The planet is literally becoming uninhabitable, and you’re concerned about being cordial towards people arguing against radical action.
Eat me.
I’ll only eat you if you’re rich.
The person in question didn’t argue against green energy, they argued for local European solar industry. While one of the consequences in this case could be Europe being able to install less solar, this is something to introduce in your counterargument, highlighting the consequences.
Being hostile drives people away, and this particular commenter is probably not a decision-maker in European solar, so you’re not missing anything if you kindly introduce an alternative point of view. It is politicians in office that we should pressure, as they have something real to lose when we don’t support them. Shitting on regular people, on the other hand, will simply get your opinion ignored.
Language policing is a common tactic by bad faith actors, especially when their argument is falling apart.
Fuck local industry. China is churning out record numbers of solar panels, eating most of the costs themselves, and we’re going to try to ban the imports and pretend we have the time to build up local manufacturing?!
The building is on fire, and you people are too busy worrying about the language of people urgently pleading to bring in the water from outside, and concerned about how it’ll affect the profits of the local water source.
Absolutely psychotic.
I outline the very same arguments as you in the same thread - and on the substance, I 100% agree. The question is to form, and it is more important than what you make it out to be.
The reason I talk about the way you express your concern is because the more we yell at each other and try to “expose” each other acting in bad faith, the more division grows between people and the harder it gets to actually convince anybody of anything. Anger and unfounded blame game repels, not convinces.
