315
Liberals Can't Address the Climate Crisis Because It Means Confronting Capitalism
(www.currentaffairs.org)
this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2026
315 points (89.9% liked)
Climate
9075 readers
94 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Neo-liberals get so upset when you mention that leftism actually begins at the desire to see capitalism and such businesses end. They still believe in a free market is self regulating when that's not the case at all, a free market will result in monopolies. Neo-liberals are left of Republicans but we're talking a small matter of degrees. Neo-liberal policies and economics are what got us into this mess, they won't get us out of it.
Wild how you say that second paragraph like it doesn't show what a massive coward you are, posting a disagreement and immediately saying you're running away because you're sure they will hurt your feelings (lol right after you accuse them of making assumptions). It's honestly baffling how commonly people seem to see that as a power move to brag about.
I'm curious what they posted. I wonder if they don't know that neo-liberalism is actually a thing and what I'm referencing here. I avoided the term liberal because it's being used in media and everyday language to mean "left" when even liberal is itself another ideology that isn't heavily left leaning like it's implied.
I'm just frustrated that people don't know these terms have actual ideology to them and that I'm using it in regards to that. On other sites I'd be called a MAGAt for disparaging neo-liberalism while being well entrenched in left wing ideologies.
Their first paragraph was about how you said some things based on only reading a few words about them or something, like the whole liberal/neoliberal conversation hasn't been going on for a while.
And then their second paragraph was saying they are going to block you because they know you'll be condescending, judgemental, and insulting.
I just wonder how we got to this point where so many people have so little resilience against what others say while disagreeing with them, even if it gets insulting. And while I don't think anyone is obligated to engage with someone being like that, I've always seen block functions as a tool to deal with ongoing harassment not one-time disagreement (or in this case, the potential for disagreement).
I'll be honest, I have a dim view of neo-liberals anymore. I've seen what happens when their masks come off and you see who they are. It tends more to a reactionary response than the civility they put forward initially.
I agree with you, block function is for harassment or truly disingenuous people. I've also learned that apparently blocked people can still respond to you on Lemmy you'll just never know. So they can say disparaging things about you without you every knowing.
That's the way block functions should work IMO. So they can't be used to abuse others without them even knowing. As I understand, you can block someone on Facebook and then post numerous status updates about them with full conversations with their social group and they'd have no idea unless someone tells them.
Yes I'm at the mercy of the cruel hatemongers. Unless I submit to their hatred, I am a coward. Thanks for identifying yourself.
You preemptively blocked them because you assumed they would respond in a certain way and then act like a victim that just managed to avoid destruction.
And no, refusing to submit to something isn't cowardly. But poking it and immediately hiding away from it is.
To be fair, I'm not owed anything from them in terms of conservation or argument. We seem to have this hitch up that when someone makes a statement that's an open invitation to an argument with them. It's not, and I let that door swing both ways as well. They're not entitled, and neither am I.
No one's owed participation in their discussion but you can just walk away from a conversation you no longer want to participate in. But what happened here is more like they popped up to disagree with you then immediately acted as if you were wronging them with a reply that you hadn't made and that don't seem in character with your other comments here.
It was an attempt to manipulate the situation into one where they are a victim and are thus the "winner" by fighting back against your attack that you hadn't even made and sidestepping any discussion at all.
If they didn't support capitalism and the world Reagan built they wouldn't be a neoliberal.
You're literally getting upset about it right now.
Yeah I couldn't possibly be talking about the fact that this person is clearly labeling people "neoliberal" who aren't. Thanks for your valuable input tho
I don't see how a comment that very specifically calls out neoliberals and only neoliberals is doing that.
Personally, I think the overall premise of the post is flawed, socialism is more than capable of destroying the planet with overproduction, but that comment even narrows the post's criticism of liberalism as a whole into only neoliberalism.
The thing is that there really isn't much incentive for a capital based society to change course on something until they have gotten as much money from it. So we'll continue using fossil fuels until it's no longer profitable then they'll turn around and start selling the breathing masks needed to survive. A bit of hyperbole, maybe. I look the far right in the USA and say we're past the point of satire or hyperbole.
Who was that comment written for? "Neoliberals get upset..." It was written with a dual purpose. 1) virtue signalling (I am morally righteous, unlike others) 2) "all these neoliberals on here are gonna be put in their place by this post. Ha!"
Considering there isn't really a big population of neoliberals here, and given the constant tankie circle jerking I see here every day, I don't feel my assumptions here are at all unwarranted.
You have a poopy attitude
This thread is full of reasonable actors though. Definitely nothing fucked up here at all. Except me of course.
If you believe what you wrote, one would have to assume this comment was meant to pick a fight
Have you considered just leaving Lemmy altogether, since you seem to have sich a problem with so many people? Or do you secretly enjoy the strife?
A better question is why are you okay with the strife? You either don't notice which is not plausible, or you're a target or perpetrator of the bile. Those last two options are not at all pleasant.
All the time. I hate the strife. I hate the fact that like 10% of the users here are hateful zealots or bigots. Now why do you ask if you aren't looking to pick a fight?
But you need it. You need the strife. It’s why youre still asking me questions. Your self identity is rooted in love of the stroked up arguments you tickle here, but pretend to be an unwilling participant of. And the sweet release for you is the micro hit of dopamine you get when you proudly proclaim (like a toddler) that you’re blocking someone.
Now go ahead and ask further questions.
I had correctly tagged you years ago, though I should've also added "armchair psychologist". I won't miss you.