7 ms·

[flagged]

by showmexyz 1y ago

[flagged]

locopati 1y ago
[flagged]
- hagbard_c 1y ago
  An answer which fits both "sides" with each side claiming the other side is the one doing damage.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - sofixa 1y ago
    Only if you ignore reality and redefine science with an absurdly narrow definition (mostly focused on trans folks) and ignore everything else. One side claims absolutely ironclad proven wrong things like "ectopic pregnancies can just be moved and saved", "vaccines cause autism", but because they have a narrow interpretation of sex and gender, they think that allows them to claim "SCIENCE, BITCH". No, just no.
    - mandmandam 1y ago
      Corona conclusively proved that Democrats are every bit as capable of scientism as Republicans. People - even leading scientists - who questioned natural origin, mandatory lockdowns, school closures, vaccine effectiveness, or any of a dozen other narratives were demonized and attacked in the name of science. "Do your own research" became a phrase of mockery, while "trust 'the' science" was used as a thought terminating cliché. And neither party are really taking climate science seriously, it's just that one pays lip service a bit more.
      - watwut 1y ago
        This is just not true. School closures worked well for preventing spread. Vaccines actually solved the covid issue. Lockdowns did worked, actually. And no, there is no "both sides" on climate change. Republicans are actively trying to make it happen.
        mandmandam 1y ago
        You aren't engaging with any of my points, just repeating the dogma - which helps proves my point. > School closures worked well for preventing spread. Show me the data. And, at what cost? Was the juice worth the squeeze? ... How many teachers have you talked to lately? Because the universal consensus is that closures did serious damage, still being felt to this day. And it's an undeniable fact, that conversation (among many others) was heavily suppressed. Researchers who raised it were shadow-banned from Twitter, Facebook etc. That's not science, it's authoritarian dogma from an unaccountable political class. There were superior alternatives - putting air purifiers in classrooms would have been a big one. But we weren't permitted to even have that conversation. > Vaccines actually solved the covid issue. Or, basically everyone already got corona and now there's a level of herd immunity; like with every global pandemic ever. Did you see any data on this? Or are you 'trusting the science' which you haven't actually seen. > Lockdowns did worked, actually. Oh? So, you can point to countries where there were no lockdowns and they got torn apart, can you? ... Because researchers who have looked at that question say it isn't actually that clear [0]. The purpose of lockdowns was to slow the spread so that chronically underfunded and privatized healthcare systems wouldn't utterly collapse. Fair enough - but it wasn't presented that way, and investment in public health hasn't been improved since. Instead, most systems in the West seem stretched more than ever, while we have plenty of money for sending Israel bombs and weapons, or building concentration camps, or deporting people at ludicrous expense, etc. ... But that wasn't even what I was talking about - I was talking about how even questioning mandatory lockdowns was enough to make people lose their jobs, and get censored from mainstream and social media. It's not very scientific to censor scientists. > there is no "both sides" on climate change. Republicans are actively trying to make it happen. And Democrats pay lip service to stopping them, but don't seem very effective. And when something like Deepwater Horizon happens, or the DAPL protests, or support for fracking is an issue, where is the Dem leadership? Quietly backing the fossil fuel companies, every single time. What's needed is radical change, immediately. That's the view of basically every scientist. Democrats pretend not to understand that. It's nowhere near good enough, and I see no reason to expect change; not the slightest glimmer of hope for what's necessary. 0 - https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20250304-the-countries-that-never-locked-down-for-covid-19 https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20250304-the-countries-th...
ortusdux 1y ago
It became a 'wedge issue'. A common tactic in 2-party politics is for a campaign to push their candidate to become indistinguishable from their opponent, and then pick one issue that divides the voter base, hopefully in their favor. It has to be something that your party can rally around and their party can't compromise on. Conservatives are generally pro business and anti government regulation, while liberals are usually pro environment and regulation, hence the battle of climate change.
- watwut 1y ago
  > Conservatives are generally pro business and anti government regulation, Conservatives love government regulations. They do not like the kind of regulation that prevents frauds or prevents them from harming others. But, they like it when government regulates personal lives of their perceived enemies, protects large businesses at the expense of poorer people.
was8309 1y ago
the oil industry
spacemadness 1y ago
Part of it that the commenters so far missed is that to do anything about climate change will affect profits for the oil industry and cause corporations aplenty to have to come up with new manufacturing materials and processes. It also means consuming less. The solutions are seen as a threat to owners of capital who will fight until the earth is in flames to do anything about it. Our politicians and many media sources are owned by these people.
tastyface 1y ago
The US has two political parties of roughly equal size. One of those parties has gone completely off the rails into authoritarianism and science denial. Oligarchy is at the root of it: the barons can't sell "clean coal" and "drill, baby, drill" if climate change is seen to be tearing the world apart. Money über alles. You'd think most people would be repulsed by such a party, but turns out that humans have a neat little exploit! Due to the fact that the parties are completely entrenched and about equally as popular, people intrinsically assume that their policies also have equal merit. Hence our descent into shit.
krapp 1y ago
Basically, it started with Reagan[0] and the Republicans equating environmentalism with leftist (read - Communist, and therefore evil) agitation (through its links with feminism and the hippie/antiwar movement) in order to court business interests who favor deregulation and lax environmental standards. [0]https://www.vox.com/2017/4/22/15377964/republicans-environmentalism https://www.vox.com/2017/4/22/15377964/republicans-environme...

[flagged]

locopati 1y ago

[flagged]

hagbard_c 1y ago
An answer which fits both "sides" with each side claiming the other side is the one doing damage.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- sofixa 1y ago
  Only if you ignore reality and redefine science with an absurdly narrow definition (mostly focused on trans folks) and ignore everything else. One side claims absolutely ironclad proven wrong things like "ectopic pregnancies can just be moved and saved", "vaccines cause autism", but because they have a narrow interpretation of sex and gender, they think that allows them to claim "SCIENCE, BITCH". No, just no.
  - mandmandam 1y ago
    Corona conclusively proved that Democrats are every bit as capable of scientism as Republicans. People - even leading scientists - who questioned natural origin, mandatory lockdowns, school closures, vaccine effectiveness, or any of a dozen other narratives were demonized and attacked in the name of science. "Do your own research" became a phrase of mockery, while "trust 'the' science" was used as a thought terminating cliché. And neither party are really taking climate science seriously, it's just that one pays lip service a bit more.
    - watwut 1y ago
      This is just not true. School closures worked well for preventing spread. Vaccines actually solved the covid issue. Lockdowns did worked, actually. And no, there is no "both sides" on climate change. Republicans are actively trying to make it happen.
      - mandmandam 1y ago
        You aren't engaging with any of my points, just repeating the dogma - which helps proves my point. > School closures worked well for preventing spread. Show me the data. And, at what cost? Was the juice worth the squeeze? ... How many teachers have you talked to lately? Because the universal consensus is that closures did serious damage, still being felt to this day. And it's an undeniable fact, that conversation (among many others) was heavily suppressed. Researchers who raised it were shadow-banned from Twitter, Facebook etc. That's not science, it's authoritarian dogma from an unaccountable political class. There were superior alternatives - putting air purifiers in classrooms would have been a big one. But we weren't permitted to even have that conversation. > Vaccines actually solved the covid issue. Or, basically everyone already got corona and now there's a level of herd immunity; like with every global pandemic ever. Did you see any data on this? Or are you 'trusting the science' which you haven't actually seen. > Lockdowns did worked, actually. Oh? So, you can point to countries where there were no lockdowns and they got torn apart, can you? ... Because researchers who have looked at that question say it isn't actually that clear [0]. The purpose of lockdowns was to slow the spread so that chronically underfunded and privatized healthcare systems wouldn't utterly collapse. Fair enough - but it wasn't presented that way, and investment in public health hasn't been improved since. Instead, most systems in the West seem stretched more than ever, while we have plenty of money for sending Israel bombs and weapons, or building concentration camps, or deporting people at ludicrous expense, etc. ... But that wasn't even what I was talking about - I was talking about how even questioning mandatory lockdowns was enough to make people lose their jobs, and get censored from mainstream and social media. It's not very scientific to censor scientists. > there is no "both sides" on climate change. Republicans are actively trying to make it happen. And Democrats pay lip service to stopping them, but don't seem very effective. And when something like Deepwater Horizon happens, or the DAPL protests, or support for fracking is an issue, where is the Dem leadership? Quietly backing the fossil fuel companies, every single time. What's needed is radical change, immediately. That's the view of basically every scientist. Democrats pretend not to understand that. It's nowhere near good enough, and I see no reason to expect change; not the slightest glimmer of hope for what's necessary. 0 - https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20250304-the-countries-that-never-locked-down-for-covid-19 https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20250304-the-countries-th...

ortusdux 1y ago

It became a 'wedge issue'. A common tactic in 2-party politics is for a campaign to push their candidate to become indistinguishable from their opponent, and then pick one issue that divides the voter base, hopefully in their favor. It has to be something that your party can rally around and their party can't compromise on. Conservatives are generally pro business and anti government regulation, while liberals are usually pro environment and regulation, hence the battle of climate change.

watwut 1y ago
> Conservatives are generally pro business and anti government regulation, Conservatives love government regulations. They do not like the kind of regulation that prevents frauds or prevents them from harming others. But, they like it when government regulates personal lives of their perceived enemies, protects large businesses at the expense of poorer people.

was8309 1y ago

the oil industry

spacemadness 1y ago

Part of it that the commenters so far missed is that to do anything about climate change will affect profits for the oil industry and cause corporations aplenty to have to come up with new manufacturing materials and processes. It also means consuming less. The solutions are seen as a threat to owners of capital who will fight until the earth is in flames to do anything about it. Our politicians and many media sources are owned by these people.

tastyface 1y ago

The US has two political parties of roughly equal size. One of those parties has gone completely off the rails into authoritarianism and science denial. Oligarchy is at the root of it: the barons can't sell "clean coal" and "drill, baby, drill" if climate change is seen to be tearing the world apart. Money über alles. You'd think most people would be repulsed by such a party, but turns out that humans have a neat little exploit! Due to the fact that the parties are completely entrenched and about equally as popular, people intrinsically assume that their policies also have equal merit. Hence our descent into shit.

krapp 1y ago

Basically, it started with Reagan[0] and the Republicans equating environmentalism with leftist (read - Communist, and therefore evil) agitation (through its links with feminism and the hippie/antiwar movement) in order to court business interests who favor deregulation and lax environmental standards. [0]https://www.vox.com/2017/4/22/15377964/republicans-environmentalism https://www.vox.com/2017/4/22/15377964/republicans-environme...