darq

So, global warming is gonna happen. We no longer have control, it’s not our choice to make.

You’ve flipped flopped between we don’t need to take drastic action, and no action we can take can help.

Conveniently, both means you get to ignore arguments to actually do something to mitigate the damage.

Which really is your entire motivation.

I’m not going to watch a whole youtube video just to pick up on the latest lingo.

Deny it’s happening, then claim we can’t change anything once it’s happened. The moment where we could do something about it is skipped over.

Like you are doing now.

No, mitigation does not require “drastic” action, fortunately. We’ve significantly mitigated it already, concerning our own emissions, and can do so further.

What world do you live on? Certainly not the one the rest of us do. Our emissions have only been increasing.

Yes we require drastic action. In fact we required drastic action decades ago. Now we require radical action.

Do you have an idea that might mitigate it overseas, or change domestic politics enough to speed things up here?

First and foremost, stop pointing your finger overseas. It is nothing but a distraction, a convenient excuse to not do what needs to be done domestically because “oh but China and India”.

Secondly, investment in equipping developing nations with clean energy infrastructure can help.

I don’t think nonviolent protest is going to do it, there’s not enough of us willing to do so.

Ultimately it is going to have to come down to protest.

I am hoping non-violent methods, such as general strikes and direct action will be enough.

But that does require solidarity, motivation, and mutual aid.

You’re responding to a point I didn’t make. Even mitigation requires the drastic action you are arguing is impossible.

But also, no, y’all don’t get to slow-breakup this.

Even if the western nations pollute less, developing nations will still pollute a lot more and will get us to tipping points anyway, albeit perhaps slightly slower.

Ehh, it’s worth noting that developing nations tend to pollute a lot less per capita. And as they develop they can transition to cleaner forms of energy, as they gain the economic ability to do so.

Pointing at developing nations is a convenient excuse for developed nations to avoid taking the actions we need to take.

I don’t only see disaster. But I do see a specific problem, with a very obvious answer, that continues to get worse and worse with catastrophic future consequences. A problem that we continuously refuse to address in a meaningful manner.

In my opinion, this position requires some cherry picking to avoid evidence of times when different things have improved over the past few decades.

Quite the opposite. The times when we have made improvements have come precisely because we have made the sorts of decisive changes that we needed to make, that we are currently pretending are impossible.

We actually solved the issue with the ozone layer, precisely because we took action and passed regulation banning their usage, despite the objections of businesses.

Same thing with leaded petrol. We took decisive action and addressed the problem at a systemic level, rather than just softly appealing for people to make the “right choice uwu”.

In our current unprecedented circumstances, drastic change on a short timescale is going to require one of two things: the suspension of our democracy, or wide-scale bloodshed. Neither of these is actually particularly likely to result in positive change either.

I agree that unrest seems basically inevitable. Because the people with the power to make the changes required have shown us in no uncertain terms that they never make the changes required.

So I’m not sure why continuing to pander to those delusions with half-measures is preferable.

I’m hoping change can be accomplished through general strikes and direct action. So that widespread bloodshed can be avoided.

The problem is there may not be survival at the end of this tunnel. But only one way might work in time, and that’s the one we’ve been using for a couple centuries and seen okayish results with.

Oh. So you are completely insane. Because we absolutely have not been seeing okayish results.

Honestly the protesters that everyone hates kinda have the right idea.

The problem with that being that the “minor solutions” aren’t really solving the problem. We’ve been doing “minor solutions” for many years now, and we have only accelerated in our destruction of the environment.

We need drastic change. Failing some deus-ex-machina-esque invention that quickly and cheaply solves the issue with no sacrifice needed, then we have to be demanding radical change. If that isn’t possible, our other option is to just fail and die.

Because the truth has limits on how hopeful and how simple it can be. Whereas the lies of billionaires have no such limitations.

I agree with your point that the messaging isn’t working. But pushing hope without radical reform of our current systems is basically just trying to diffuse the reaction to the facts without actually changing the facts leading to the reaction.

Bloody hell, with what crime? Convincing your comrades to not work?

They are going on adventures together! Maybe one day they’ll both read the same book at the same time, and go on the same adventure!

I would love to do something like this, except it’s way too goofy with the attached controllers.

Steamdeck in a tablet form factor would be perfect.

Except if you have enough money, it’s not even gambling anymore. The only way you’d lose is if everybody loses.

And that’s completely ignoring the fact that enough money lets you influence the rules of the game to tilt the odds in your favour.

International relations are politics. The marches are intended to place pressure on politicians of the country they are occurring in, to adopt certain international relations positions.

Yup, that’s what happens whenever “civility” is the primary metric used for moderation.

Trolls post heinous nonsense, and respond to people in the most insufferable rage-bait-y manner. But if anyone so much as calls them an asshole, they get their comments removed for saying a no-no word.

Brainworms.

Even without knowledge of the source of the image, there is no reasonable way a normal person interprets that message as a genuine threat of violence.

Because the picture of the “gayroller 2000” is very obvious satire from the known-satire comic The Oatmeal, originally posted to satirise conservatives’ baseless fears of “the gay agenda”. Seeing a pattern?

On the other hand, there a pattern of hostility, hatred, and violence from conservatives towards LGBT people. This pattern is both historical and contemporary, and currently it is absurdly common for LGBT people to be called “groomers” and be accused of being dangerous to children.

Gay people obviously do not want to run over straight people with a steamroller. On the other hand, the people posting wood chipper memes… Some of them would, and have, followed through.

I quite simply do not believe that for even a second.

Let’s not pretend that you actually give a damn about transgender people. This is just concern trolling.