had a great night, hope you did too.

i think the main difference between us is the path to the end goal. from my perspective, we are fucked. on a grand scale, we will all (or most of us) eventually succumb to global warming and its effects. thus far, most of our elected officials can be bought for surprisingly cheap to do whatever their owners say. personally, my first approach is soft. suggesting/voting for people who somewhat align with my views. the idea is that it promotes the slow change. when (and as it always does) that fails, you start voting more aggressively and for more progressive candidates (while also letting your rep know what you are unhappy with and why). when that - and as it still does - fails, i see two options: on a campaign trail, while your rep/senator/president is pandering to you, you are obligated to call them out. to not do that is a failure as a person in the system. the final alternative is to burn it to the ground. pull the band-aid off, deal with the pain, and move on.

i think your main point at the start of this was about how silly "in-vogue" concerns can be. i think that idea is flawed. there are a lot of problems and a person can only handle so much at a time. when one is called to the forefront, you evaluate it and respond.

maybe we will always disagree on these things, but i hope i was able to clarify my position a bit better - and i hope i understood yours better. sorry for being a dick yesterday.