important fight, but it’s also miles ahead of the miserable shithole of the first level I listed (aka Amercia).

Then again, that’s just my attempt to make sense of it. There is overlap between the levels, it’s not always clear cut, and it’s easy to slide downwards. But I think it’s nevertheless important to acknowledge that the fight looks very different depending on contexts.

Yeah, when I stated that it literally wouldn’t be a dilemma any more it’s because having the prisoners sitting in the same interrogation room would destroy it, the same way playing poker with your cards backwards would destroy the game to the point where it cannot really be considered poker any more.

Wasn’t making a smarter point than that. :)

I guess there’s a reason people argued about this dilemma for so long in the literature. :)

For cooperation to emerge between rational players, the number of rounds must be unknown or infinite. In that case, “always defect” may no longer be a dominant strategy. As shown by Robert Aumann in a 1959 paper, rational players repeatedly interacting for indefinitely long games can sustain cooperation.

Well, sure, it’s if they are in the same room or they can hear through the walls or whatever. An actual flow of information, not just them lying to each other. I assumed that was obvious.

Two prisoners are arrested.

Both are given a choice: Rat out your buddy, and we’ll let you go with one year in prison. Keep your moth shut and we’ll give you four years. If you keep your moth shut and your buddy rats you out, you’ll get ten. If you both rat, you both get eight years.

The dominant strategy of both prisoners is to speak: In either case, ratting on their buddy will lower their punishment. However, if both prisoners choose this strategy, they end up losing collectively: Rather than both receiving four years as they would if they both kept their moth shut, they both yet eight years because they both talk.

That’s the basics of the dilemma. The years don’t matter, just the ranking of preferences.

If the prisoners can communicate, they will know that the other prisoner didn’t talk, and if one prisoner opens his mouth, he will know that the other prisoner will immediately do the same.

I learned the prisoner’s dilemma when I studied game theory. The fact that it depends on a lack of information flowing between the prisoners and that snitching is only the dominant strategy when it’s a single-round game is just parts of the assumptions of the dilemma.

I should also add that the prisoner’s dilemma is only a dilemma when it is played in only one round. Once it becomes a game of several rounds cooperation arises as the dominant strategy.

Then again, I’m not sure how the prisoner’s dilemma is relevant here in the first place, I just thought it was a funny point to make.

The prisoner’s dilemma depends on the fact that the two prisoners cannot cooperate. If you allow information to flow between them it’s literally not a dilemma any more.

So yes.

If you mean cooperation with the police, how the hell did you derive that from my text?

I currently live in Denmark. I have to admit I’m not following the public debate here very carefully, and there are plenty of backwards people around who will shout loudly about just about anything, but any reversal (or anything else than gradual strengthening) of trans rights would come as a huge surprise to me.

I am open for the possibility that I’m simply not following close enough. But I think the problem with trans rights is that it has become politicized, when it is really not a political issue. The fact that I have not heard about it at all in the public debate here is therefore, in my opinion, a good sign. For sure one can dig up shitty opinions if one starts looking for it, but they have not been given a defining role in the public debate as is the case in many countries.

Yeah, I’m not going to make the argument that people are fundamentally good either, and they are shaped by the media landscape they consume.

I live in a country where trans rights are not really questioned, and where I am feeling confident that they won’t be. Of course it still has ways to go and there are bad people, but trans rights have not become effectively politicized and it’s just not a point of contention.

It’s no fundamental rule of society that we have to go around hating each other. It’s a construct. That doesn’t mean it’s not the case where you live, but it’s something that can be changed.

Leftists and other assorted humanists and progressives are wildly unpopular because most of the public simply can’t imagine not having the sheer bloodlust they have for thy neighbor.

Believe it or not, this is not a necessity of human nature. It’s just your society that’s fucked up. And it’s probably not even that bad if you go out and talk to people rather than judge society by the distorted reflection given on social media.