this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2025
424 points (99.3% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
6862 readers
531 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So not only do you admit it was actually 90mn, like I said it was, you also want to insist on being right somehow and claim I can't find a number in an article you linked that is missing said number.
Holy fuck.
You are still pretending I said something I never did. I asked for proof of your statement. You provided zero proof that it was in fact a small percentage. If others, or yourself are assuming 10%, then I have news for you. 10% is a significant amount. Don't believe me? Start applying an extra 10% to anything of value or remove 10% of your paycheck. Hell, apply it to anything else not of monetary value, 10% more/less customers. 10% more/less of a metric a business is tracking. 10% more/less of profit margin.
Stop pretending like I said all non-voters were protest voters. Stop insinuating that I said that when you know I didn't and are trying to prove some weird fucked up point to absolutely no one. I'm not ignoring anything, you only think I am because this conversation is beyond you. I said x, you said y, stop acting like I also referencing z.
You strawman and now ad hominem. Congratulations are in order. I'm not retarded enough to keep up with you. Mark another tally on your whiteboard to track internet arguments you've won.
I knew it was 90mn long before this god awful conversation with you. I misremembered this time. Check my account.
I am right. You're too busy jacking/jilling off to this debate that you can't confirm that. Again, check my account for the full calculations. The links I shared have the correct information.
Except I did provide proof... And even if you want to ignore the Wikipedia article that reported primary vote numbers, the Ballotpedia articles I linked showed the 3rd party general vote numbers (~3mn). 3rd party votes fall under the definition of protest voting, so that is hard evidence of the low and insignificant amount of protest votes. Sorry we don't have more evidence of the other kinds of protest voting to quiet your sorry ass. But that's how claims work. You have evidence, then claim based on that. You don't get to just hallucinate your best wishes and claim that as reality. If you do, you have more important things to care about than this debate.
I never assumed 10% you idiot. That was another commenter AND YOU. The 8mn voters that bailed on the Democrats from 2020 to 2024 could have done so for a multitude of reasons. Protest voting could be one of them, but we can't assume that. You doing that means you have no fucking clue how logical debate works.
To who? In statistics, usually 95% is how we decide something is significant. If my next paycheck came back with 95% more money, I'd call that significant: not 10%. If the next restaurant I go to has a 95% discount on some of their menu items, I'd call that significant, not 10%. If all of the climate tipping points had a 95% chance of occuring, then that's way more significant than a 10% chance. If a presidential candidate receives 95% of the vote, that's significant: 10% alone or even 10% more than the other candidate is not significant.
Let's address what you did say:
You doubt the protest vote is small. This is your PoV. You even said so, many times at this point.
You doubting this means you believe the contrary. You believe the protest vote is large.
I have presented evidence to the argument that the protest vote was small: 1% or less of the total vote. Neither you or I have given evidence for the types of protest voting that don't involve voting. The only claims that can be made are the ones based on evidence, not hallucinations.
With what evidence do you back up your opinion here?
Aww, you gave a dictionary definition. That's cute. Except pulling a definition out of your ass still doesn't contribute to your argument. You have yet to give evidence that the protest vote in the 2024 US General Election was more than 1% of the voting population, and more than 0% of the non-voting population. The only evidence I need to claim that the protest vote was small is that the 3rd party vote was 1% or less.
I haven't straw man'ed shit. I've given you evidence directly invalidating your beliefs, and you refuse to accept it. That's your problem, not mine.
Oh honey, I stopped respecting you in this debate when you stopped respecting me. Tolerance goes both ways jackass.
Certainly not. You can't fathom a world that's contrary to your world view. And that suckssss for you.
Gladly. Evidence always trumps hallucinations. If only liberals would stop sticking their heads in the sand and start paying attention to the disastrous performance of Democrats in the recent elections, not the antics of voters.