jerdle_lemmy

You are. People would be very worried. It's just that their worry would not be expressed in attempts to improve things in the long-term when there's a short-term disaster.

If the Gulf Stream will definitely collapse in 2025 (which is not what the study says), then that's too soon to do anything about, so the priority is surviving it rather than preventing it. Fundamentally, things that help prevent disaster are not the same as things that help survive it.

I mean yeah, he is, but saying it's new isn't why he's talking bollocks. There was an Antifa that the modern antifa claims ideological descent from, and that is what he is claiming supported Hitler.

It's because there's something cult-like about many Democrats as much as many Republicans. And yes, I do mean as much as as in equal amounts.

Antifa isn't all that new though. While the American antifa isn't actually a branch of the original 1930s German one, it likes to think it is, and it's the German one that Scott's claiming helped Hitler gain power.

That's true if it's closer to 2095. If it's closer to 2025, there's fuck all we can do to stop it, and so we need to do what's best to survive it, which is not the same as what's best to prevent it.

No. No it wasn't. Antifaschistische Aktion was a paramilitary wing of the communists, fighting both the social democratic Iron Front and the Nazi Sturmabteilung.

The only way in which it could be said to be allied with the Nazis is that both of them opposed the social democrats, but the enemy of your enemy is not in fact your friend. The KPD saw both the SPD and the NSDAP as fascists, rather than in any way allying with the NSDAP against the SPD.

It's kind of important whether it's 2095 (prepare for it, set up nuclear, reduce carbon emissions) or 2025 (fuck global warming, we need fuel and we need it now, the more carbon emitted the better).

Actions that work in the possible world in which it collapses soon are actively harmful in possible worlds in which it doesn't. Acting as if a threat will happen only makes sense if the action isn't significantly harmful in cases where it doesn't, where significantly is based on the harm of not being prepared and the chance of it happening.

If the Gulf Stream will collapse by 2025, the response isn't to be more eco-friendly. In fact, it's the opposite. Everyone in the north should prepare to burn a lot more fuel, and concern for global warming would definitely be reduced. Global warming is something you can only afford to give a shit about when temperatures haven't just dropped by 3.5C and you haven't just lost 78% of your arable land (UK figures, because that's where I live).

It doesn't to me. It's just communists vs liberals rather than left vs right.

As someone with similar views, I recently realised that I have the exact same tribalism and aggression, it's just targeted at people who have that mentality.

Exactly. Blame/credit (blame in this case) doesn't travel that way.

Take the following example: Alice and Bob both support view X. Bob also supports view Y. Y is evil. Then, Bob can be deemed responsible for supporting view Y. But X does not become evil because Bob is. And so Alice is completely fine.

Hell, "gaslighting" itself is a good example of this phenomenon, and it's mostly on the left.