• givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    2 months ago

    Sometimes.

    Let’s say you’re in Florida right now. If at this instant you stood up and never stopped taking baby steps, do you think you could escape Milton?

    Sometimes baby steps just give the illusion that a situation is being fixed and people calm down and do t take enough action. In this case using virtually any other mode of evacuation besides baby steps.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        Obviously…

        They meant “any progress is better than none”

        And I was pointing out that sometimes unless you meet a certain threshold of progress, the effect of doing nothing and doing “baby steps” is essentially the exact same result.

        It’s been 112 years since universal healthcare was first part of a presidential platform, this election it’s not an option from either of the only two viable options.

        Do you think Teddy Roosevelt supporters are still alive and waiting patiently?

        If they were 18 to vote then, they’d be 130 years old now. Did “baby steps” get them universal healthcare?

        Or did the hurricane wipe them out while they shuffled away?

        • pyre@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          this argument is nonsensical. you’re just arguing for the sake of it. baby steps are obviously and inarguably better than nothing. you’re saying if you can’t fulfill a dream in your lifetime, still doing what you can to lay ground for future generations is the same as not doing anything because as far as you’re concerned it only matters if you yourself see the end result.

          fuck that. a society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit.

          • Exactly this.

            When I was working for U.S. PIRG trying to raise money for global warming, there was a common refrain - “Why should I care? I won’t live long enough to see global warming happen.”

            TBF it was true. I can’t imagine a single person who said that to me is still alive today on account of old age. But it’s still a horribly selfish view to take.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            you’re saying if you can’t fulfill a dream in your lifetime,

            No. I’m not…

            And frankly I’m confused how anyone could possibly interpret my comment that way.

            • pyre@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              your 130 year old voter and hurricane analogies do exactly that. baby steps is the same as no steps only for those people, not for later generations who will have a starting point further than yours.

        • And I was pointing out that sometimes unless you meet a certain threshold of progress, the effect of doing nothing and doing “baby steps” is essentially the exact same result.

          Again missing the point, that “baby steps” can lead to bigger steps. You have to learn to walk before you can run, and you have to learn to crawl before you can walk.

          It’s been 112 years since universal healthcare was first part of a presidential platform,

          And it was again in 2012, or just a mere 12 years ago.

          this election it’s not an option from either of the only two viable options.

          If they were 18 to vote then, they’d be 130 years old now. Do you think Teddy Roosevelt supporters are still alive and waiting patiently?

          The oldest person ever known only lived to 122, so, no.

          But also no, because,

          Did “baby steps” get them universal healthcare?

          I mean, maybe not universal, but maybe some of them got healthcare in the end? It’s plausible one or two lived to 116 and then benefitted from the ACA.

          I’d argue that a big reason why it’s not covered today - the ACA is really good. It works really well and even the GOP has given up on (saying that they will) overturn it. It’s still not universal because the Supreme Court let States ignore the donut hole, so some folks who can’t afford even the ACA premiums still make too much for Medicare/Medicaid (otherwise, we’d have universal healthcare already, albeit on a Netherlands like private system instead of a Canada like single payer system).

          In other words, baby steps have almost gotten us fully there.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            2 months ago

            But if the steps are small enough there’s no difference, win or lose it’s not fast enough to avoid the negative situation.

            That’s literally my point…

            Incremental change works when you never lose sight of the goal and fight at every opportunity to progress towards it, not take one step forward than fall asleep and hope the other guys doesn’t take you ten steps back before you wake up.

            And that’s pretty much as simple as I can make it. If Dem baby steps do not even recover from 4 years of a republican then they’re at best stalling the inevitable.

            It’s easier to get people to fight if there’s a chance of winning.

            • If Dem baby steps do not even recover from 4 years of a republican

              From a healthcare perspective though what damage was done? Those four years resulted in failure to repeal the ACA. If anything it’s the other way around - Obama’s masterpiece escaped relatively unscathed and is ready to be built on further. So exactly the good scenario you are driving at - with victory within slow reach.

              But if the steps are small enough there’s no difference, win or lose it’s not fast enough to avoid the negative situation.

              What’s the negative situation here? Makes more sense with global warming - at some point, even if we get everyone to agree and work together, it may come too late and we’re no longer able to stop it.

              But for universal healthcare? What’s to stop us from pushing out the deadline, like a project that needs more rework, but comes back late and perfect?

            • TheCannonball@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              If I have to choose between 1) standing still, 2) running head first into fascism, or 3) jumping off a cliff without safety nets to reach a Utopian pripe dream, I’ll choose standing still.

              But that’s the thing, we aren’t standing still. We are making progress. Yes it’s slow progress, but it’s fundamental progress. Every Demcratic president has spent their entire presidency undoing the damage of the last Republican president. This means we need to keep voting and not get complacent. Get the democrats into control and then push them further left.

              Look man. I want a progress country. I want free healthcare. I want free tuition colleges. I want free lunches in school. I want paid family leave.

              I want the same utopia you do. The only difference between us is that while you see the promise land, I see the ground work that needs to happen to reach it.

              Just because our heads are down doesn’t mean we’ve lost sight of the goal. Our heads are down because we’re fighting tooth and nail against a torrent that wants to drag us backwards. We are clawing our way out of this nightmare.

              • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                , I’ll choose standing still

                And that’s the correct choice.

                But think about the last time you were out and about with the general public…

                Would you call the average American in 2024 smart?

                Do you think it’s easier to convince literally 10s of millions of people?

                Or the handful of people in leadership positions in the DNC?

                If we change 10s of millions of voters minds, we still stand still

                If we change the minds of those handful of party leaders, we get the votes and actual progress.

                Why not try for the easy path that moves forward instead of the hard one where best case scenario we just get a breakfrom jogging backwards?

                Like, this is literally my whole point… Either path can go to victory, but the easier path also gets us what we want and not just avoids what we don’t want. So why in the ever loving fuck does the party keep doubling down on the difficult path that doesn’t get us what we want, and how long till you realize the problem is a handful of wealthy connected people who run the DNC and not the millions and millions of voters?

                • TheCannonball@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Would I call the average American smart? No, but i wouldn’t call them dumb either. That’s because they’re average.

                  Would i say that the average American is well informed? Absolutely not.

                  Do i think it’s easier to convince millions of people, or the dozens of democratic leaders? I would like to assume that the democratic leadership would be easier to reason with.

                  But you’re suggesting that every democratic leader become immediately progressive, which would be amazing, is never going to happen. There’s such a stigma around “progressive” and “social” values that it would be political suicide and would only ignite the Republican base. It’s a guaranteed way of making sure we lose elections.

                  This path that you are calling easier isn’t easy. It’s risky. It has a high likelihood of failing, and failure means living in the handmaid’s tale. I have a family and i can’t take that risk.

                  The only way i see forward that is actually viable is a slow and steady march.

                  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    The only way i see forward that is actually viable is a slow and steady march

                    Bad news then.

                    Because running moderates mean sometimes Republicans win.

                    So it won’t be slow and steady

                    At absolute best your path is fast jerks back and forth over and over while you pray you over time move in the direction you want.

                    Which hasn’t happened in the last 30+ years since Bill Clinton started this whole “neo liberal” thing.

                    We’re worse off in a lot of ways than when we started your path. Do we give it another 30 years and hope it starts working for some random reason?

                    Or are you just fully committed to never trying anything else no matter how bad it gets.

        • JWBananas@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          It’s been 112 years since universal healthcare was first part of a presidential platform

          Ah, yes, back in the days before penicillin or insulin were discovered. Do tell us more about what forms of 1912-era healthcare are not largely accessible to the 2024 masses.

          Do you think Teddy Roosevelt supporters are still alive and waiting patiently?

          I think his plan to offer health insurance to the working-class poor (and their dependents) sounds a lot more like Medicaid than universal healthcare. You know, baby steps.

    • Escaping Milton using only baby steps?

      Depends on when you started, of course. Like say, if you started last year, you’d probably be safe by now.

      Of course the point is that once you start taking baby steps, it gets easier to transition to adult steps (and to extend the metaphor further) and then eventually flying out on a jet plane. So if you start doing baby steps late it may still be enough to get out if you “grow up” fast enough.

      (BTW, don’t believe me regarding only baby steps? Well, here are my calculations:

      Comparing the map from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/weather/2024/10/09/hurricane-milton-tracker-path-spaghetti-models/75580886007/ on Milton’s likely path and affected area, to a map of cities in the State of Georgia, it seems getting to Douglas, GA would be enough to escape successfully.

      Using Google Maps, https://maps.app.goo.gl/pdMtowAUpQ1W1nq96 , an adult walking non-stop 24/7 would be expected to make it in 7 days. First let’s double that, assuming it’s 12 hours of walking, 8 for sleep, and 4 for stuff like eating, showering, and everything else. So 14 days.

      Now reference this study, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1193922/ - so a 2 year old walks at 2/8 KM/HR or I guess 0.25 KM/HR or 1 KM in 4 hours. This is compared to the adult speed of 5 KM/HR walking. So that’s a slowdown of 20x, or that 14 days becomes 280 days.)