Some flavor of meownotheism, yes

At first I didn’t believe it was legit.

The intent behind OP’s statement is pure, and is shared almost universally.

But the specific proposal misunderstands so much about why laws are made and how they’re enforced, how power is abused, why hate isn’t illegal, how businesses work, how harm is measured, etc, that the most generous interpretation is that we’re communicating with an inexperienced mind. In this case, apparently hundreds of them.

On the other hand, no one is born with that experience, and it’s healthy for people (including myself) to keep that in mind.

I think it’s just called “Lemmy.”

Also, “start over” is a bit dramatic. I think you mean hit up-enter to rerun the training.

You could blame the CEO, the employees, the customers, the investors, the city, state, or country, the regulators, the elected officials, etc.

Then there’s the choice of what attribute of those people to use for the accounting. Is it their wealth, their race, their religion, their height? Maybe it’s because they live in cities, or don’t.

It’s an almost arbitrary choice that reflects the value system of the person creating the report — an effort to score points, not solve the problem. I worry that climate action is often hindered by people trying to loop their other pet issues in. Let’s focus on reducing carbon in the atmosphere, please.

It’s a strange accounting method, that almost completely reflects wealth distribution and ignores carbon.

For instance, you might say childhood obesity is a problem, then measure people’s investments in fast food as a measure of their contribution to the problem. And find that it’s the same people at fault, at almost the exact same percentage!

Thaaaat’s… what he looks like

Do you just keep that on the clipboard?