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.
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.
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).
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).
Climate change will not cause human extinction. Even the worst predictions aren’t close to extinction level. There’s 8 billion of us and we have technology.
Climate change will cause bad shit to happen. It already has. But bad shit is not the same as extinction.
There’s no use arguing with Lenins2ndCat. I’ve argued with them before, and they already know they’re right despite any arguments or evidence to the contrary.
Then don’t call it communism.
If a vaguely populist leader started outright talking about supporting fascism, that would quite rightly bring to mind at least Italian Fascism if not German Nazism, and arguing that they just meant the idea of close mutual support and people being stronger together (like a fasces) would not work.
I mean, it’s pretty damn low though.
Wow, I disagree with every single word of this. You seem to be saying that it’s worth sacrificing liberal rights to attack the right (which you are falsely claiming to be fascists - fascism is a specific ideology, not just an insult for anyone on the right). But in doing so, you become worse than the right.
As a social democrat, I am willing to support and ally with democratic socialists. While we have some differences, we’re both pulling in the same direction. Your revolutionary leftism, on the other hand, is further beyond the pale for me than any liberal ideology.
If this is what your project requires to succeed, then may your project fail.
While democratic socialism is a variety of socialism, Bernie isn’t really a democratic socialist, but a social democrat. Social democracy is the left of capitalism, which is right of socialism in any form.
Before some moron turns up, Nazism is not socialism.
The raised-arm salute isn’t inherently bad, it’s bad now because the Nazis did it. And so, America using a similar salute before the Nazis doesn’t mean America was as evil as the Nazis.
It’s no different in function from any other form of demonising the outgroup. It’s slightly less bad than some because your political views can change, but it’s still a sign of politics gone wrong.
I don’t mean my bootloader though. The UEFI menu can’t be accessed using the standard method of pressing a key.
Fucking up my UEFI on my laptop, making it difficult to boot into Linux.
Undoing that.
That’s definitely what it should mean. -oid means resembling or pertaining to, it’s not a diminutive.
It’s currently deemed a flawed democracy. That is, primarily democratic, but with some authoritarian or illiberal features.
Yeah, Lemmy doesn’t have everyone over from Reddit.
Disagreement isn’t misunderstanding.
Those of us who don’t think it would be disastrous have read the article.
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.