BobQuixote
But if a person isn’t a fascist or isn’t at least brainwashed by their propaganda, why would someone believe climate change is not real? There is a large body of research that demonstrates climate change is real and is caused by humans. Not to mention Exxon knew this as early as 1977.
Are you supposing that any scrap of unscientific propaganda in a person’s opinions makes them functionally a fascist? I posit that someone can doubt the science and believe in liberalism. Hell, I think some of the people who voted for Trump still believe in liberalism (not that they would call it that) even as they enable fascism. This descent into madness has been really hard to watch. If any of them were to renounce Trump, I’d welcome them eagerly.
The time to advert key tipping points in the Earth’s climate is the next five years. Either we advert these tipping points or catastrophic damage will be done to the environment. There’s no time to delay. Let alone time to be actively making things worse by increasing fossil fuel emissions as much as possible. Why is your argument’s meter not picking this up?
I think you risk not being able to solve anything because you’re so picky about allies. I think improving climate policy remains possible with a minority of climate deniers in the tent. And if someone opposes Trump I am not terribly concerned about their thoughts on the climate.
Sorry, what harms are those? =/
I don’t know, do you really want to compare comprehensive political positions?
We should not cooperate with fascists especially when they don’t believe in climate change.
Not believing in climate change does not make someone a fascist. Murphy was talking about accepting people who don’t want to be aligned with MAGA. That is plainly a strategic imperative.
I agree that we need to watch out for cryptofascists, but your meter is too sensitive.
Similarly, men’s concerns about loneliness etc. are worth hearing out. I wouldn’t say that has much at all to do with “rights,” though.
Good, so you agree then?
As far as I can tell, yes. I suspect I would be more hands-off about correcting some harms, but I strongly agree with no second class of citizens.
We should move the Democratic Party to the left. Democrats should champion systemic change and wealth redistribution.
I don’t object. I’m an ex-Republican long since committed to riding the Democratic wagon wherever it goes. I would take FDR 2.0 if that’s what can defeat MAGA, but I don’t have confidence that it’s a good approach. I do think the wealth/income gap is a threat to liberty and stability.
The people who don’t agree with climate change don’t believe it exists.
Uh huh. Are you only able to cooperate with people who agree with you in every way?
Your argument is focusing on the bait and ignoring the switch.
And yours is going out of its way to manufacture enemies.
That’s how we’re framing it.
Again, sure. Not worth fighting over the phrasing.
On climate:
But here’s the thing - then you need to let people into the tent who aren’t 100% on board with us on every social and cultural issue, or issues like guns or climate.
He doesn’t say anything else on climate, and this is not “abandoning action on climate change.” The people already in the tent don’t agree on everything, and they have not “abandoned action” because of it.
On men’s rights:
Meanwhile, men tumble into a different kind of identity crisis, as the patriarchy, society’s primary organizing paradigm for centuries, rightly crashes. The right pushes an alluring dial back. The left says “get over it”. Again, a refusal to listen/offer responsible solutions.
This is not “uncritically supporting men’s rights.”
But it is probably worth understanding how patriarchy harms men because inequality harms us all.
Sure, if that’s how you need to frame it to fit your worldview go ahead. Just please try to find agreement when feminist framing is not used, because it usually won’t be.
You mean this?
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1855616243039916152.html
That doesn’t fit your description.