My point was it doesn’t matter if it’s true or not for it to still be incel propaganda. If 99/100 cases of domestic violence are done by insecure men but a group only focuses on the 1/100, it’s still true that it happened, but the propaganda is in what is chosen to be focused on.
propaganda can still be true and just a matter of what you choose to focus on.
Power outage at the grocery store. Big day for me.
Pshh, you have to imagine? I’ve lived it buddy.
Because all of these things take place in a world’s history of context, I don’t agree it suggests they are just as likely to pollute.
I think all political systems have the propensity to pollute, especially with the energy availability of fossil fuels, but where I would disagree and why I think it’s isn’t a good faith argument is that you’re framing China as trying to catch up in per capita pollution when they are so very clearly not given the amount of work they are doing solar, nuclear, railroads, EVs.
I also agree that this is not exclusively altruism, and that divorcing themselves from oil is also a means to disconnect the global economy from the petrodollar, but I don’t really see this as a point against it.
I mean that still dodges the point but to yours, I don’t ignore the history, I think the actions and rapid industrialization of the USSR and China lead to incomprehensible suffering. I also don’t think it’s a valid comparison especially given the modern context has China doing a lot of work in the global transition to renewables.
As with almost every statistic, if you’re not measuring per capita, your basically just measuring population. Convenient blindness to that suggests you’re acting in bad faith.
Just seeing how you act in this thread I don’t trust your view of those interactions, and your mod logs help confirm my hesitancy.
Seems like you lack communications skills and are upset at others for it.
Per capita, or are you just trying to be snarky? Because I believe Qatar, and religious monarchy, but I don’t think that’s the answer your fishing for.
It does not matter if the person is 97% in agreement with them, that 3% makes them a “liberal” which really is just a way to say “conservative” to those who hurl that label like a slur.
I feel like I so often see this sentiment from folks that I disagree with much more than 3%. I’ve had this ~3% reference genocide, foreign policy, the carceral state, education, economics, immigration, transportation, food, housing, healthcare, and more. The article we are having a conversation about is detailing the ways the current hegomonic global economic system, neoliberal capitalism, is failing to contend with the scientific reality of it’s consumption and practices. I, as a communist, have criticism of those that put profit over the only life sustaining planet we know of. With the realities of the climate science, the liberals of our neoliberal capitalist economy are not doing enough to stop the expansion of fossil fuels and are on track to lead us to ecological devastation.
Sorry not sorry if the choice words for those diving us to mass death for personal gain hurt your feelings.
lowkey sadam hussein hiding spot?
Holy shit guys I think I know German
issued the scathing reprimand
Whooo boy, words like you wouldn’t believe.
On the internet? Without some sort of indicator??
A precarious choice.
Oh? Care to help me understand why you think that?