Climate change thread on the front page

frank

We have a climate change thread on the front page which tends to degenerate into personal attacks. Maybe it's a topic that would be better suited to the Lounge?

It's this thread.

And these are the types of comments that show up:

"I can’t wait for your usual on-topic, detailed reasoning. Because there’s no way you just wanted to bring the discussion into the realm of naval-gazing bullshit so as to have some shot at participation, knowing next to nothing about the topic as you do, and being unwilling to read or learn and all. I know it couldn’t be that, given your sterling reputation."

"But I personally don’t care if you raise these questions — it’s just that it’s laughable in its childishness."

"Good thing you’re not in charge of anything."

"Why people continue to make such ignorant comments is beyond me."

"But it’s best to listen to Internet trolls when they tell you not to worry."

DingoJones

When did this forum become so sensitive? Did I miss a memo?
Thank the person for identifying themselves as someone not to engage with and move to on, the adult way. Tattle tailing, feigning grievance, these are a childs way.

AmadeusD

↪DingoJones

The point is that this forum is not the place for school-yard (Or X) type nonsense like that. Total ad hominems are the refuge of those who cannot control their emotions. Those who cannot control their emotions are generally refused entry (to anything except therapy).

The activist class tend to be unable, so what should be a serious and fulfilling thread tends to, as noted, descend into insults. Even when one is not disagreeing with the activist.

frank

↪DingoJones

↪AmadeusD

Right. I think we put all the other low brow discussions in the Lounge, and I thought that was an improvement. I think they just missed this one.

Mikie

Perhaps if those of you so sensitive to snarky replies cared more about not spreading misinformation instead…

I also notice no engagement with the arguments. Rather the replies are cherry-picked for their sarcasm or frustration at having to debunk long-refuted claims over and over again, only to have them reappear.

Mikie

Or let’s put it this way: I’ll agree to be nicer if you agree not to spam a thread about climate science with denialist talking points. Deal?

frank

Rather the replies are cherry-picked for their sarcasm or frustration at having to debunk long-refuted claims over and over again, only to hbw them reappear. — Mikie

I'm sure there are nothing but noble reasons for the hostility. I'm just asking @Jamal if we might put the Consequences of Climate Change thread in the Lounge.

It's this one.

Mikie

↪frank

I’m sure there’s nothing but noble reasons to cry about this either.

“He’s picking on me Jamal, move it to the lounge!”

How about: don’t like the thread? Don’t post in it and stop reading it. Simply mind your business. There’s an entire other boring page created by you on the subject.

Tattle tailing, feigning grievance, these are a childs way. — DingoJones

Agreed. But considering this is someone who has LONG held a grudge against me, mostly for pointing how inane his posts are, it’s not a surprise. How he’s even still here given his thousands of Twitter-like quality posts is a wonder.

ProtagoranSocratist

It's my general sense that Jamal can't completely control the flaming on here, and doesn't want to, so you're probably better off not getting involved with the flaming yourself rather than drawing attention to it...

Mikie

↪ProtagoranSocratist

If my posts are considered “flaming,” I gladly apologize— if they also apologize for posting misinformation on an important topic.

ProtagoranSocratist

I gladly apologize— if they also apologize for posting misinformation on an important topic. — Mikie

You can't ever expect other people on the internet to agree with you. Sometimes i worry about climate change as well, but here's what I said in that thread as to why i'm not spending a lot of time thinking about it:

You all can worry about inevitable global warming from behind a computer screen (sometimes i do since the wildfires create air pollution, and GW could lead to extra crop failures and water shortages), but talking about it through computers is not really addressing the problem, or coming anywhere close to lowering the carbon emissions.

For example, it's important to know that militaries disproportionately create carbon emissions. Why this tends to stay out of news media discussions is beyond me, except maybe it doesn't mesh with the profit motive of the news industry. The U.S. military in particular is massive, i've read that it produces equal carbon emissions as the rest of the people in the united states do through normal consumption. So what exactly can anyone whatsoever do, given that the worst polluters are the least likely to change their behavior? Other people were bringing up the fact that the less dirty sources of energy would still require a lot of fossil fuel consumption to get fully operational (or at least that's how i interpreted the conversation). — ProtagoranSocratist

or said in fewer words, there's basically nothing you can do about it as a normal individual

frank

Guys, the climate change subreddit gets 66,400 visitors and 2800 contributions per week from all across world media.

They don't produce the kind of crap threads we do. They don't have much in the way of denial. Their main problem is that every day they contend with people who are experiencing severe distress due to anxiety associated with global warming.

We aren't helping the world by creating crap threads full of personal attacks and insults. We're just making ourselves look foolish.

ProtagoranSocratist

They don't produce the kind of crap threads we do. — frank

i think maybe you haven't a lot of ~~our~~ their threads...but i don't know what you mean, so whatever.

Mikie

We aren't helping the world by creating crap threads full of personal attacks and insults. We're just making ourselves look foolish. — frank

Says the guy who consistently makes both the climate change thread, and others, crappy.

You have, countless times over the years, been called out on your posts regarding climate change. Yet you repeat the same lines over and over. About China and coal plants, for example. When confronted about this— with evidence — you ignore it and continue posting it anyway, then complain about how mean everyone is.

This thread, and this very post I’m responding to, is nothing but sanctimonious posturing. It’s also pure hypocrisy, given your track record.

You want to improve the climate change thread? Stop posting in it. Ditto for the forum generally, in my view.

Climate change thread on the front page

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions