A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
He's not wrong. Groupthink elevates the most extreme rhetoric, and when people hear that, they disregard the totally valid argument as a whole.
If one person is saying "Hey, this could be bad for our coral reefs, polar bear populations, may cause more hurricanes over time, etc." they're going to be completely drowned out by the person saying "THIS IS THE END OF MODERN SOCIETY!" (paraphrased from an upvoted comment under this post)
No he is wrong and he is just mouthing the ipcc party line talking points. They’ve been doing this bs for a long time, demanding that climate scientists tone it down. And the reasoning is appallingly manipulative: if people understand how fucking bad it is going to get they will be paralyzed and ‘people’ won’t act. Meanwhile ‘people’ not acting is pretty much irrelevant when the global economic system itself is the direct cause of the problem, ‘people’ are just consuming commodities with abandon, as they have been trained, and as they must to keep the global economic system functioning.
I mean there was a direct scientific report that the UN released earlier this year which did say we aren't on the path to extinction -- but also that modest increases to temperature are more significant than we originally thought.
I think there's reason to believe we're not in the absolute worst case scenario, and regardless of however else the IPCC has been bearish, it's a good point that we should keep rhetoric in check. You can already see several people giving up and saying there's no point. Let scientists say for themselves what the data concludes, and leave it there.