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
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.