Such as?

-Trump supporter, late 2020

What in your opinion should we be doing? Besides voting and shitposting.

I may have stated it slightly too strongly but this is wild speculation on Hansen’s part. Show me a published prediction.

Even if what he said was accurate, burning that much fossil energy is almost certainly impossible.

But we do know because thousands of hardworking scientists have devoted their lives to answering this question.

If you want to have fun speculating wildly then be clear that this is what you’re doing and don’t frame it as things that “will” happen.

Sorry this is a pet peeve of mine because I think it feeds into a paralyzing pessimism. People need to understand that we aren’t doomed to feel like they can work for a better future.

There is absolutely, unequivocally, no evidence that this will happen and no serious scientific prediction that this will happen from climate change has ever been made.

The science illiteracy here is getting almost as bad as the right wingers.

Both true honestly.

While Reddit is definitely majority democrats I don’t buy 99%. There are plenty of conservatives on there. Must be something with how this program unfolded or who donates.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-023-30999-3

It does depend somewhat on the specifics but for the vast majority of cases EVs are just better.

They’re still bad mind you, it’s just that ICE vehicles are so much worse.

Edit: This one might be a bit more directly applicable: https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-21-misleading-myths-about-electric-vehicles/

There around 1000 life cycle cost analyses that disprove this idea by now. It takes only a few years of driving electric to pay off the carbon debt from manufacturing, assuming average driving behavior.

Of course, this is complicated because we should be dramatically reducing driving. But for most people it does not make sense to keep a gas car as a daily driver.

Damn that seems like a core feature. Not sure I’ll use it without this.

Doesn’t seem to work on any of the UI’s I use, strangely.

Sure I’d be happy to assist.

I agree with your points and general philosophy, but I guess I the flaw I was trying to address is that good users can post bad content and vice versa. So moderation strategies that can make decisions based on individual comments might be better than just banning individuals that on average we don’t like.

This would require a totally different approach, and I don’t think your tool necessarily needs to solve every problem, but it’s worth pondering.

I was thinking of taking over !nolawns@slrpnk.net but since @Quercus wants to take that on, I could also take !podcasts@slrpnk.net. I do listen to a lot of those as well.

But I still can’t figure out how to tag users after a year on here.

Not necessarily, it’s just a common tactic in politics to “leak” something to the media to make a positive story seem more credible by making people think it’s some hush hush secret.

So it may well be true, but I suspect the messaging is coordinated by the Biden campaign.

Almost everyone.

Aren’t you making the same mistake you criticize here?

This issue is contentious because we’re all scared of Trump and we all know he has a real chance of winning. And the reality is we genuinely don’t know for sure which strategy can defeat him. People who don’t like Biden respond to this fear by calling for Biden to step down, because they genuinely think someone else would have a better shot. People who like Biden are doubling down because they’re afraid of a contentious replacement process or an untested candidate falling flat and they genuinely think Biden is the best option in this context.

But I don’t think there’s any reason to believe any of this stems from a place other than genuine concern for American democracy. Assuming ill intent just creates pointless anger among the left coalition and doesn’t get us any closer to actually defeating Trump.

Very interesting idea. Glad you decided to make it transparent since I don’t think it will work otherwise.

I am not sure I think it will work as intended—in my opinion the state of political discourse on Lemmy is pretty bad right now, but that may reflect the broader state of politics in society more than our particular platform. If we want to create a truly positive space for political discussion, it might require more intervention than banning a small fraction of users. To use myself as an example, I try to be pleasant and constructive but I know I don’t always succeed. An analysis based on the content of comments could also be interesting to try. Or a kind of intermediate status of user, where comments require mod approval. That could be overly dependent on subjective mod opinions though.

Still, I think even if it doesn’t work, this is the type of experiment we need to elevate online discourse beyond the muck we see today.

This strikes me as a pretend leak kind of story.