this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2024
610 points (99.4% liked)
Technology
59958 readers
3441 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
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
You’re either an astroturfer or useful idiot spreading oil lobby talking points.
Either you believe the climate science or you don’t. If you do, you know that we don’t have time for industry protectionism.
Do not assume bad faith over anything you disagree with.
While I disagree with the original statement, hostility never changed anyone's mind.
Chronic abuse absolutely shapes human perception and behavior.
In this case, a lot of Lemmy has been so battered down by "China Bad" propaganda that they'll straight up deny the threat of climate change to justify rejecting Chinese manufactured goods.
I’m not trying to change their mind. I’m trying to expose them.
What you're doing is called "making shit up". If you have a problem with their talking point then address it, but don't make shit up about who they are or why they're saying what they're saying.
As in the way you’re accusing me of “making shit up,” just because you’re not aware of decades of lobbying and astroturfing efforts by the fossil fuel industry against nuclear?
So, in your mind this is a hidden lobbyist who tries to abuse "we destroyed local production" argument to make sure Europe slows down solar rollout and remains dependent on fossil for longer?
Not only is this too much of an effort to come from this angle, it's also not a large platform to speak to.
Seeing an astroturfer in every person that has another angle on the issue is just plain paranoid, and at the same time makes you behave like an asshole towards others. This sort of behavior is what ruined many other platforms, with everyone yelling out of their echo chambers - angry, violent and utterly unproductive.
Algorithms have raised a generation of people doing what best engages them - shitting on each other. And when an alternative like Lemmy appears, where no algorithm is pushing anyone, people make the same mistakes. I urge you to break this chain, with compassion and care.
The planet is literally becoming uninhabitable, and you’re concerned about being cordial towards people arguing against radical action.
Eat me.
I'll only eat you if you're rich.
The person in question didn't argue against green energy, they argued for local European solar industry. While one of the consequences in this case could be Europe being able to install less solar, this is something to introduce in your counterargument, highlighting the consequences.
Being hostile drives people away, and this particular commenter is probably not a decision-maker in European solar, so you're not missing anything if you kindly introduce an alternative point of view. It is politicians in office that we should pressure, as they have something real to lose when we don't support them. Shitting on regular people, on the other hand, will simply get your opinion ignored.
Language policing is a common tactic by bad faith actors, especially when their argument is falling apart.
Fuck local industry. China is churning out record numbers of solar panels, eating most of the costs themselves, and we’re going to try to ban the imports and pretend we have the time to build up local manufacturing?!
The building is on fire, and you people are too busy worrying about the language of people urgently pleading to bring in the water from outside, and concerned about how it’ll affect the profits of the local water source.
Absolutely psychotic.
I outline the very same arguments as you in the same thread - and on the substance, I 100% agree. The question is to form, and it is more important than what you make it out to be.
The reason I talk about the way you express your concern is because the more we yell at each other and try to "expose" each other acting in bad faith, the more division grows between people and the harder it gets to actually convince anybody of anything. Anger and unfounded blame game repels, not convinces.
I’m not trying to convince anyone. If the climate science hasn’t convinced you yet, nothing will, and I want to repel you to tell you to get out of the fucking way.
This never was about climate science, no one denies it here. And it's sad to see you take a stance that puts your emotions above any actual productivity. But alas.