Author Topic: True Left breakthrough: seriousness in environmentalism  (Read 1556 times)

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11039
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
"the only people talking about it are rightists"

We are people too!

"eco-fascist"

We proudly embrace this name for ourselves:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/plebian-hubris/msg16715/#msg16715

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/green-wave/msg15586/#msg15586

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/true-left-breakthrough-seriousness-in-environmentalism/msg10452/#msg10452

"Is there a way we can reclaim this talking point, and make it distinctly leftist? It wasn’t until after the industrial revolution did the population start to really creep up, so the real blame still lies with the west and the countries that adopted westernisation."

This is the way!

"But because worries of overpopulation are directed towards ‘non-white’ countries i.e. China and India, it’s ‘non-whites’ who get all the blame"

The populations of China, India, etc. are indeed too high. At the same time as we encourage state control over reproduction, we also encourage mass emigration from these countries into the former Western colonial powers which caused the problem in the first place:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/issues/population-and-demographics/msg6837/#msg6837

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/issues/climate-refugees/msg10011/?topicseen#msg10011

It is only fair that the former Western colonial powers be required to absorb the excess population of these countries above their respective pre-industrial carrying capacities.

HikariDude

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 103
    • View Profile
Don't forget the rightists who blame Christians and Muslims for overpopulation, then contrast them with Jews considering them "minorities." Judaism is responsible for the root of the problem you're discussing:



As NuminousSun (now guest5 and maybe NSFAN) said, Jesus and Mohammed never cared about gaining massive support.
The reason why there's so many Christians and Muslims is because anyone can follow the example of individuals like Jesus and Mohammed.

Also the reason why Judaism has fewer people is because being Jewish isn't even on faith (non-physical trait) but on physical traits like bloodline and tribalism. Not to mention that it's difficult to convert.

The fact that Judaism encourages its distinct quote (mentioned above) is the root of why so many people existed, corrupting the planet.

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11039
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
https://www.yahoo.com/news/keto-diet-worst-diet-both-180936920.html

Quote
The keto diet, a low-carb and high-fat eating plan despised by nutritionists, is not only bad for your body, according to recent research findings — it's also bad for the environment.

Researchers at Tulane University ranked six popular ways of eating, including the keto diet, according to their average nutritional value and environmental impact. Their findings, published March 1 in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, showed a correlation between healthy eating and low carbon emissions.

While the study didn't touch on every diet trend, the researchers considered the daily diets of more than 16,000 adults surveyed between 2005 and 2010. Then, they split the individual data into six diet groups: keto, paleo, vegan, vegetarian, pescetarian, and omnivore.

They found that the average keto eater generates almost 3 kg of carbon dioxide for every 1,000 calories consumed — that's four times the carbon footprint of a similarly-sized vegan plate.
...
Food systems account for more than one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to a UN-backed study published in 2021.

Going keto requires dieters to consume about 70% of their calories from fat and almost no carbohydrates, so many followers of the diet opt for animal products with high amounts of fat and protein.

Beef production is a major driver of carbon emissions, so the researchers weren't surprised that the keto diet had the largest carbon footprint of the diets studied.

The keto diet was followed by paleo, a regimen based on what humans were thought to eat before farming. The diet cuts out grains and legumes in favor of lean meats; fruits, vegetables, nuts, and seeds also make an appearance on the paleo plate. The ancient eating plan was associated with 2.6 kg of carbon dioxide per 1,000 calories consumed.

On the other end of the spectrum, the vegan diet was associated with the least amount of greenhouse gas emissions.
...
The authors concluded that if just a third of the study's omnivores began following a vegetarian diet, it would be equivalent to eliminating 340 million passenger vehicle miles on an average day.

We are just better.

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11039
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2023/03/07/news/white-men-super-spreaders-climate-denialism

Quote
White men are the super spreaders of climate denialism
...
Researchers have found a tight relationship between harmful forms of masculinity, right-wing extremism and the refusal to deal with the climate crisis. Fostered by the fossil fuel industry, this confluence has been dubbed "petro-masculinity" by Cara Daggett, a Virginia Tech professor and climate sociologist, to describe a form of masculinity where using fossil fuels is a way to express an individualistic and patriarchal type of masculinity.

Symbols of petro-masculinity, like souped-up trucks and highly gendered divisions of labour, show up repeatedly in climate disinformation where they simultaneously hinder climate action and fuel authoritarianism. Environmentalists and politicians must consider this mindset in their efforts to tackle the climate crisis, gender inequality and political polarization, she said.

Fossil fuels provide petrol and plastic. But for some people — particularly white, conservative, North American men — they underpin culture, she explained. Measures to phase them out in the face of climate catastrophe can easily be perceived as a threat to these people's sense of culture and self-worth, imposed by a vague group of elites. These perceptions serve to make climate action a political hot potato.

"We've seen … the climate denial groups morph into (misogyny) seamlessly, in a way that indicates it's a core value," explained Michael Khoo, a strategic communications expert and former lead campaigner for Greenpeace Canada. "A lot of those groups have been part of building the infrastructure of the radical right-wing, which is now an amorphous hotbed of vitriol that has taken on energy policy as a core tenet."
...
Recent years have seen Peterson increasingly delve into the climate change conversation, largely by denying it exists and presenting erroneous pseudo-science to back up his claims. Take recent tweets promoting a pro-fossil fuel lobbyist or falsely suggesting climate measures will allow "tyrants" to take away people's "cars," "flights," or "luxury."
...
Senior researcher Cosmin Dzsurdza regularly attacks climate action — most recently plans to reduce emissions from fertilizer, bolstering months of disinformation and conspiracy theories — and progressive gender politics. A 2019 Canada's National Observer investigation uncovered that he has strong links to far-right groups.

Still, University of Regina climate sociologist Emily Eaton warned that while Peterson and his ilk take “up a lot of room and [do] a lot of damage," the fossil fuel industry poses an equal, or larger, threat.

"Behind the scenes, the industry has been working at ensuring their workers identify with a suite of things that are highly masculinized," like big trucks and "hard work" in the oilpatch, she explained. Peterson is "reflecting back something deeper and much more grassroots" that has been fostered by oil and gas companies and lobby groups for decades.

The fossil fuel industry "very knowingly" ties its products to nostalgia for a post-Second World War society where fossil fuels and patriarchy dominate, she said. Take a recent ad for a job at Suncor's Port Moody, B.C. marine terminal, where a short video touting the company's history extracting oil in northern Alberta frames its first refinery as "historic" and a "leap of faith" towards what former Alberta premier Ernest Manning dubbed the "continual progress and enrichment of mankind."

...
"Losing oil is seen as a threat to that way of life — and it is," particularly for white men in industries linked to fossil fuels, she said. Governments and environmentalists need to acknowledge this, she added, and devise ways to tackle the cultural and economic shifts it entails.

Environmentalism should be openly, explicitly and proudly anti-Western.

Veganism

  • Guest
Here's why we need to rethink veganism
Quote
A brief climate change video essay on the environmental impacts of veganism, and how we can reframe going vegan less as a lifestyle and more as an aspiration. While eating a plant-based diet does greatly reduce your carbon footprint due to the meat industry's rampant fossil fuels use, going vegan is sometimes not accessible to all.


Comments:

Quote
People everywhere need to follow the world-class role-model of Greta Thunberg who is vegan first and foremost for ethical reasons. We need a vegan world PDQ including for climate/environment, human health, world hunger, and world peace reasons. There are zero non-vegan environmentalists and zero non-vegan feminists. All people can be vegan. Evil traditions must end.
Quote
The food desert issue (fresh produce) is a problem regardless of being vegan. Beans are as readily available as hotdogs in corner stores and dollar stores. I say this as someone who is disabled, has experienced the food desert, and has to eat plant-based for my health. Beans have always been the poor man's protein. But everyone needs fresh fruits and veggies for good health, even meat-eaters.

Also, this video overestimates the amount of native land for grazing. Most of the land used for grazing was deforested decades ago, it's nearly all overgrazed, and would be better returned to nature. If truly natural pastures and hunting of overpopulated animals were the only sources of meat for consumption, then the consumption of meat would reduce 95-99%.
Quote
"Meat alternatives are expensive." HAVE I BEEN UNDERPAYING FOR BEANS!?
Quote
The reason "specialty" vegan products like tomatoes (lol) are more expensive than a McDonalds cheeseburger has everything to do with what industries the government is subsidizing — and that can change.
Quote
You can be vegan/vegetarian without spending lots of moiney on expensive substitutes. Also, if healthier foods and local produce were subsidized the same way livestock production is, it would be far more accessible than it currently is
Quote
"Traditions are just peer pressure from dead relatives" Obviously there's good traditions but there's horrible ones too that just need to go
Quote
another thing we need to put more emphasis on is eating locally and seasonally grown vegetables & fruit
Quote
I dont understand the point about using land efficiently in the US. 80% of plant food we grow here is used to feed livestock. Thats a huge middleman we would be cutting.
Quote
I am vegan myself and think there can be an all or nothing tendancy. So many people say "I would go vegan but for cheese" In that case then eat cheese and have the rest of your diet be plant based
Quote
The I "am" vegan is so paper thin. People are just as offended if I say "I don't eat animals." The guilt on their part is the problem, not our semantics.
Quote
We don't stay vegan for the environment though. Once you value animal life it's extremely hard to go back

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11039
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
At last!

https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/watch-live-mayor-eric-adams-makes-climate-and-food-related-announcement-from-nyc-health-hospitals-culinary-center/

Quote
NEW YORK -- Mayor Eric Adams wants New Yorkers to eat less meat to help combat climate change.

"Food is the third-biggest source of cities' emissions right after buildings and transportation. But all food is not created equal. The vast majority of food that is contributing to our emission crises lies in meat and dairy products," Adams said.

According to new data released by the city, 20% of the Big Apple's greenhouse gas emissions come from food production and consumption. The mayor is now vowing to reduce the city's food-based emissions at agencies by 33% in the next seven years and challenging the private sector to follow suit.

How our enemies are reporting the story:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/04/nycs-vegan-mayor-eric-adams-to-limit-amount-of-meat-people-can-eat-to-combat-climate-change/

Quote
Last year children in New York City schools, who were already subjected to “Meatless Mondays” were also forced to participate in “Vegan Fridays.”

NYC Mayor Eric Adams forced his vegan diet (doesn’t consume any animal products) of vegetables and fake meat and bean slop onto children.
...
Last year Adams said he wants all New Yorkers to join the vegan cult.

“I’ve got to get New Yorkers to eat a plant-based centered life,” Adams said last February.
...
Eric Adams wants all New Yorkers to adopt his nutrient-deficient vegan diet and if they don’t, he will do it by force.

Sounds good to me.

antihellenistic

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
    • View Profile
Hitler always serious on environmentalism


christianbethel

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 430
  • Location: Miami, FL, USA
    • View Profile
Re: China: The ocean is not Japan's trash can
« Reply #37 on: May 09, 2023, 06:30:31 pm »
The irony of the only country to be nuked (twice) now resorting to nuclear pollution... This is what happens when a non-Western country develops a colonial mindset due to American occupation.
National Socialism ≠ Nazism

Aryan ≠ 'White'.

Race = Quality && Race ≠ Ethnicity.

History is written by the victors.

The truth fears no investigation.

(He) who controls the past controls the future; (he) who controls the present controls the past.

UNITY THROUGH NOBILITY.

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11039
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile

guest98

  • Guest
Re: Western Democracy
« Reply #39 on: July 26, 2023, 04:53:41 pm »
https://thewire.in/environment/london-calling-climate-rishi-sunak-conservative

Can Democracy Deal With the Climate Apocalypse?

Quote

It feels like apocalypse now!

Floods, storms, heatwaves, wildfires, crop failures and melting ice caps. Natural disasters happen now and again. But not like this. Climate change is all around us, in every continent. It’s by far the biggest existential crisis our planet faces. And what, exactly, are we doing about it?

It’s not simply our problem; it’s our fault.

Everyone knows this, but there’s not much urgency in taking action to reduce our carbon emissions. For politicians, there’s the perpetual temptation to take the course of least resistance – because they will be long gone before the full scale of the disaster is evident. And voters tend to duck the immediate pain of tackling global warming in favour of a softer, more gradual, ‘let’s not panic just yet’ approach. Democracy may well be the best form of government – but it isn’t always at its best in dealing with ‘slow burn’ problems.

Both main British political parties are getting nervous all-of-a-sudden about championing the green agenda.

All political observers thought – given the unpopularity of Rishi Sunak’s Conservative government – that this would be an easy Labour victory. They were wrong.

The reason: the Labour Mayor of London is about to introduce a daily charge of about Rs 1,250 for anyone driving an old and high polluting car or van anywhere in the capital. That’s on top of the Rs 1,500 ‘congestion charge’ that any vehicle owner has to pay for every day they bring their car into central London.

The new charge would affect about one-in-ten of those cars and vans currently in use. The aim is to force dirtier cars off the road, and so reduce air pollution and cut carbon emissions. But the people who drive these older cars are exactly those who can’t afford to trade up to something newer and cleaner. And the wider sense that Labour is penalising ordinary people to promote climate change goals which many see more as desirable than essential is eating into their support in the areas of outer London that will be most affected.

The Labour Party seems to be taking note that bold moves to address climate change which hit its supporters in the wallet will make it harder for them to win the next election.

the Conservatives have had – for a right-of-centre pro-market party – a creditable record on environmental issues. But some within their ranks are urging the party to abandon ‘costly and unpopular’ green policies.

Rishi Sunak is not an enthusiastic environmentalist. He’s not a climate change denier, but just doesn’t see the issue as a priority. He may well be tempted to back-pedal on carbon emission measures in his increasingly desperate search for votes. 

It’s difficult to see where that leadership will now come from. After all, a young Swedish woman, Greta Thunberg, has done more to alert the world to the perils of global warming than all our elected leaders combined.

While we all waste time, the crisis becomes ever more profound. And if we slide into a climate meltdown, that will be a disgrace for democracy and our collective failure.



90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11039
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
It continues to baffle me why even the need for at least ecofascism is not understood by so many leftists. The logic could not be simpler:

1) The majority care more about maintaining their First World lifestyle than about it being the cause of global warming.

2) Only a minority care about global warming enough to voluntarily give up the First World lifestyle.

3) Given 1) and 2), relying on voluntary rejection of First World lifestyle will be insufficient to counter global warming.

4) Given 3), to successfully counter global warming will require state-imposed prohibition of First World lifestyle.

5) Such prohibition will never be voted for by the majority in 1).

antihellenistic

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
    • View Profile
Re: Climate refugees
« Reply #41 on: August 09, 2023, 07:31:34 am »

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11039
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Who is a better mayor: Adams ( https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/china-the-ocean-is-not-japan's-trash-can/msg18960/#msg18960 ) or Khan?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/no-meat-no-dairy-three-103814079.html

Quote
No meat, no dairy and three outfits a year: Welcome to Sadiq Khan’s plan for London
...
This is the radical vision of a net zero future dreamed up by C40, a global collective of city mayors chaired by Sadiq Khan, which advocates extreme measures to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and limit global temperature increases to 1.5C.

The Mayor of London is, of course, no stranger to pushing the dial on climate change. His unrelenting expansion of the Ulez ultra low emissions zone in August faced down major criticism from affected businesses, disadvantaged citizens and vigilante vandals.

Khan is showing no signs of slowing down: this week, plans were unveiled to lower the speed limit to 20mph on a further 40 miles of roads in London, the capital’s largest-ever rollout to date.
...
Citizens’ consumption habits were its central focus
...
Its more radical suggestions involved no less than: the abolition of private vehicles; the prohibition of meat and dairy consumption; the rationing of new items of clothing to three each per year; and the restriction of short-haul return flights to one every three years.

It also proposed slashing the use of steel and cement in construction

Still not enough, but at least better than all the Westerners who think the solution is in adding even more machines, such as the following specimen of Western inferiority:

Quote
“Fresh from imposing misery on motorists through his draconian Ulez expansion, Sadiq Khan appears to be conspiring new ways to make people’s lives miserable,” says Craig Mackinlay, the Tory MP who chairs the net zero scrutiny group in parliament.

“I’ve really had enough of this authoritarian, miserabilist approach to net zero. What we need is for technology and innovation to allow people to become more prosperous and greener at the same time; not poorer, colder and hungrier.”

I am going to start proudly calling myself a miserabilist from now on.  8)

https://ochd.co.uk/db/ore/MobileCharacterPage.php?char=154001010

But back to Khan's superiority:

Quote
According to staff profiles on C40’s website, it employs 279 people outside of this management team, all of whom are subject to a stringent eco-friendly office regime. Internal staff documents ban the use of paper, even for note-taking and to-do lists, as well as printing using coloured ink or on just one side.

Flights and taxis can only be justified in “exceptional circumstances”, additional time off in lieu is given to staff who are forced to travel long distances by train instead, and conferences and events should aim to only provide vegetarian and vegan catering.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2023, 05:40:10 pm by 90sRetroFan »

FakeOptimism

  • Guest
No, Kurzgesagt, We WON'T Fix Climate Change - The Danger of Fake Optimism
Quote
A rebuttal to Kurzgesagt's misleading video about 'staying hopeful' on climate change.


Comments:

Quote
BadEmpanada
1 year ago (edited)

My original response to Kurzgesagt's comment (which is still somewhere down below) was auto-deleted by youtube. I'm reposting the original exchange here.  YouTube keeps auto-deleting EVEN MY OWN COMMENTS on my channel.

Kurzgesagt's comment:

"Not going to reply to this video as you have made up your mind anyway (also ignored our 65 page source document with further reading https://sites.google.com/view/sources-can-we-fix-climate/).

Just wanted to comment on something wrong you said: We have no investors. Kurzgesagt is an independent channel and is almost entirely viewer funded. We do not rely on sponsors like Gates to keep the lights on. Although we have worked with them and other sponsors from time to time because it makes things safer, which is important if you want to pay your team fair wages. Kurzgesagt the sort of small business you should be rooting for.

You fundamentally get something wrong here: Pandering to the world view of a sponsor makes no sense if you consider the economics of it. While the Gates sponsorships were helpful, the amount we got over multiple years, is not that much if you need to pay 50 people (seriously, do the math). Gates Organizations payed us not nearly enough for us to do their bidding, or to motivate us to please them. For example, Brilliant alone (who also sponsored the video you criticized) funded us to a much, much larger degree than Gates, as did Skillshare or other organizations. But mainly, our viewers fund us through Patreon and our shop.

You don't understand the economics of small businesses or of channels with large teams on Youtube. If we wanted to sell out, this would be a really bad and inefficient way to do it. Crafting a deliberate propaganda piece with lies, sponsored by a Learning Website, just to please an organization that is currently not funding us is frankly conspiracy theory wackiness."

My response:

"You accuse me of making up my mind, but you've made up yours - you reiterate the same point as in the video. 'Doomerism is bad!' - it's really hardly even a thing, and you never demonstrate that it is much of one. Worse, there's not a single government in the world with the stance of 'climate change is real and caused by humans but we can't stop it so let's do nothing'. It is completely non-existent as a relevant political current, it has absolutely zero influence. So the video is underpinned by a strawman, which it then uses as an excuse to peddle fake optimism. Those who acknowledge the true extent of climate change which you gloss over are the ones doing the most to fight it - even imperfect groups like Extinction Rebellion engaging in direct action are heroes in comparison to a channel spreading the notion of 'the market'll fix it.'

Firstly, it's completely ridiculous that the single mention of your Gates Foundation 'grant' is what you chose to single out. The money you received from Gates was not mentioned until 53 minutes into a 66 minute video. You look at this single mention of this fact, which was intentionally (as stated in the video!) left until the conclusion to avoid muddying the waters, and dishonestly spin that into the idea that I'm peddling a conspiracy theory that Gates controls you. Even though in the video I mentioned NOTHING MORE than the idea that Gates gave you this money because the arguments presented in your videos are useful for protecting & furthering his interests, which is just uncontroversially true - that is why any individual or organization gives out no-questions-asked funding, because they think the receiver is doing something that they agree with. At no point was it ever even remotely implied that you made this video at the behest of Bill Gates, I am in fact 100% sure you didn't and made that clear in the video. This part of the video is actually just completely unimportant to its arguments and it would have practically been the same if I'd never even mentioned it. You focusing on this is a cop-out that is not only false, but you're using it to avoid addressing the actual arguments put forth in the video, instead trying to paint it as merely presenting a conspiracy theory.

I'm sure you have no 'investors', by the technical meaning of the term, *now*, but you absolutely had them earlier - they're what made your channel a viable enterprise in the first place. $600,000 goes a long way to building up a base. You can talk about the semantics of a 'grant' vs an 'investment', but functionally they're the same: someone like Bill Gates doesn't need to invest for profits, he needs to invest to influence policy. Investment (or a 'grant') in a YouTube channel that spreads the sorts of economic policies he supports is just as important to the performance of his portfolio as investment to gain a more direct profit. If I got a $600,000 investment I could turn my channel into a multi-million dollar enterprise within a few years, anyone can do it. You discounting it is reminscent of the classic Trump line 'just a small loan of a million dollars'. Most people could do a whole lot with a million dollars. I make these videos on $1,500 a month entirely alone, give me $600,000 and I can hire enough help to make an hour long video every week with 5x the quality, which will exponentionally increase channel growth over the course of 7 years (the time since your grant). Tell me that I don't know how to run a business all you want - but the reason I'm not getting the $$$ from monopolists like you to kickstart my channel is because my ideas won't make them money. You know 'how to run a business' in the sense that you know how to say things that appealed to the right people, that's really it. Me (one person) and your business actually make money in the exact same way, through making YouTube videos, so I understand it perfectly, thank you very much. You merely hire others to do most of the work for you, something which you can only do now due to the initial $$$ you had years ago.

As for how you have been influenced by Gates, why he funded you, etc? The way capitalist propaganda generally works, outside of the most direct organizations such as think-tanks, is through funding/hiring those who are already saying the sorts of things that benefit capitalists. So the reason you got your big funding windfall from Gates is because he liked what you were saying, he thought that it aligned with his overall goals which undeniably involve maintaining the very system that got him to where he is today. This creates a further incentive structure for you (or anyone else - I'm not just singling you out here) to continue to spread the same sorts of ideas. Gates may not have sponsored you any more than his 'small loan' of just $600,000, but others like him doubtlessly have since, and the audience which has already been primed to be inclined to such narratives through the hegemonic nature of this sort of propaganda just give you even more of an incentive to keep at it. It pays to tell people that the status quo is (mostly) fine, that the system can handle the problem. That's half true, the system could potentially handle the problem (and my proposed solutions here are actually entirely capitalist ones, since state companies and nationalizations have and do exist under capitalism. My proposals are New Deal style, not new innovations), but people like Gates are preventing us from doing so. Yet I don't think you'd ever get into that.

Feel free to prove me wrong in your follow-up video, that would be a very welcome surprise. It would be very important for a channel with 20 million subscribers to come out and advocate for nationalizations and public ownership of manufacturing to fight climate change.

BTW, you say I ignored your source document? No, I address it in the video, actually. And plopping up a bunch of sources in a disorderly fashion without even using them to support your argument is not a cop out. Do you see how I cite my sources IN THE VIDEO ITSELF? More of them than you, despite being one person on a shoestring budget? That's how you do it. Just putting a list of next to no context sources in a Google Doc without actually explaining how they fit into your overarching arguments and the points you're making is very dishonest, it's a way to say 'look at all these things that I say prove me right, when I don't actually explain how, yet which I curiously didn't actually put in the video itself.' Just saying 'I have sources' is also pretty useless against my response. I barely even contested the veracity of your individual statements, I contested how you utilise them. You might have a source that proves that light bulbs are becoming more efficient - and? Your argument was that this is a sign of progress towards fighting climate change, which is a massive logical leap from the actual fact. That's just one example but it is an accurate characterisation of how you utilised your sources here."

Quote
"Some will not survive" -Kurzgesagt
This line made me crack up. Total "some of you will die but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make" energy.
Quote
We called it inverse paranoia back in the 80s. "The pathological belief that everything will be fine."

Alot of the people that will die come from parts of the world that had nothing to do with the creation of the climate crisis...

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11039
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Who takes environmentalism seriously?



End democracy and start ecofascism now!