I agree with you in the general but both-siding at the present time when one side is engaging in egregious behavior and lies constantly to make the other side as crazy as they are themselves sounds like an attempt at avoiding accountability.
It's not the few green militant's fault if one side is denying and attacking science, the same way it's not a few crazy leftists' fault if one side is trying to undermine the rule of law and the constitutional order in order to cling to power.
See what I am doing ? I admitting that there are a few nutcases on my side. You ? You are just issuing a blanket defense of everyone on your side (in another comment) including the most egregious (Musk) while pretending to be in the center.
I am tired of all those fake centrists. "Sure he led a conspiracy to overturn the result of an election but on the other hand remember when Hillary called us deplorables ?"
I'm honestly less interested in accountability than in doing something about climate change. If I could solve global warming by giving Elon an extra trillion dollars, I would. If I could solve global warming by giving Trump 4 more unconstitutional years, I probably maybe would (but it would kill me).
My argument is simple:
1. Not enough people support climate action.
2. We've tried demonizing people who don't support climate action and that hasn't worked--it only made them support it less.
3. Therefore, try the opposite: give people an incentive for supporting climate action. That means allying with political opponents, such as Elon or supporters of natural gas, or rich corporations. The broader the base of support for climate action, the easier it is to pass climate action legislation.
Most people would agree that drug dealers hold more moral responsibility for delivering a product that they know is highly addictive but on the other hand no one would absolve an addict of any responsibility. Even you think addiction is a illness, we still expect people to help themselves by deciding to get help/seek treatment to fight the addiction.
This sounds sensible in isolation, but the real analogy is that the drug dealers have spent billions of dollars convincing the general public that drugs are healthy and better than the alternative of sobriety.
And also, when I go to the store to buy my daily needs like food and soap, they’re all packaged in the drugs.
Oh and I have to consume the drugs to get to the store because there’s no safe way to get there on foot or on a bike, and there’s no bus or train service because someone at GM/Ford paid my representatives to not fund that.
Then when I take my used drugs to the drug recycling center, they don’t actually get recycled because it isn’t profitable. But my recycling agency tells me that all my drugs get reused.
Seriously, just watch a paper towel ad or something. They act like it’s impossible to clean up a spill with something reusable.
Enjoyed reading your comment but the fact that it's more environmental than it is biological (is it though ? Isn't comfort appreciation biological too ?) doesn't change the moral calculation of my analogy which imho still holds: Quitting drugs is hard but it needs the addict's involvement
No what's crazy is that something as apolitical as "many scientists specialized in climate have come to the conclusion" was successfully turned into something political thanks to a now well proven denialist playbook. We really need to stop both-siding that kind of thing. One side just said "We should do something about it to save us all" and the other side tried to come up with anything that could make them look evil but in the end what worked was bypassing reason entirely with this new thing called identity politics.
Elon Musk is a half-closeted white supremacist, he was always going to side with Trump. I don't mean that as an insult, this is just what I could gather from his tweets, preoccupations and "roman" salutes.
> If we had created a broad-based constituency for climate action, say, working with industry to build nuclear power or supporting natural gas to displace coal or even funding more conservative think tanks, then we'd be in better shape.
Or those conservatives could have come up with their own version of tackling the issue: nuclear and gas displacing coal. Some of them did I believe, it's just not the version who won in the end. It seems strange to blame the other side for their own "aesthetic" preferences (i.e renewables)
I really don't mean to start a flamewar but your comment gives me the vibe of "I became a nazi because my daughter wanted me to sort my trash" meme or something of the genre where there is no accountability and you are always just reacting to the wrongs of the other side.
I think people who care about climate change should stop doing things that don't work (or even make the problem worse). Demonizing Elon, demonizing nuclear power, demonizing natural gas, forcing people to cut back, supporting de-growth: none of these things have worked to stop climate change. Maybe we should try something different.
Unless, of course, the goal isn't to solve climate change but to demonize Elon. In that case, well done!
I would love to take the bait to talk about how Elon is very good at demonizing himself and does not need anyone to do it for him but I don't care that much about Elon as I care about climate change.
I would like to agree with you but saying "the people who care about that issue are irrational and should be doing X instead of Y" should not be used in defense of "I will deny the issue even exists and attack anyone who tries to alert about the issue"
That was my whole point and you missed it apparently. You just reformulated yours.
I think your argument is that allying with people who deny climate change is not going to fix the climate.
But this reminds me of the Israeli leader who was asked, "How can you sign a treaty with [the PLO, I think], they are your enemy!" And he replied, "You don't sign treaties with friends. You only need them with enemies."
If the political constituency for climate action were large enough, then we would have done something already. So we have to start pulling other people into the coalition.
People who oppose climate action are on a continuum. Some are climate change deniers and cannot be persuaded. But many would absolutely support climate action if the costs to them were low enough. Many more would stop opposing climate action if they got something that they wanted in exchange.
I have always heard that the 2fa verification really depended on the vendor actually doing that auth so I always scrape the 3 verification number (what is it for anyways ?) at the back of my card. It's just 3 numbers after all.
It's mandatory by law, and it's additionally to the 3 numbers at the back of the card.
Usually it works by confirming or denying the transaction on the App of your Issuing bank
If the drug has a relatively low marginal cost of production, and the stomach just breaks down 99% of it without side effects, you can just manufacture 100x more, give it orally, and eat the cost of the 99% that gets lost along the way.
Injectable Semaglutide/Tirzepatide (>99.8% pure) are currently sold at a profit from China for around $2-3/weekly dose. Rybelsus (oral semaglutide) is sold at roughly the same cost per milligram, even though it's made in FDA-approved facilities (you just need to take >= 40x more milligrams per month, bringing it to $1000/month in the USA)
So manufacturing oral doses 100x higher than injectable seems to be economically viable.
Although that may be a lack of historical knowledge on my part, Lenin does not strike me as suffering from a thirst of power but as sincere ideologue (in rare combination with a good dose of pragmatism, see his critique and later repression of "leftists" and his adoption of the NEP)
But that "pragmatism" as you put it is exactly my point. A true ideologue would have realized the revolutionaries in Kronstadt had created a system more in line with the ideals of the revolution than what he had created and woouldn't have set the army out to destroy them. nor would he have introduced the NEP (basically a limited re-introduction of capitalism to save the faltering Soviet economy). In the end, the important thing to Lenin was Lenin -- not any ideology.
Sure but the first was arguably unreasonable and the second one was omg are you f@##%&@ kidding me, didn't you see the video about a peppered sprayed guy on his belly on the ground then not possibly brandishing with no gun since it had just been removed from him ?
It's fine to make reasonable sounding comments but for the love of God, a bit honesty wouldn't kill you.
"The party told you to ignore the evidence you see with your own ears and eyes*
reply