What we imagined the climate deniers would say when the climate catastrophes came vs. what they actually are saying - Tom the Dancing Bug
So many people absolutely refuse to change their own destructive habits and justify it with "corporations tho!" like they just pollute for fun and not to produce goods and services consumers buy.
Refusing to give them your money by changing your habits to be less destructive is a great way to hold them accountable, while advocating and voting for regulation of course.
While I get what you are saying, individual responsibility only gets us so far. We need societal-level change, and holding corporations accountable isn't just about reigning in their direct pollution. Corporations control what choices that we as consumers even have. Regulating them so that we can only pick from a variety of good choices -- or at least so that the bad choices are more expensive / effort -- has a much higher impact than getting individuals to make good choices when bad choices are easily available, cheaper, and easier.
There's already lots of better alternatives to many destructive things, people aren't choosing them.
This comic makes me want a benevolent alien life form to exterminate all humans and let evolution try again.
Ah yes, the classic sort of aliens who exterminate other civilizations, being benevolent is of course how you'd characterize them.
Isn't there some guy testifying about UFOs in Congress this week? We can only hope aliens see earth as a rare and valuable resource that we're fucking up so maybe they'll take it from us.
A lot of politicians just chase distractions...
There's always some nutjob wanting to testify to congress about aliens, and nutjobs in office eager to get the important shit out of the news cycle.
How is acknowledging that the climate is constantly changing, fall into the category of climate denier?
The person in the comic is pointing out that the climate is constantly changing as a rebuttal to the idea that human-caused climate change is a real issue. The implication is that all climate change is natural and therefore we cannot combat climate change and shouldn't even try. It's a common tactic of climate deniers.
I see now, thanks for clearing that up. Seems like I've made people irritated by asking a simple question.
They assumed you were being purposefully obtuse, which is also a common tactic--aka "sealioning."
Seems like I’ve made people irritated by asking a simple question
Because to most it's pretty obvious what was meant by that panel, so your comment came across as concern trolling.
Not to say that's actually what you're doing, but sadly the "Hey, I'm just asking questions here" argument has become ubiquitous among folks who want to express opinions they know are fucked up, without actually taking ownership of those opinions or being held accountable. And sadly, sometimes genuinely confused people get caught in the crossfire
It's 2023...
Most people already know that while climate change can happen naturally over thousands of years, because of humans it's happening so fast nature can't evolve fast enough to adapt to it.
Like, not watching where you're going and bumping into something is fine, maybe you stub your toe. It would be different if you were going 100mph.
Similarly, long term climate change isn't that bad. It's the uncontrollable rate it's changing that's the issue.
Because it's a pretty silly take.
It's like seeing a corpse riddled with bullets and "acknowledging" that people die all the time, and as such how can you know for sure it was the bullets that did it?!?
Edit: A word
In this context, the question is whataboutism. The facts are that these changes are not in the norm, and that we have experts in climate science telling us that.
You're being downvoted because this line of questioning is usually the beginning of a bad faith argument. I decided to engage because hey, maybe you are just curious so I'll give people on Lemmy the benefit of the doubt.
Denying that it's happening and denying it's a problem have the same consequences so I'm not super fussed about the difference.
Because it's used as a talking point for inaction. Inaction is what put us here and is the equivalent of climate denier. But I'm sure you already knew all that.
Mostly as the way you asked the question, is a manner that many do when JAQ-ing off (Just Asking Questions) - particularly about this specific topic. A lot of folks do not engage in these discussions in good faith, and claim they're "just asking questions" but really aren't actually asking to learn but to make smarmy dismissive comments.
If instead, you had gone "I actually don't understand, could someone explain what this panel means?" then people would have responded more positively.
People are likely downvoting because you used the equivalent of a climate denialism dog whistle. It comes off as bad faith because when most people use the term climate change they mean anthropogenic climate change.