BobQuixote

How in good faith does a neoliberal doubt the science? They definitely incorrectly doubt the magnitude of change to our society that is required to fix climate change, sure. But the science itself?

I think they are suspicious of the institution of science and the scientists within it. The replication crisis gives some validity to their concerns. I think political motives are also suspected.

It doesn't help that these people are by and large not scientists and don't have the training to read the science. The suspicion is a boulder that is not too difficult for Republican propaganda to tip down the mountain.

How you break through that, I have no idea. And I think basically this same suspicion was turned on the government to produce MAGA.

It's a smaller jump to convince neoliberals to change the people in society than it is to convince them to change institutions they believe are infallible.

Ha! I don't think you would easily find anyone to defend the institutions as infallible right now, least of all the trumpers. The Courts, Congress, the Deep State (career workers in the executive branch), it's all suspect for them. I myself was counting on SCOTUS to hold until it didn't.

No, I think the slide into fascism has been about lack of trust rather than an overabundance of it. I can imagine getting there the other way too, though.

Not if we have to comprise our positions to get them in the tent. We need full speed ahead on climate change action. If we have to go the speed we are now, slower, or backwards like we will be in a few months, then that isn't a useful alliance.

I think you are significantly overestimating the pull granted by simply being in the tent.

I think you're referring to harm to other living, breathing people. You want to be a part of the big tent? Time to spill the beans on your positions. Whether they're considered political or otherwise. A bulleted list is fine.

How very broad. I didn't have anything particular in mind. The government exists to mitigate harm, yet I don't believe in equipping it to solve every conceivable problem because I fear centralized power. I suspect you would more eagerly expand its power.

Several regions of government need to be reformed in order to halt harm primarily to black people. I'm thinking of the prison pipeline and similar.

I support several federal agencies such as the FDA, USDA, EPA. This support is somewhat reluctant; if I could devise an alternative that didn't accrue power to the federal government I would prefer that.

I support anti-trust. I think multinational corporations are a threat to the individual to rival the government. I think the government is at risk of losing relevance, leaving only the corporations, and this future is a dystopia.

I want to find a way to drain generational wealth without killing the economy. I don't think democracy can survive an unhindered class of trust-fund babies (nobility in all but name).

I support a "safety net" that allows for the most meager existence - enough to survive and to be employable. I don't want to spend more than we must on freeloaders, and I don't want to make this a better deal than being productive is.

Uh, what else? I am adamantly opposed to abolishing money or ownership of real estate. I'm interested in seeing further experimental results from worker co-ops; so far they are not looking advantageous.

I think social media may have ruined education for Generation Z, as if we had given them all really bad drugs. My aversion to government action is making me uncomfortable with what we may need to do.

Your turn.

But if a person isn't a fascist or isn't at least brainwashed by their propaganda, why would someone believe climate change is not real? There is a large body of research that demonstrates climate change is real and is caused by humans. Not to mention Exxon knew this as early as 1977.

Are you supposing that any scrap of unscientific propaganda in a person's opinions makes them functionally a fascist? I posit that someone can doubt the science and believe in liberalism. Hell, I think some of the people who voted for Trump still believe in liberalism (not that they would call it that) even as they enable fascism. This descent into madness has been really hard to watch. If any of them were to renounce Trump, I'd welcome them eagerly.

The time to advert key tipping points in the Earth's climate is the next five years. Either we advert these tipping points or catastrophic damage will be done to the environment. There's no time to delay. Let alone time to be actively making things worse by increasing fossil fuel emissions as much as possible. Why is your argument's meter not picking this up?

I think you risk not being able to solve anything because you're so picky about allies. I think improving climate policy remains possible with a minority of climate deniers in the tent. And if someone opposes Trump I am not terribly concerned about their thoughts on the climate.

Sorry, what harms are those? =/

I don't know, do you really want to compare comprehensive political positions?

Wow, you're really going at it on the whole "not thinking" thing. 10/10.

We should not cooperate with fascists especially when they don't believe in climate change.

Not believing in climate change does not make someone a fascist. Murphy was talking about accepting people who don't want to be aligned with MAGA. That is plainly a strategic imperative.

I agree that we need to watch out for cryptofascists, but your meter is too sensitive.

Similarly, men's concerns about loneliness etc. are worth hearing out. I wouldn't say that has much at all to do with "rights," though.

Good, so you agree then?

As far as I can tell, yes. I suspect I would be more hands-off about correcting some harms, but I strongly agree with no second class of citizens.

We should move the Democratic Party to the left. Democrats should champion systemic change and wealth redistribution.

I don't object. I'm an ex-Republican long since committed to riding the Democratic wagon wherever it goes. I would take FDR 2.0 if that's what can defeat MAGA, but I don't have confidence that it's a good approach. I do think the wealth/income gap is a threat to liberty and stability.

The people who don't agree with climate change don't believe it exists.

Uh huh. Are you only able to cooperate with people who agree with you in every way?

Your argument is focusing on the bait and ignoring the switch.

And yours is going out of its way to manufacture enemies.

That's how we're framing it.

Again, sure. Not worth fighting over the phrasing.

On climate:

But here's the thing - then you need to let people into the tent who aren't 100% on board with us on every social and cultural issue, or issues like guns or climate.

He doesn't say anything else on climate, and this is not "abandoning action on climate change." The people already in the tent don't agree on everything, and they have not "abandoned action" because of it.

On men's rights:

Meanwhile, men tumble into a different kind of identity crisis, as the patriarchy, society's primary organizing paradigm for centuries, rightly crashes. The right pushes an alluring dial back. The left says "get over it". Again, a refusal to listen/offer responsible solutions.

This is not "uncritically supporting men's rights."

But it is probably worth understanding how patriarchy harms men because inequality harms us all.

Sure, if that's how you need to frame it to fit your worldview go ahead. Just please try to find agreement when feminist framing is not used, because it usually won't be.

Lemmy is probably primarily US like Reddit. (US here.)

I can imagine silica being in a medicine bottle. After you break the seal, you'll put the lid back on and the medicine should stay dry. I'm uncertain whether I've ever actually seen that, though.

You mean this?

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1855616243039916152.html

That doesn't fit your description.

There's a somewhat antiquated idea of honor that accounts for that. A good man can definitely be on the other side, and you need to kill him anyway.