• a_blanqui_slate [none/use name, any]
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Right, and I don't think you're a bad person or dumb or even terribly wrong about any specific factual claims that underlie the doomersism, and I still think it was a conversation worth having.

      • a_blanqui_slate [none/use name, any]
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        I think it's important, both socially and politically to combat the notion that emotional doomerism is an intellectual necessity so we're going to have to agree to disagree there as well.

          • a_blanqui_slate [none/use name, any]
            ·
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            You did not ever say it was a necessary, but I think that a plausible (not the only or even intended) reading of your post made the implication that the sheer weight of facts should compel a person to that position. And so I jumped into make sure that everyone was clear that it's not the only defeasible position to hold, and I'm glad to hear we might be in agreement on that fact.

              • a_blanqui_slate [none/use name, any]
                ·
                edit-2
                2 years ago

                Damn I guess I gotta ignore all the climate reports that conclude that we are all going to die

                Look, maybe I misreading you there, but surely you see it's feasible how I might construe that as you claiming that the sheer weight of evidence should compel someone to think that climate change is going to kill everyone.

                  • a_blanqui_slate [none/use name, any]
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    2 years ago

                    You don't have to do this for me, but I would appreciate it if you could point to one of the specific off-ramps I missed where you indicated that so I could see exactly where the wires were crossed.