[-] jerdle_lemmy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

You are. People would be very worried. It's just that their worry would not be expressed in attempts to improve things in the long-term when there's a short-term disaster.

If the Gulf Stream will definitely collapse in 2025 (which is not what the study says), then that's too soon to do anything about, so the priority is surviving it rather than preventing it. Fundamentally, things that help prevent disaster are not the same as things that help survive it.

[-] jerdle_lemmy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

That's true if it's closer to 2095. If it's closer to 2025, there's fuck all we can do to stop it, and so we need to do what's best to survive it, which is not the same as what's best to prevent it.

[-] jerdle_lemmy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

It's kind of important whether it's 2095 (prepare for it, set up nuclear, reduce carbon emissions) or 2025 (fuck global warming, we need fuel and we need it now, the more carbon emitted the better).

[-] jerdle_lemmy@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Actions that work in the possible world in which it collapses soon are actively harmful in possible worlds in which it doesn't. Acting as if a threat will happen only makes sense if the action isn't significantly harmful in cases where it doesn't, where significantly is based on the harm of not being prepared and the chance of it happening.

If the Gulf Stream will collapse by 2025, the response isn't to be more eco-friendly. In fact, it's the opposite. Everyone in the north should prepare to burn a lot more fuel, and concern for global warming would definitely be reduced. Global warming is something you can only afford to give a shit about when temperatures haven't just dropped by 3.5C and you haven't just lost 78% of your arable land (UK figures, because that's where I live).

[-] jerdle_lemmy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

It doesn't to me. It's just communists vs liberals rather than left vs right.

[-] jerdle_lemmy@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

As someone with similar views, I recently realised that I have the exact same tribalism and aggression, it's just targeted at people who have that mentality.

[-] jerdle_lemmy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Exactly. Blame/credit (blame in this case) doesn't travel that way.

Take the following example: Alice and Bob both support view X. Bob also supports view Y. Y is evil. Then, Bob can be deemed responsible for supporting view Y. But X does not become evil because Bob is. And so Alice is completely fine.

[-] jerdle_lemmy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Hell, "gaslighting" itself is a good example of this phenomenon, and it's mostly on the left.

[-] jerdle_lemmy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Nah, it's probably because most of us left Reddit at some point, either due to banning left-wing subs or due to corporate dickery.

The right-wingers went their way, to places like Voat, Saidit, Gab and Truth Social.

[-] jerdle_lemmy@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Finally. There you are. I've faced so many left-wing schmucks, I was wondering where the right-wing ones had gone.

But you're still a schmuck. Leftists don't want children to grow up to be vile.

[-] jerdle_lemmy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

If you want to link me to an author I don't recognise, you'll have to try harder than Luxemburg!

[-] jerdle_lemmy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I'm pretty sure that's what they mean.

12
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by jerdle_lemmy@lemmy.world to c/fediverse@lemmy.world

I'm aware that many Soapbox instances are somewhat controversial. Is this to the extent that any Soapbox instance would have the same reputation?

view more: next ›

jerdle_lemmy

joined 1 year ago