Reference to the war of 1812, it was still ~50 years before Canada slipped the British leash but there’s some weird nationalist revisionist history surrounding it.

It’s important to remember that science is inherently conservative and doubly so for climate change Erring on the Side of Least Drama.

If you read any of the IPCC reports you’ll note they are very careful to not really provide any death estimates or anything. However, one can attempt to extrapolate a risk model from those descriptions from that we can analyze key takeaways from the WG2 report ¹

The report found that climate impacts are at the high end of previous estimates

3.3 billion people about 40% of the world population, now fall into the most serious category of “highly vulnerable” ___ 1 billion people face flooding.

Based on the existential risk model, that’s 3.3 billion currently facing some level of existential risks. If the impacts remain “at the high end of previous estimates”, which they very likely will, then that’s >3.3 Billion potential deaths.

^1: using Wikipedia summary because the report is 3675 pages long and ain’t nobody got time for that^

So your advice to people who can’t afford rent, work a fulltime job and have just had their tent and all their possessions thrown in a dumpster for the second time this month is what exactly?

Do you advise someone who is incarcerated that if they simply ignore the bars they will no longer be there?

Society has gotten far, far more unequal and oppressive

By what metrics?

Historically there simply wasn’t physical things with which to have the modern level of inequality. Historically the average lower end was was lower, but the modern high end is incomprehensible orders of magnitude higher.

Historical acts of oppression were often far more brutal and cruel but that’s because it wasn’t physically possible to maintain the constant, but relatively minor oppression that is characteristic of modernity.

Economic conscription is not consent.

And COVID and___

With the way American politics are at the moment I interpreted that as a “only the Republicans are the bad guys” and wanted to make it abundantly clear that is not the case.

My bad, thanks for catching that I was looking at 118th caucus not 119th. I thought I just misremembered which of those pesky other parties were part of which caucus.

We can though, first time was the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 with funding being released in 2010. D president, D Senate, D house.

By 2012 it became obvious that the commitment lined out in the 2009 bill weren’t going to happen and a meek attempt to claw back the funds was made. D president, D Senate, R house.

2021 sees the access broadband act. D president, D Senate, D house.

By 2025 it became obvious that the commitment lined out in the 2021 bill weren’t going to happen. R president, D R Senate, R house.

The only constant is a Democratic Senat so clearly that’s the problem! Right?

Edit: wrong session for 2025 caucus. It’s all Rs there.

Personally been a fan of shoggoth with a smiley face mask

Don’t underplay a regime and make them seem more reasonable than they are by whitewashing history

That’s a better definition!

But also don’t exaggerate a "regime"¹ to make them seem more extreme than they are by whitewashing, decontextualizing, fabricating, using loaded language[1], etc.

Propoganda often works explicitly via selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception. What your are calling “details” and “minutia” are attempts to try and push back against some of that selectivity bias.

Am I supposed to give a monolithic answer now for speaking broadly?

Yes, because you were perfectly happy/capable of giving one before:

We can push back against misinformation without accidentally bootlicking.

Which while it’s good in theory it appears the phrase “accidentally bootlicking” allows for others, including a certain ‘argumentative gremlin’, to perceive that as meaning “so long as it doesn’t contradict my existing worldview”.

Having a stronger/more rigorous definition would help you with communicating your ideas, allow you to self-check for dissonances and help me understand if there’s anything of actual substance here.

So what’s your definition?

Probably shouldn’t have mentioned my thoughts on that thread, I had hoped to provide some perspective on where I was coming from but probably just confused things for everyone. That’s my bad, back to the relevant point:

How do you think one should make that distinction?

We can push back against misinformation without accidentally bootlicking.

It depends entirely on how you define “accidentally bootlicking” because I think [email protected] has done an excellent job of calling out how you have been making that distinction.

Taking a step back and decontextualizing how do you think one should make that distinction?

The issue as you see it:

clings on to a pseudo-scientific economic ideology

The prescription you suggest:

pseudo-scientific economic ideology

When you recognize the amount of bullshit propoganda that is consumed daily and realize how false it all is it’s very easy to switch to “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” mode.

Additionally it’s harder to break others (and oneself) out of the propoganda soup without an extremely sharp distinction between the lies being spoonfed and the material reality. The material reality often ends up getting distorted as a result and the cycle continues.

I’d love to talk to someone in the middle of the computer science and developmental psychology Venn diagram.

Not that person, but an Interesting lecture on that topic

And yet EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT has voted to confirm at least one of Trump’s nominees.

You won’t because your sources do not say what you think they do.

Quote it then.