The pull quote from this piece on cybersecurity "it really comes down to individuals being prepared and being secure in their practices" reminded me about how the burden of civil defense during the Cold War was shifted to individuals. news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/…
The full context is even more telling: "But the government is not responsible for private-sector networks. And since most of the critical infrastructure in this country is operated within the private sector, it really comes down to individuals being prepared..."
reminder that countries do not decide to wage war, and nationalities do not decide to wage war. Individuals or groups of individuals with access to the resources of a country decide to wage war.
They may have access to those resources through use of force, or through an election of varying degrees of fairness and freeness, or through heredity, meaning one of their ancestors won them through use of force. They probably depend heavily on propaganda to keep them.
They may convince many or most of the citizens to support the war. But it was still not the citizens who decided or the country as a monolithic whole that is doing it. Imagining that it is leads to international feuds, generational distrust based on nationality, etc, etc, AND
something else we were talking about with @tithenai@drkarenlord@ArkadyMartine@Annaleen@AstroKatie the other night, in the context of those comemierda protests, how words are becoming detached from specific meanings and tied instead to emotional reactions
it's a very propaganda thing - not new, although some of the techniques are new - and a very advertising thing - "all-natural", "cheese product" etc. But disturbing how news sources quote these lines verbatim instead of critiquing
Think of the way "communist" and "socialist" are often used in the US, with no relation to the precise meanings of the words, just: something scary, overlapping with authoritarianism and lack of "liberty" (don't get me started on liberty). It makes it all but impossible
All of this thread.
When I shifted from working on disasters for international NGOs to studying how governments do disasters, I was struck by shift in terminology: NGOs (mostly) do humanitarian work or disaster relief/aid. Governments do emergency management.
INGOs [aim to] follow the humanitarian imperative: those affected are human and need help, ergo we should help them. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitar…
"Emergency management", on the other hand, implies not helping people or providing relief to them but *managing* the *emergency*: dealing with the crisis until it can be navigated back to the status quo. It's about getting through it, preventing more upheaval and disruption.
We KNOW what to do to solve/slow climate change. Instead of new tech solutions someday/greenwashing increments, what we need to figure out is 1) how to make the change in the face of narrow but powerful interests that don't want to 2) support the vulnerable during the transition
In order to do 1), we first need to be clear that these are narrow, entrenched interests. The fossil fuel industries are not equivalent to the economy; their profit margins do not correlate to high standards of living for us; their interests are not our interests. Further,
our decision-makers are chosen through a flawed process only tenuously related to democracy; their motivations are not solely (if at all) the well-being of voters; we do have levers to influence them but those levers are attenuated and indirect, unlike lobbying $$$ & corruption.