You are. People would be very worried. It’s just that their worry would not be expressed in attempts to improve things in the long-term when there’s a short-term disaster.

If the Gulf Stream will definitely collapse in 2025 (which is not what the study says), then that’s too soon to do anything about, so the priority is surviving it rather than preventing it. Fundamentally, things that help prevent disaster are not the same as things that help survive it.

That’s true if it’s closer to 2095. If it’s closer to 2025, there’s fuck all we can do to stop it, and so we need to do what’s best to survive it, which is not the same as what’s best to prevent it.

It’s kind of important whether it’s 2095 (prepare for it, set up nuclear, reduce carbon emissions) or 2025 (fuck global warming, we need fuel and we need it now, the more carbon emitted the better).

Actions that work in the possible world in which it collapses soon are actively harmful in possible worlds in which it doesn’t. Acting as if a threat will happen only makes sense if the action isn’t significantly harmful in cases where it doesn’t, where significantly is based on the harm of not being prepared and the chance of it happening.

If the Gulf Stream will collapse by 2025, the response isn’t to be more eco-friendly. In fact, it’s the opposite. Everyone in the north should prepare to burn a lot more fuel, and concern for global warming would definitely be reduced. Global warming is something you can only afford to give a shit about when temperatures haven’t just dropped by 3.5C and you haven’t just lost 78% of your arable land (UK figures, because that’s where I live).

Finally. There you are. I’ve faced so many left-wing schmucks, I was wondering where the right-wing ones had gone.

But you’re still a schmuck. Leftists don’t want children to grow up to be vile.

I sometimes feel that way, yeah. The problem with democracy is the sheer quantity of idiots.

It’s neither, it’s a rhetorical “you”. Should’ve been clearer about that, sorry.

The thing about the paradox of tolerance is that the intolerance mentioned there is not regular bigotry. It’s quite specifically about a threat to the marketplace of ideas.

They often seem to blame capitalism for the fact we’re not in an impossible utopia.

If you want to kill everyone evil, start with yourself.

Yes, we want to say bitch. Bitch.

Fucking Winnie-the-Pooh-ass bitch.

Yeah, it was funny, but wouldn’t say it’s exactly useful here.

More Jeremy Corbyn here, but yeah. her as well.

No, because I explicitly mean to blame aspects of the ideology of progressivism for this.

I absolutely get the difference, and agree with you on your examples, but I do mean progressivism.

Jews are the group I was thinking of. A lot of left-wing anti-Zionism leans into antisemitism, justified by a false sense that Jews are privileged.

I’m not saying progressives are conservatives in general, I’m saying that that definition of conservatism includes many progressives.

The dynamic of “oppressed” and “privileged” groups contains elements of this, where the “oppressed” groups are protected and not bound, while the “privileged” groups are bound and not protected. Scare quotes are used primarily because some groups that I would say are oppressed are sometimes deemed privileged.

Then much of progressivism is actually conservative, or at least very similar (social norms often replace law here).

Somewhere that isn’t a little bitch, yeah.

That’s exactly the point. The reason “coloured people” isn’t okay is precisely because people like that moron use it.