Right, but if you read the article it’s not “remotely related” but directly.
This is an article about climate change. And your comment comes incredibly close to the MAGA sanewashing we see regularly. I’m glad after this discussion to see you’re not a nutter, but the need to call your comment out still felt necessary.
Seems like a shame that it is so difficult to get past the assumption that someone is representing a generic political agenda by deploying empty rhetoric rather than raising a disagreement with the specific thing they said they object to from their own perspective.
It’s been a peeve of mine for many years - decades, probably, as long as I can recall - for people in discussions like this to equate the end of their comfortable familiar current lifestyle with the literal end of the world, or the end of the human species. And then when I point out that those things are not equivalent, to flip immediately to “oh, so you’re saying there’s no problem at all?”
It’s all or nothing, black or white, absolute catastrophe or life without a care. Neither extreme is useful. How are we supposed to accomplish anything without recognizing nuance? That’s not “sanewashing”, that’s trying to be rational.
That’s fair. Nihlism and accelerationists are very irritating in a scientific setting. But I would also say Lemmy is not likely to only have logic and reasoning behind most comments.
Right, but if you read the article it’s not “remotely related” but directly.
This is an article about climate change. And your comment comes incredibly close to the MAGA sanewashing we see regularly. I’m glad after this discussion to see you’re not a nutter, but the need to call your comment out still felt necessary.
Seems like a shame that it is so difficult to get past the assumption that someone is representing a generic political agenda by deploying empty rhetoric rather than raising a disagreement with the specific thing they said they object to from their own perspective.
It’s been a peeve of mine for many years - decades, probably, as long as I can recall - for people in discussions like this to equate the end of their comfortable familiar current lifestyle with the literal end of the world, or the end of the human species. And then when I point out that those things are not equivalent, to flip immediately to “oh, so you’re saying there’s no problem at all?”
It’s all or nothing, black or white, absolute catastrophe or life without a care. Neither extreme is useful. How are we supposed to accomplish anything without recognizing nuance? That’s not “sanewashing”, that’s trying to be rational.
That’s fair. Nihlism and accelerationists are very irritating in a scientific setting. But I would also say Lemmy is not likely to only have logic and reasoning behind most comments.