Integrating social & natural sciences & modeling to study impacts & responses to climate change | Behavioral approaches to climate policy | Nashville TN | They/them π³οΈβπ π³οΈββ§οΈ genderqueer | Jew | Impervious to onions and mustard | https://jonathangilligan.org .. more
Integrating social & natural sciences & modeling to study impacts & responses to climate change | Behavioral approaches to climate policy | Nashville TN | They/them π³οΈβπ π³οΈββ§οΈ genderqueer | Jew | Impervious to onions and mustard | https://jonathangilligan.org
Great energy from everyone there.
I had to wait many years before I felt safe enough to unlearn that lesson.
I try in my small way to make the world safer for today's young oddballs than it was for me.
That's the kind of detail you miss when you fast-forward through the audio book.
Khwarizmi rules everything around me.
KREAM got the math, yo!
Polynomial roots!
And I love that people are writing good books orders of magnitude faster than I can read, so I'll never run out.
www.investopedia.com/more-billion...
Reposted by Jonathan M. Gilligan, Silvia Secchi, Henry Farrell
If I were offered the opportunity, I would turn it down because the job would destroy me.
Vote blue no matter who won't magically fix our problems. Neither will no voting. Neither will union organizing.
That doesn't mean any of these things is worthless. Just that none is sufficient.
Engels wrote a good piece in 1893 predicting that there would never be successful large-scale working-class political movement in the United States.
www.marxists.org/archive/marx...
Neither strategy works. Just because one doesn't work does not mean that the other will work.
Staying home also doesn't work.
Neither works.
It was not an example of the Democrats changing because people stayed home.
But in VA and NJ, the intense anger against Trump made "vote blue no matter who" a winning strategy for Democrats.
And they're good examples of why lesser-evil voting is good.
If I'd protested bad Dems by voting for worse Republicans, it would send the wrong signal.
The way we structure elections excludes third parties. And the two dominant parties have no reason to change the rules to make 3rd parties viable.
But because of this, and because parties and candidates know this, a threat before the to withhold my vote is empty and candidates confidently ignore it. It has no power to guide their choices.
A big obstacle is that not voting does not send a clear signal. There is so much uncertainty about non-voters' motives that I doubt it has much effect on parties or candidates.
Reposted by Richard S.J. Tol, Jonathan M. Gilligan, Philip Nel
