I can’t say you’re wrong, but is there a person who more than 50% of citizens would actually be happy to vote for? The options we’re presented aren’t great, and I’m certain a better one could be chosen. But reaching a full 50%+ seems like a tall order in the current political environment.

Perhaps. In theory, you’re definitely right. I just feel that this is something where building the momentum during a single election cycle isn’t feasible. The most likely result of voting for a third party without laying this groundwork would be splitting the vote and giving a landslide victory to the greater of the two evils.

Formally organising online would make it possible to demonstrate how much support each candidate actually has without giving an official vote to a candidate that the general public isn’t confident enough to vote for. Watching participation grow and third parties receive substantial semi-official support could build excitement and lead to a third party being trusted to have the sway to win.

I’d love to be proven wrong though. If we can organize enough support for a third party within a single election cycle that it’s reasonable to risk voting for that candidate, I’m open to it. I already have too much on my plate, but if no one has built this service by the time I have energy for it, I’ll definitely be thinking about it

I suppose it’ll continue until enough people believe that it’s possible for a third party to win.

I think ranked choice voting would make it much simpler to foment that change. People need to be able to trust that breaking from the party line has a real chance of success, but that can’t happen without demonstrating support.

If we can’t have real ranked choice voting, a third party could build a website to let people coordinate votes according to ranked choice, and hopefully carry the result as a unified bloc to the polls. Have an agreement that if a certain threshold of participation is met, vote for the ranked choice result. Otherwise, lesser of 2 evils.

I didn’t learn of any rhyme or reason to it in German when I took classes on it. In fact, in a few cases, the gender changes the meaning of the word. Der See und die See, for example. One means lake and the other means sea/ocean.

All those negative effects would happen with or without religion. I think the real issue is blind trust of hierarchies. Many of those who ascribe to organized religion have a tendency towards that (the loud ones do at least), but religion isn’t the only pathway by which conniving subhuman trash controls the masses. Anything that can enforce an in-group/out-group think is a pathway to this form of control that leaves people more vulnerable to allowing despicable acts in the name of God, the public good, safety, liberty, freedom, democracy, progress, etc. Pick your symbol of idealism, and you’ll find someone who committed untold atrocities in its name.

If you’d prefer to succumb to hate, that’s your prerogative. And I wouldn’t necessarily consider it naive to prefer hope anyway, although having lived in hate in the past, I can understand why you might feel that way.

Any “helmet” you could wear is something that others would call delusion. It’s always a lens by which you choose to warp reality. Hardened pessimism is no more realistic than blind optimism. It all depends on what you want to protect. Your own corporeal form and possessions (in which case, please keep your armor of selfishness and cynicism), or something less tangible, like emotional resilience and a belief that there might be a dream that’s achievable.

Regardless of all that, and in spite of your attempts to shame me for grammatical mistakes, I’d like to thank you for inspiring some thought-provoking questions.

Is living while rejecting hope actually living? Personally, even if there won’t ever be change. Even if the future is truly a lost cause. I would rather delusionally hope for a better future than succumb to a form of realism that demands an expectation of progressively worse suffering. So, I choose to believe that improvement is possible, regardless of whether there is evidence for it, but also becuse there is evidence that it can happen.

Yeah, that would be crucial too. Antibioitics and the risks of antibiotic resistance need to be included. But to create and purify effective antibiotics, you also need to start with the scientific method, then branch into chemistry, biology, etc. Glassware and procedures to minimize contamination would be important to effectively extract helpful ingredients from potentially harmful molds/other sources.

Depending on the starting scenario, it might be possible to skip much of that at first if we had leftover supplies from a prior civilization. If this site is to be believed, it sounds like making penicillin at home is quite a process, but doable if you’re able to get the right supplies. I don’t see any efficient pathway from here to there if we had to start from zero though.

I read it as “what do you have enough knowledge of that you could aid in the birth/advancement of a new civilization?” Doesn’t matter if you have it fully figured out, just what knowledge can you provide that would be highly valued if all knowledge were otherwise lost.

• Crafting bows to hunt. Wood selection, shaping, tillering, natural bowstring materials.
• Some edible wild plants
• Some basic farming knowledge
• Some construction/shelter repair techniques
• Algebra and concepts of calculus, and why they’re useful
• How to preserve foods
• Basic concepts of electricity’s importance and how to make it, but someone would need to explain how to go from raw material to a functional wire, find some rare earth magnets, and figure out how to make LEDs or something else worth using the electricity for.
• The scientific method
• Concepts of how to engineer/design a solution to a problem
• Troubleshooting techniques
• Some basic concepts of boat stability and construction
• Some concepts of modern psychology
• Concepts of critical thinking and rejection of groupthink
• Basic physics. Loose explanations of kinematic equations, gravity, friction, pendulums, air resistance, aerodynamics, basic concepts of rocketry and flight/parachutes/gliders
• Evaporative cooling? I could describe the concepts of modern air conditioning, but that doesn’t seem useful yet.
• I could probably work out how a windmill works, how to make a wagon, how to purify water, how to make water-tight storage.
• Germ Theory
• The Paradox of Tolerance
• How pasteurization works
• Fermentation, concepts of distillation
• Basic oral hygiene? Habits of at least rinsing sugar out of your mouth afterwards, if brushes aren’t available.
• Use of alcohol and heat as antiseptics. Suggestion to use honey in a pinch
• Basic concepts of how magnifying lenses work and why they’re important

I think you’d need to start by getting them to admit that the heat is a problem without mentioning climate change. Don’t use any of the buzz words they’ve been taught how to respond to. Just try to get them to have a conversation where they have to come up with their own answers.

In fact, maybe don’t even start off with anything related to the topics they’ve been told what to think about. Ask about something they care about more directly that isn’t on their party’s agenda. You’d need to keep at it long enough for them to start understanding you’re not their enemy, which could be anywhere from a few hours to a few weeks/months, depending on how deeply entrenched they are. Then, start trying to work towards the lesser issues their authority doesn’t bring up often but has expressed an opinion on. Basically, you need to de-indoctrinate them.

If you can get them to talk about an issue without recognizing immediately that they’re in danger of contradicting their chosen authorities, then slowly transition towards getting them to talk about more and more “dangerous” topics, you might help them to bridge that disconnect and start thinking critically about the key issues.

That all said, You’ll have an easier time working with people who haven’t been deeply entrenched in an authoritarian ideology. The less developed their beliefs, the easier it’ll be to guide them towards thinking about their beliefs critically. That’s one reason it’s so important to teach critical thinking in primary/secondary schools.

logic will never convince them because they aren’t arguing from a position of logic. It’s about conforming to the beliefs required to be part of their tribe and/or protecting themselves from coming to terms with the harsh realities of climate change. It’s reactionary against a challenge to their beliefs.

You would need to first convince them to consider that their respected authorities could be wrong. But within this reactionary mindset, being wrong is disgraceful. So unless they lose respect for their leaders or manage to shift away from believing fallibility is disgraceful, I don’t know if they can be convinced.