"If you tell a lie big enough and tell it frequently enough, people will eventually come to believe it". What is an example of this happening today?
I would really rather that these were actual examples, and not conspiracy theories. We all have our own unsubstantiated ideas about what shadowy no-gooders are doing, but I'd rather hear about things that are actually happening.
322
Comments326
Anyone that says J6 was a "peaceful protest" that "got out of hand"
We all saw the footage of that day. There were gallows and calls to hang a sitting vice president.
It was an insurrection, fomented and encouraged by Donald Trump's speech and actions leading up to that day. Plain and simple.
The right-wingers who say it wasn't as serious as it was are gaslighting their base.
Edit: Victims of gaslighting in my replies
Sounds exactly like CNN's headline "fiery but mostly peaceful protests after police shooting" after the George Floyd protests where like, 30 people died.
Do you not think it’s relevant to point out that:
If 5% of the people involved at violent BLM protests were violent and if the numbers above reflected only protester initiated violence, then that would mean roughly 0.12% of BLM protesters (or 1 in a thousand) were violent. But since, as we know, most of the violence was directed against them, that number is probably more like 0.05%, or 5 in 10,000. Obviously that number would be much worse for the actual instigators of most of the violence (police and far-right Trump supporters).
Main source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/10/16/this-summers-black-lives-matter-protesters-were-overwhelming-peaceful-our-research-finds/
Also weird that you say “like 30 people” died when it was more like 10:
Yes, there were like 25 deaths related to political unrest in 2020, but most of those were not at BLM protests. Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/31/americans-killed-protests-political-unrest-acled
But hey, keep telling yourself that an active, intentionally orchestrated attempt by Trump and his supporters to violently overturn the results of our Presidential election was “basically the same thing lol” as a bunch of people who were protesting police violence and racism.
It's comments like this that make me glad Lemmy has a star that lets you favorite them. Thank you very much.
Yes, that's exactly what I said. -_-
Across the country? Damn that’s like less than a person per major city and I saw how brutally the police attacked protestors. If it hadn’t been mostly peaceful it’d’ve been in the hundreds dead.
I get your /s but I don't think anyone should be dying in a protest, regardless of how small that number is relatively speaking.
I fully agree. That said these raw numbers are often used to condemn nationwide protests over legitimate grievances of police brutality and extrajudicial killings in which the police often initiated violence against the protesters. 30 people. 30 too many, but not nearly enough to condemn the protests as violent given their scale. 15,000,000-26,000,000 Americans participated in protests that summer knowing full well that they’d face tear gas, rubber bullets, and whatever else the cops felt like using. And 30 people died in the largest protests the country has ever seen.
All this to try to do whataboutism against an attempted coup in which people marched into the capitol building, some carrying weapons, chanting to hang the vice president for daring to certify an election
I'm not so sure you do get it because it seems like you want to hold protesters to the exact same moral judgment, despite agreeing with a factual analysis of how infrequent the most egregious behaviors were.
If you understand that, and, more importantly comprehend it, then that needs to cash out in your moral assessment of what happened, otherwise you have no business saying you agree or that you understand.
If the opposite of love is not hate, but indifference, then the opposite of "I understand" is not "I don't understand", it's "I understand, but still..."
Doesn't seem like you got it considering you imagined an /s
One side lying doesn't make the other side's lie true, or justified, or anything else but a lie
Exactly.
You know what the word 'mostly' means, right?
How's that exactly alike?
Conversely, anyone who says January 6th was a coup or anything approaching more then a wet fart. We should be so lucky that a fascist police state could be overthrown by 200 disorganized unarmed people walking into the capitol.
Whether it was a successful coup is a separate matter.
The problem wasn't them getting anywhere near literally overthrowing the entire state, but the fact that they were trying/hoping to kill people.
There's so many levels on which it is deeply concerning. One is just on the face value. They actually did storm the capital, the security forces in place seemed ambivalent or perhaps actually complicit to some degree. Nevertheless, numerous people were injured or died.
And then there's everything about the precedent it sets for next time, the excuses and defenses being made of it, and the ways in which those sympathetic to it may prepare to execute on the same idea again in the future, perhaps learning from prior lessons, and perhaps confident that they won't face any legal exposure.
It's a horrifying idea to have been allowed to take root in the form of real physical actions, which are then carried forward in culture to set the stage for future actions.
It wasn't just 200 disorganised unarmed people, it was 200 partially-organised partially-armed people with explicit support from the sitting president trying to disturb the proceedings, so the president could carry out his plan to use "alternate electors".
Why do people like you always act like the republicans weren't hoping to capitalise on what happened?
Are you trying to illustrate the point?
It wasn't 200, it was 2000.
And while most did not carry guns, they brought other weapons and armor, and used improvised devices as weapons. And some did bring guns. Source: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/07/28/politics/armed-insurrection-january-6-guns-fact-check/index.html
Thank God they were poorly organized and that the capitol police resisted...but it's a complete lie to say it was 200 unarmed people.
This is all on video! This isn't a matter of opinion!
A KGB spy and a CIA agent meet up in a bar for a friendly drink.
“I have to admit, I'm always so impressed by Soviet propaganda. You really know how to get people worked up,” the CIA agent says.
“Thank you,” the KGB says. “We do our best but truly, it's nothing compared to American propaganda. Your people believe everything your state media tells them.”
The CIA agent drops his drink in shock and disgust. “Thank you friend, but you must be confused... There's no propaganda in America.”
…in Ba Sing Se
promptly fires everyone who criticizes Israel
“brexit will bring in more trade! brexit will provide 350 million to the NHS!”
On a related note the whole notion extremely prevalent in the UK that all they have to do is decide they want to rejoin and it will happen. No matter which side of that a commentator is on, they almost never mention that they need to present something the EU27 actually want and convince them that the UK is not the 'break international agreements' kind of country any more. Overall the British still all seem to think that they are something better than everyone else and others have to do what they want and have no real agency.
You could call it a colonial mindset. Wonder where that way have come from.
The thing I loved about that lie is even as a 20 something who’d never been to that hemisphere I knew it was a lie because weren’t these the people trying to kill the NHS
The idea that they could leave and somehow get better trade deals, especially with European countries. The EU is the deal! It's a trade agreement that favors the participants, how could they ever get a better deal?? What's baffling is that a lot of older people voted for it and they can actually remember when the UK joined the EU. That means they realize that the UK joined for the deal but somehow that's worth nothing.
A lot of those older people are racist and blame foreigners for literally every problem, and continuously vote against themselves
“Democrats are liberal/progressive”
In reality, they’re pretty conservative.
The Overton Window
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
A concept where political discourse is slowly shifted to one side or another over time. For example conservatism.
Politics are talked about the right who move even further right, the centralists are moved to old right and the leftists are moved to the center .... the old leftists are now seen as extreme and unacceptable while the far right are also unacceptable but gain some ground ... everyone shifts one step to the right and now everything is more conservative.
The right shift is what is happening now ... but it can happen and shift towards the left as well.
They are still liberal though but not progressives. Liberalism isn’t necessarily a left wing ideology.
A lot of leftists (and I hardly ever saw it before coming on Lemmy) use 'Liberal' to mean Classic or Neo Liberal - basically a synonym of capitalist.. That's not at all what it means in American politics, where it means the opposite of Conservative. If we used that definition, Conservatives would be called Liberals as well as Liberals being Liberals, which obviously makes no sense for US lingo. However, they both are Liberals in the neo/classic sense as most US Liberals aren't calling for communism.
The conservatives are only liberal in the economic sense. They are the party of book banning, anti-abortion and anti-lgbtq. Liberalism is also about human rights and freedoms. But just because you think gays should be allowed to marry and acces to have an abortion should be a right that doesn’t put you left on the political spectrum or even make you a progressive. Since that is pretty much a centrist political position in the rest of the world. Most Democrats are liberal in the economic sense but also in the human liberty sense. But only a few Democrats in the house and senate can be truly called progressives. Since most Democrats are fine with the status quo and aren’t pushing society forward. They are just fighting of the attacks of the GOP
Right, I agree. The progressive side of the US is not fairly represented by Democrats nationally.
Two red scares and a cold war created an Orwellian memory hole such that Americans don’t even have the words anymore. It’s double-plus ungood.
It's an inherently right wing ideology lol. They're just conservatives that want/like to think they're progressive.
Liberal economic theories beleive the free market is the best solution generally, but allow the free market to be intervened in or even entirely supplanted in cases of market failure or where significant social problems arise from private ownership. There is a lot of debate inside liberalism as to when a market has failed, or when a social issue requires intervention, which is why sometimes you will see centrist liberals and left liberals arguing. Just look at Canada with our Liberal Party, its a big tent party with a small social democrat rump(since most social Dems are NDP), a larger social liberal / left liberal group, as well as some centrist and "blue liberals" (these would be right liberals, who are harder to convince about market failures).
Liberalism can be progressive, especially when the main thrust of a liberal party is left liberal or social liberal. Some Liberal parties are progressive sometimes, then more centrist at others as members and the membership changes over the years (or often on the strength and leanings of their leader). All still liberalism.
The real lie is the notion that "liberalism" was ever anything other than right-wing to begin with, let alone adjacent to progressivism.
By any civilized standard democrat politicians are far right extremists (a few token exceptions are closer to right or even center-right on some points, but they have little effect on the whole). Republicans are outright deranged lunatics, mixed with a worryingly increasing percentage of fascists.
Vaccines will give you autism, microchips, actual diseases etc. It's one of the best medical breakthroughs in history and we have idiots ruining it.
I got the vaccine and currently have autism, microchips and an actual disease! Checkmate!
Though I'm pretty sure they're all not connected to each other.
You have a microchip in you? Curious about how/why, tell me more.
"vaccines will give you microchips" - nowhere does it say that the microchips will be given to me in a way that they end up in me. Maybe they're just a nice side present that comes in the same box as the vaccine.
"I [...] currently have [...] microchips" - nowhere does it say I have them in me, just that I have them. I have them in my desktop computer, phone, and other electronical devices, and I've currently not shoved my smart dildo up my ass, so all outside me.
I thought you had one of the heartbeat aiding implements or such.
The concept of trickle down economics. Anyone with a functioning brain can tell you that it would never work. But somehow people as a whole in the US still think giving corporations and rich cunts extra money, and tax breaks somehow lead to the 99% reaping a benefit.
It has never been true because the basic function of capitalism is to get as much money as possible, while spending the least amount of money to do it. There’s no room for passing on the extra profits to your employees, clients, or vendors.
Supply-side Jesus (short animation) is a brilliant take on trickle-down economics and circular arguments about why the successful are successful and the poor are poor.
"Tax cuts will double our revenues and ensure that the empire never declines or falls!"
"Should you feed the lepers, Supply side Jesus?"
"No Thomas, that would just make them lazy."
"Then shouldn't you at least heal them Supply Side Jesus?"
"No James, leprosy is a matter of personal responsibility. If people knew I was healing the lepers there would be no incentive to avoid leprosy"
Lol yep, any child who has played monopoly a few times can see how capitalism works. It always ends in one person having literally all the property and money... and generally with players quite upset at one another. And once all players have optimized the game, it simply becomes a game of luck.
It's literally the name of the game.
Trickle down economics does work though.
It’s just that the thing that trickles down isn’t money.
In theory it does work, and it has historically worked in the past. A lot of wealthy people in the last few centuries were philanthropists that built schools, hospitals and other public works.
The main deterrent these days is that your typical billionaire is greedy and entitled.
Plus as we saw with some merchants and colonial figures, your name could be scrubbed from the history books and statues of you torn down if your past actions are incompatible with modern day morals. Edward Colston is a good example because despite him pumping a lot of money into philanthropic projects, he made his fortune from the transatlantic slave trade.
I can almost guarantee that people would have much more favourable views of Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, etc if they pumped tonnes of money into building new homes and actual public transport infrastructure.
Starting a private space company doesn't count as philanthropy. As for Bill Gates, years of medical disinformation have built up this narrative that he's pumping money into medical research and vaccination programmes for nefarious reasons, like planting microchips into people.
My parents still think the 2020 election was stolen...
I'm sorry
Which election?
Merkuh
Raising wages just causes prices to go up faster.
Unfortunately, they're right about this one because democrats are in on it too.
Israel is defending itself against an antisemitic terrorist group which attacked it for no reason
America is the greatest country in the world. Only those who haven't travelled much would believe that.
It is a libertarian's dream country though. No where else is it so easy to get others to invest in your idea.
Really? What kind of barriers to investment exist in other democracies?
* gestures broadly at US politics *
Americans with their 'greatest nation on earth' charade.
It has a name: American exceptionalism. It's used both by people who know it's a lie and by people who believe it.
Most of what people believe about America's history is post WWII mythmaking and revision. It's a shame because the labor movement in America has a fascinating history, and we're about to relive it.
The shoot-outs are going to be 100x better this time
Can't wait to be teabagged by a Boston Dynamics robo dog after it murders my whole family for paying my Amazon Prime 2 days late!
That you catch a cold because you're cold
While being cold isn't the cause of a cold there are some links between being cold and transmission of the flu even beyond people huddling together inside.
The lipids the viruses attach to become more durable hence resilient, and multiple studies have shown that cold temperatures have a suppressive effect on the immune system.
https://uscvhh.org/news-and-stories/the-real-reasons-you-get-sick-when-its-cold-outside.html
"Your socioeconomic status is a measure of work ethic, sacrifice, and ability to make good decisions. Poor people deserve to be poor, and suffer, for making bad decisions."
Birth lottery which includes not just wealth but family connections is the biggest metric. We are way down the list of developed nations in terms of upward mobility. Only the outliers that prove to be of the greatest service to entrenched capital are granted entry. Most Americans, religious or not, have internalized the dogma of the prosperity gospel, itself an absolute parody of the dogma of Christianity it claims to be part of.
Go to any local fast food restaurant at rush hour, hell, go to any produce field at harvest, and tell me how much that studious hard work pays off. conversely, please regail me with tales of how hard it is to be a capital landlord,
making investmentsgambling with insider information with capital gained from previous exploitations, and then merely expecting an endless steam of capital for NO labor into what generated it. It's like we were conquered by the traveling snake oil salesmen of old.It's called the American Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it.
Also known as "prosperity gospel." The religious justification for obscene wealth. The basic idea is that if you are rich, it's because God has chosen you to BE rich because you are morally superior to everyone else. It's an absolute perversion of Jesus' teaching in the New Testament.
Hey, he is supporting the massive FL mansion and mega yacht industries.
Is that last sentence a quote from George Carlin? I've heard that one before.
Yes.
https://youtu.be/H-PSCqhkWhg?si=WfSvAWVkEVr42ySr
George Carlin - Your Owners
Communism=Authoritarianism
I was taught in school the characteristics of authoritarianism and a couple weeks later, when i was being taught about communism, the same characteristics were said
They usually come packaged together. You'll have a hard time naming democratic liberal communist countries/leaders.
But a very easy time naming democratic communists. Even Stalin wasn't a dictator, according to liberal historians such as Conquest who are experts on the soviet union. Socialism is more democratic than capitalism.
Liberal socialism is a thing. But yes, hard to have liberal values alongside the communist cancer.
I did say they usually go together.
I base it on my feelings
Going a step further, the idea of authoritarian. Every ideology with a state relies on some type of authority to function, as a term it is an attempt at equating fascism and communism and serves as holocaust trivialization.
You're right that they're absolutely not the same, however at a nation state level, I'd be very surprised if you could point to any communist regime at any point in history that wasn't also authoritarian or didn't end up that way
If you cut taxes on the rich it will benefit everyone.
But if you don't agree to cut taxes on the rich they're going to fly the plane straight into the ground just out of spite.
Except for the rich
I’ve never met anyone who believed that. Is that one of the odd things about America you can’t learn simply by watching superhero movies?
About half of USA believes that. See the Republican party.
That is just so bizarre. Well, prepare for a severe culture shock if you ever visit the Nordic countries.
Speaking of politics, occasionally I hear people say that what we call “center” in here would be considered 100% communism in America. Likewise, right wing should probably be translated to something like the liberal left in American terms.
Rising early and going to bed early is more virtuous than rising late and going to bed late.
Yeah we really gave morning people too much power. Awake at 5AM? You’re a go-getter. Doesn’t matter that you had to be in bed by 8pm to accomplish that. Awake until 4AM? You’re lazy and immoral, and should feel bad for being productive when there are fewer distractions. All because you don’t like being awake before the sun is up. Even if you sleep fewer hours than a morning person, (because morning people will start demanding your attention at 8AM on the dot,) you’re still considered lazy when compared to the morning person.
Yeah, I just get a burst of energy and motivation in the evening. I'd often do my shopping at or after 9pm (when the shops close at 10-11pm) and I'd feel a lot more productive and, as I already said, motivated, to do the work I have to do, especially with less distractions.
And people who don't naturally wake up early are just lazy.
Hard to swallow pill, right here
That Israel is not a colonial state. All it's founders defined it as a European colonial project. It was and is allied with all the colonial powers and projects like Britain, the US, apartheid south Africa, and Rhodesia. Its funding association was called the Palestine Jewish colonization association. It's bank was called the Jewish colonial trust. The Jewish national fund and the Zionist project at large was from the beginning concerned with building segregated colonies.
First, lands were bought with foreign funding from feudal land lords, and their inhabitants were entirely dispossessed, kicked out. Then when awareness of the ultimate goals of the Zionist project crystalized and resistance against Palestinian dispossession mounted, the lands were ethnically cleansed by force and the people massacred. 700 to 800 thousand Palestinians were ethnically cleansed in one continuous military operation that spanned two years from 1947 to 1948.
Zionist leaders fully acknowledged that Palestinian demographics were a core issue to the Zionist project, that the Palestinian population had to be removed at any cost, which is exactly what Israel did. What lead to the Palestinians being defenseless in this situation? Colonial Britain abetted the formation of heavily armed Zionist militias with soldiers numbering in the tens of thousands. The arms of Britain's colonial military presence were inherited by the Zionist forces that it supported. All this while Britain summarily excecuted any Palestinian found in possession of a firearm.
This is not to mention the enthusiastic support of european antisemites for the Zionist project, or its strict early opposition by antifascist jews.
The idea that Israel has any right to exist on Palestinian land is a lie that has been so heavily proliferated, it has to be debunked when it should be paid no consideration at all.
Too many famous people are hailed as something they are not, and everyone believes it. For example Elon Musk is hailed as a genius when he seems to be showing lately that he is the dumbest person alive.
He's not dumb. He is a troll who likes to control people, since he's used to a level of comfort and prestige that has allowed him to do that his entire life.
Nah he's pretty dumb actually.
He is dumb, he bought Twitter for how much more than it's value, again?
His desire to troll and control is directly what enables his being s fucking idiot
Jesus birthday is 25 December
Donald Trump claiming executive privilege for his various crimes. It seemed like everyone was laughing about it even a couple months ago, like how can it be executive privilege when this is about things he was doing before and after his presidency? Then there was a narrative shift and now the media is back to hand-wringing over whether or not you can prosecute a former president. I don't think anyone is expecting any of it to stick anymore.
"Owning a car gives you freedom" is a big one considering how expensive they are and that most people just use them to sit in traffic jams on their commute 90%+ of the time they are using them.
It is context dependent.
Owning a car does give you freedom in rural settings where mass transit never existed before it was bought out and run into the ground by automotive companies. They were even fairly cheap for decades if you bought them used!
But yes, if you live and work somewhere with traffic jams then owning one instead of using and pushing for more mass transit is the opposite of freedom.
Yeah my car gives me the freedom that people in some states and countries have without cars. I keep advocating for that freedom to be universal without cars because I hate having to have one to go out.
I'm not even in a rural setting and the only way to get my dogs to the vet is via car. Getting a taxi to drive there is difficult when one of your dogs starts vomiting after the second turn.
That and getting to by family in a rural setting. 2 hours by car vs up to 8 by train. With two dogs. That won't happen 😐
Besides that I don't really need a car.
And depending on your car make, model, and year, there is constant surveillance/data collecting negating the owners "freedom".
As part of a couple that just got knocked down to one vehicle instead of two, due to a wreck, I wholly disagree with your statement. Take a kid to friends house? Lol. Nope. Pick up a loaf of bread or grocery store? Negative. Park for a walk? Sorry. Get to work? Better start walking down the highway.
In this case the lie has been repeated so much and so loud that entire cities have been designed according to it.
Your whole environment is designed that way because cars need so much space. If you lived in a walkable European city all of that wouldn't be a problem.
Mind giving an example of such a city? Not like I'd be able to move now, but one never knows.
Just watch the YouTube channel Not Just Bikes. He not only shows you examples of such cities, but goes into great detail explaining why their design works—and what flaws they have.
Not European, but most Japanese and Korean cities are very walkable. With trains or busses, it can occasionally be easier to get around than by car
The Not Just Bikes channel has a lot of videos. Specifically in relation to your question, start with The Gym of Life .
Well living in the US is my reality, and there's two cities in my state that have walkable areas, and if you want to live in the somewhat safer portions that are walkable in either of those cities it's going to cost you literally twice as much to live there as anywhere else in the state.
If my grandma had wheels she'd be a wagon.
Can't you...just walk?
Not if the American automotive industry has anything to say about it. The whole country has been built around making walking impossible or too dangerous to attempt, just to maximise car sales at the expense of citizens' freedoms.
I don't doubt it, I just don't understand it.
You don't have to walk on the roads. Is there no grass or dirt nearby to walk on?
Why have grass or dirt when you can have roads..? Grass and dirt sell no cars.
But what is next to the road
Judging by the pictures I've seen of the US, and google maps street view, more road, or parking lots. Sometimes, but not often, short stretches of sidewalk, often not wide enough to walk on safely, regularly interrupted by lampposts and whatnot.
I live in an area that is not safe for the kids (or adults) to walk. It's a hilly windy area outside city limits of a smaller touristy place. Lotta state park area if you go at least 4 miles away, though.
That's all anecdotal. Everything in your list I can do without a car. Especially take a walk. I literally just walk out the front door.
Wow. I didn't realize the entire US population actually lived at your house that is in a safe to walk area near schools and shopping centers and grocery stores and where you work, all within a few miles.
Idiot
Exactly. Just because you live in a tiny town with less than 200 people doesn't mean the rest of the country does. In fact, the majority of Americans live in an area that could seriously benefit from better public transit and cycling and in turn less cars.
Ah, so you already know you're wrong.
The wage price spiral.
I didn't know this concept was criticized. I just found a paper from the IMF which says the following:
Sollaci, J. a. a. C. B. H. H. H. P. (2022, November 11). Wage-Price Spirals: What is the Historical Evidence? IMF. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2022/11/11/Wage-Price-Spirals-What-is-the-Historical-Evidence-525073
"Trickle down economics lead to more wealth for all."
"Trickle-down economics." They're literally saying, "we're pissing on you."
They also love to say, "a rising tide lifts all boats." Unless, of course, you don't have a boat and we know what happens to them. How well the stock market is doing means literally fark-all to most of us.
"Of course it's true! Supply side economics is the cornerstone doctrine of colleges of economics the world over!"
And the entrenched, generational capital that fund/endow the most prestigious colleges of economics, that the rest want to be like, clearly stand to gain nothing ensuring global economic theory revolves around give the owner class all the money and pray for rain.
Supply side Jesus will save us all
The entire conservative party
The belief that colour blind glasses work
See megalag's videos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ppobi8VhWwo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QQtOv2PlOE
The videos I've seen on YouTube saying they don't work have all been by people who have normal vision.
I have mild red-green colorblindness, and for someone like me the glasses absolutely do work.
I don't have enough cones for red and green to see certain shades properly. The glasses turn down the other colors in order to bring my perception of red and green back into balance. I then see the right shades but darker like wearing sun glasses.
The first time I wore them in the fall it blew my mind to see all the different colored trees that are just green or brown without the glasses.
There would have to be thousands of people lying their entire lives saying we see brown where other people see color in order for the colorblind glasses to be a hoax.
It's such a ridiculous assertion, yet YouTube is full of videos saying they don't work.
Disclaimer: Let me be clear, I'm definitely NOT defending the color blind glasses, and especially not the ridiculously expensive and over-priced, scam brand(s). Also, not going to watch videos on YouTube so my comment doesn't take any context from those links. All that being said ...
Sometimes people don't realize that color blindness is a spectrum and that there are different types. For example, a lot of people like me might more accurately be described as color vision deficient. To me, I can clearly and easily differentiate between red and green in most practical circumstances, particularly in close range. Things can get dicey from a distance, as well as with very subtle tints or with very dark colors.
A number of years ago, I purchased a cheap (like less than $20USD) pair of fishing sunglasses (mirrored, polarized sunglasses that typically use bright red, orange, or green tinting of the lenses) right before taking a trip in the fall. When I put those sunglasses on, it was really surprising. All of a sudden I could differentiate between the trees that were dead or which had already dropped their leaves, versus those that were actually bright red. Normally, unless I'm looking at a specific tree from a close distance, the browns, reds, and grays all sort of look the same and blend in. From a distance, like from the top of a mountain looking down into a valley, the fall color change of the leaves is a bit underwhelming normally. With the glasses on, I could actually see individual trees or clusters of trees that were red.
To be clear, the cheap sunglasses didn't restore my color vision. I assume it just shifts the spectrum a bit so that colors, which are normally very muted for me, actually stand out in the same way that bright yellows and blues do. And I know that the colors I'm seeing are tinted, so not 100% accurate to what a person with full color vision would see.
And when I've tested the fishing glasses with Ishihara tests (numbers in the colored dots), they do not improve my ability to make those out. So, that's further evidence that they aren't actually restoring my color vision. Granted, the fishing sunglasses never marketed themselves that way, where as the expensive scam color vision correcting glasses heavy imply that they are miraculous even if they don't outright state that they restore color vision.
That never made any sense to me. If the problem is with the cones in your eyes, then filtering the light going into them isn't going to magically do anything. At best, you might be able to do stuff with contrast to make colors more distinct, but someone that's red-green color blind could only have that actually fixed with new eyes.
Turns out that some people have overlap in color perception that muddies things, and when you use these glasses to filter out the "in between" wavelengths, everything becomes easier to distinguish.
Whereas I believed it with the analogy of hearing aids. There are a lot of people with hearing issues who can benefit from a simple amplification, or a more complex amplification of specific frequency ranges or filtered sound. By analogy, it seems perfectly reasonable that color-blindness may not be a binary condition so many people could benefit from more clearly distinguishing or amplifying certain frequencies. If I have a hard time distinguishing red from green, why wouldn’t glasses that filter red and green differently potentially work?
Hearing aids aren't really comparable. You still hear fine, but volume needs to be at a higher intensit. Hearing aids solve the problem with simple amplification. Corrective lenses for myopia and hyperopia are similar, correcting errors in something that's essentially just calibrated wrong.
Color blindness is more like being deaf. Don't think of your eyes as being one input generating a single image, but each eye being four inputs generating four images that are then composited. With color blindness, at least one of those pre-composite images is just not being generated at all. Like how a genuinely deaf person can't benefit from hearing aids because they don't have funcional ears, a colir blind person can't get new colors from simple lenses because they don't have cones capable of detecting those colors.
You can play music really loud for someone who's hearing is degrading and they'll hear it fine if it's loud enough, but you can't get someone who is red-green color blind to see green by ramping up the intensity of the green; they can't see that color for much the same reason I can't see ultraviolet or infrared.
From the posts of people saying it helped, I assume that like deafness can be a spectrum from hard of hearing to no inner ear nerves, color blindness can vary from limited cones for a color to no cones at all.
Wow, I actually believed in this one. Is there a short text version of what the videos are explaining?
Main idea: They can't restore any color by filtering or let you perceive any new colors as their marketing likes to claim. At best they might be able to improve contrast of certain colors while reducing contrast for others - which is not at all what they say it does
The video goes much more into depth about their deceptive marketing and such
The simple version is that color blindness is caused by a physical problem with your eyes. If you don't have the parts required to detect certain colors then no glasses are going to fix that. They're just tinted glasses, the guy in the video tries three different pairs from different companies and all they do is tint the world a hideous shade of pink/magenta.
As someone else said above, what they can do is change your ability to differentiate between objects of slightly different colors. You might have a really hard time telling the difference between red and green, but find it easier to tell the difference between hideous vaguely reddish magenta and hideous vaguely greenish magenta. They don't grant you a greater range of color vision, but they do change what color is actually hitting your eyes. Mostly into hideous magenta.
FWIW the guy in the video points out that in his experience it generally made colors harder, not easier, to differentiate.
That a guy has to spend three months salary on a diamond wedding ring. It was a very good marketing campaign from a jewlery company.
That's an opinion, not a lie. Still a stupid opinion, though.
Free market is the most effective way of allocating resources
It's a great way of allocating resources between Cheetos and Doritos. Not so great at choosing between healthcare for the masses and yachts for oligarchs.
…in an upward direction”
Now it’s true.
Off the top of my head:
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-the-public-into-believing-plastic-would-be-recycled
https://www.earthday.org/plastic-recycling-is-a-lie/
-Anything involving babies and incubators is immediately suspect. (Or babies and bayonets, for that matter).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony
-And this one is pure conspiracy, and I know it's not what you asked for... but it's ridiculous and 'tis the season. My mother in law is convinced that the lyrics to "Oh Christmas Tree" (O Tannenbaum) were changed by people who wanted to erase the true and original lyrics. By who? Big Tree financiers? Communists who are stealing Christmas and replacing it with trees?
Anyway...
The original lyrics, according to this conspiracy, praise God and never mention trees at all. It's completely ridiculous and always ends with the whole family singing along with the "true lyrics" from a badly photocopied paper that she hands out. I hope this doesn't come up again this year because it really makes me want to fight. Which would make me the bad person, because who initiates fights on Christmas? The next couple of days are going to be tough.
Now I'm really curious. Can you post those supposedly original lyrics?
Sorry for the late response - I just got back from travelling to meet that side of the family. But unfortunately, I don't remember the lyrics. She introduced it a long time ago and she stopped being MC of Christmas a few years back. We didn't get to enjoy it this year.
I just made this up on the spot, but it was in this spirit
Oh man, that cringe-worthy. Thanks for the late reply!
Wait, the lyrics of a song with a title that literally translates to "Oh, Christmas tree" originally had absolutely nothing to do with trees?? I'd ask how she wraps her mind around that dichotomy, but I know people who believe in conspiracies do not need proof nor logic to believe.
Good luck. I'll be entertaining my Trumpster QMIL, so I'll be fighting along with you to control myself.
"Q" MIL?
Yep. She believes it all.
Quasi, I guess if you're not actually married?
I'm pretty sure Q here is referring to their mother-in-law's belief in the QAnon conspiracy.
I just hoped for a better acronym.
That's hilarious, since the sources on Wikipedia say that the original lyrics were about a tree, with no relation to Christmas.
and many translated version never mention Christmas, like the Dutch and French versions.
Minor correction: the French version (Mon beau sapin) definitely mentions Christmas. The line "Toi que Noël planta chez nous" appears twice, translating to "You (the tree) that Christmas planted in our home".
That coconuts falling on people's heads kills more people than shark attacks. It's was literally an experiment to see how far a lie could spread, and now it's used by many as an actual fact.
Source?
From what I understand, it's unknown if coconuts kill more people per year than sharks as death by coconut are not well tracked. But the specific number quoted of 150 isn't legitimate. However, I can't find anything about it being related at all to an experiment to see how far a lie could go though. Did someone tell you this? Definitely a possibility of some irony here...
I don't know if you're mixing up stats or I was told a falsehood, but I was told that the lie to see how far and fast they spread was about eating X spiders in your sleep throughout your life.
That was actually a result of a statistical blunder. The people who ran the study forgot to exclude Spider-Eating Greg as an outlier.
Wasn't it Spiders Georg?
communism has killed 100 million people
Stems from the black book of Communism which counts nazis killed by the Soviets, everyone killed by the nazis in the USSR, unborn children and even more absurd shit like that just to get to that number lmao.
If we count shit like that, Capitalism has killed billions.
Even using their numbers, if the choice is between 100 million people and every single living thing on the planet, communism sounds like a pretty good deal.
Comunism always sounds like a pretty good deal. UNFORTUNATELY IT'S LEADERS ARE ALWAYS CORRUPT
Only if you don't adjust for functioning existence lmao.
Well it's at least 75 million so what's another 25?
Yeah, it's wayyyyyy more
Iran has convinced a large portion of their population that the holocaust never happened.
What is the purpose of that lie? Anti-semitism?
Iran is politically opposed to the US and the US is closely aligned with Isreal. My understanding is that it's mostly just political but with the Ayatollahs it's never clear.
So it's just "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" logic?
It could factor in to stuff relating to Israel in the Middle East. Although, like other commenters here, I don't know much about this and I'd like to see some more substantiation.
Got a few
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Conference_to_Review_the_Global_Vision_of_the_Holocaust
https://www.ushmm.org/information/press/press-kits/press-guide-to-holocaust-denial-in-iran
https://apnews.com/article/united-nations-general-assembly-iran-israel-race-and-ethnicity-racial-injustice-613d790900051a9f95895c7be10f3b15
Here are a few sources. If you Google Iranian Holocaust Denial you'll find a plethora more.
Edit: Ah, I can see now that you didn't ask in good faith.
People, no matter the inteligence or schooling, are more likely to believe what they hear more often. (If 10 people you know swear that eating mint will keep you from going bald it might just be true)
This makes sense and is normal, at least until the modern world.
Now add social media and an algorithm that its only purpose is to increase clicks/likes/interactions. Suddenly everything everyone is talking about is whatever you clicked on last time. A positive feedback loop occurs. The more videos you look at on the same topic, the more those get served, the more you view them, the more you believe them.
Experiment : Try creating a brand new Google account and watching 3 videos on YouTube on a single topic. Refresh YouTube page, or check back tomorrow.
I have not seen this mentioned before, but the Teslas people buy in the US isn't helping the environment. You just are saving on fuel!
I came into the comment section hoping for interesting things, but knowing it would be almost all political. Why do I keep doing this to myself, I know better.
Most lies of that nature are political.
Everything is political lmao
I came into the comment section hoping for interesting things, but knowing it would be almost all important. Why do I keep doing this to myself, I know better.
"Once all the boomers are dead everything will be better!" Yeah, corporations will still rule your life, inflation will still outstrip income, you won't be able to afford a house, and your politicians will represent whichever special interest pays them the most. Also you won't ever be able to vote in progressive candidates because every year there's going to be some vile ghoul like Donald Trump, but somehow worse, and the Democrats just need you to close ranks and vote in whatever corporate liberal whose turn it is to sit in the Big House this time so a literal fascist doesn't get his finger on the button and attempts to dismantle what little democracy our republic has over night.
Grandma and grandpa being six feet under doesn't change these things. And, guess what...you probably won't change them either because you're too lazy and apathetic to do anything other than shitpost on the internet about how badly your life sucks.
Future generations will blame you for everything also.
If you're a millennial, some already are.
Love how everybody forgot Gen X existed and skipped over them to hating millennials.
We're used to that.
The boomers being dead means the largest, wealthiest support of old ass laws is gonna, and nearly every single member of the population at that point would have been directly harmed by capitalism.
Trying to stop people from improving things will by far be much harder, and betting on peoples apathy is a gamble that can only last so long
(Unless we get some full my mind control shit in the best future, but we can pray not)
As opposed to the boomers, who weren't harmed by capitalism. Not like that's the generation that was sent to Vietnam or anything...
So many things I could type here... I'll just keep it silly:
Some people think drinking peroxide will give their body "extra oxygen".
Certainly seems like a better idea than drinking dihydrogen monoxide... Monoxide means it only has one oxygen. That sounds dangerous and I hope people drinking it manage to get enough oxygen somehow.
If it only was dihydrogen monoxide... these days they're putting all kinds of chemicals in water... oxidane, hidrol, hydric acid, oxygen hydride, hydroxylic acid, hydrohydroxic acid (and a bunch of other acids, really), μ-oxidodihydrogen...
Ah yes, you breathe through your gut. Even if it did provide oxygen you'd burn through it in a few minutes at most.
With 30%, it’ll burn for a while…until you pass out from the pain
I swear dihidrogen peroxide (H2O2) is a poison. I remember our chemistry teacher telling us to be careful with it. 2HO, H2O, HO2, and H2O2 are all very different things. But essentially, if there was more oxygen (the part of the air that we breathe in and do not breathe out because we need it to survive) in our water, more specifically 1 more oxygen atom added to the water molecule, it would become poisonous to us.
Capitalism lmao
The US military is there to protect their country's "Freedom"
That global poverty has declined because of the spread of liberal economies
I'll bite. Why has global poverty declined?
For the most part it hasn't actually declined, but where it has can't be fairly ascribed to that.
I'm mostly going off the argument made here which seemed pretty convincing to me. The gist of it is that the statistics used to push the narrative of neoliberal effectiveness on poverty are presented in very misleading ways.
That the 2020 election was stolen via widespread voting fraud.
"This war is different, this war is nessasary" "This is the most important election of our time" "Invasive surveillance is done for your protection" "We only censor misinformation"
"we are free"
There's a TVTropes page for things like this, of course.
Wait is that the lie, or...?
That the 2020 election was stolen.
That there was a protest against something in Beijing from April until June 4th 1989.
Heard the glorious communist party rolled over the protestors with tracks but that's impossible!
This is the entirety of trump. Tell the lie on a TV show to accelerate results
Part of me legitimately thinks Trump, West, and Musk are geniuses but not in the way most people expect.
They're masters of controversy. They have no conscience and are willing to say whatever will keep them in the news the longest.
They're all brands, and their controversy is just free advertising.
Capitalist realism
News ownership has consolidated over the last 40 years from around 40 companies in the 1980s to 6 today. This is that "liberal news media" conservatives keep yammering on about. The one that's owned by 6 corporations.
What does Murdoch own?
He's currently the Chairman and owner of Fox News. He's been the chairman and CEO of 20th Century Fox and News Corp going all the way back to 1980.
"in the UK (The Sun and The Times), in Australia (The Daily Telegraph, Herald Sun, and The Australian), in the US (The Wall Street Journal and the New York Post), book publisher HarperCollins, and the television broadcasting channels Sky News Australia and Fox News (through the Fox Corporation). He was also the owner of Sky (until 2018), 21st Century Fox (until 2019)."
From Wikipedia
Wild that one person can have so much reach.
The council of nicea verifiably, empirically did NOT collect the gospels to make the new testament as we know it. The gospels were already being bound together, seen as a whole, etc before the council, and after the council there was still a bunch of what's now considered apocrypha.
the Hitler was an atheist seems pretty popular, also that Einstein was religious.
That immigration from the third world is good for every country except Israel.
I've got to disagree here. Well, partially agree partially disagree. I think it's absolutely the case that your example qualifies, making a big deal about representation of Nazis in the armed forces is a kind of big lie that's just getting repeated without any sense of context or proportionality.
But I don't think it's a both sides thing the way you're making it out to be. You're acknowledging that it's Russia being worse than Ukraine, but it's not merely a difference of one being slightly worse, it's a huge part of the Russian narrative, whereas it factors in in no way whatsoever in Ukraine's message to the outside world. Ukraine has made historical analogies, in major speeches and communications to the outside world, but has not made the case that their sovereignty is legitimized due to anything having to do with Nazi representation in the Russian armed forces. It just doesn't at all play an equal role in the moral cases they're making.
Russia can't call ukrainians ukrainians because everyone here knows at least a couple of persons with ukrainian background or a surname. They only call them ukronazis, ukrofascist to distant them and further dehumanize, to sell it to public. And then, if you look at formations actively participating in the conflict, there are intermixed remains of said Azov on one side, a shadow from their autonomous existence in 2014, and actively recruiting neo-paganist Rusich with their head Milchakov saying on an open mic he's a nazi and still walking free as we talk.
There's indeed no bothsiding about it.
And whenever you see a ukrainian hatred against russians, you should put it into a context of nine years of continuous violence against them. It's maybe irrational, maybe unreasonably grouping the whole country together, but would you really ackshually them out of speaking about their pain? I'm a russian, and I understand it, and that our failure to hold onto power in the 00s now led to some 100k+ people cities being brought to the ground for no fucking reason, all that fear, and hatred, and loss. Half of them woke up to artillery blasts, ducked and covered, slept in metro and basements, had electric and other outages, if not lost relatives or have some serving on the outposts. It's obvious why they don't like us.
If some american or european would try to downplay it, you can use our secret slavic spell. It sounds dee nakh. Say it to them. Say it again. They'd not know it means 'go fuck yourself', but they'd certainly feel it.
And OP can eat some berries - green ones, purple ones, bloody ones. In the end, they are all the same. And there's no bunch of corpses laying under one of these plants, winking, suggesting one won't like to eat them.
Specifically for Ukraine there is also the fact that, when your country is under attack, nationalists are the first ones to sign up to fight the invaders. It's like their whole thing. And the intersection in the Venn diagram of Nazis and nationalists is usually almost a circle.
This sounds like a question from a homwork worksheet
Orbán
That corporations doing bad things are anything other than individuals doing bad things and hiding it in the anonymity of the “corporation”. Corporations are not people. People are people, and people have a sad tendency to do horrible shit to other people, especially those outside their social circle.
"Belgium sucks."
Yeah, it has its imperfections, but that's what makes it so much more special from most other European countries. I absolutely love that place.
Also, some people genuinely think that this country "doesn't exist" for whatever reason.
This fuckin quote is from Joseph Goebbels and was about one of his views on a Jewish conspiracy. I so hate this quote.
No specific examples but that's the echo chamber style
The Tesla truck is already there and just needs to be built at scale.
Full self driving has been fully achieved in 2017 and will reach end consumers next year (as claimed by Tesla every single year since then).
It is desirable that SpaceX rockets fail hard instead of succeeding in their missions.
Musk has truly mastered this principle and only now are people getting impatient. Most investors still regard him as too big to fail. Either Elon will be able to present sufficient success in the next few years or that bubble will burst very violently. He has almost used up the good will he has built up over years (earned our not).
SpaceX has been doing incredibly well at rockets, just because you only know about tests that ended in explosions doesn't mean that's how everything goes
You hate musk, I get it but that doesn't mean everything he associated with is automatically bad
Gwynne Shotwell. She built the rockets. Elon was one of many challenges she managed to work around.
Exactly, and thousands of other highly educated and skilled people - I can't think of anything worse than having to put up with Elon then getting told your life's work is rubbish just because he's associated with the company you work for.
Just another hated boss. Not too uncommon. I'm sure plenty of people who work for him don't like him either. SpaceX does get plenty of positive recognition and feedback, too.
The whole Shohei Ohtani fiasco from Toronto's perspective. Wow, people bit hard on that. To be fair, everyone was waiting on confirmation. But, seriously, a writer for the Dodgers makes the first call, then people are checking Flight Aware, there's a restaurant reservation rumoured, and on and on.
Finally, the flight lands and one of the Dragon's Den guys hops out. Word comes down that he's signed with the Dodgers.
Seems to me like it was misreported on purpose, using Toronto as a foil.
Yeah, I would love to get an inside look at what information led to the decision to publish that report.
Religion
That meat, dairy, and eggs are essential for a healthy diet.
I don’t know … all of it 🤷
Seriously, our world and reality are complex enough that we make up ideas and theories that are useful but likely untrue in some way that isn’t negligible. But so in need of useful operating theories are we that we peddle and believe them.
Constantly questioning everything is way too tiring for a species that’s still very much in the survival mode or stage of evolution.
Bob Holness played the saxophone on "Baker Street".
Here's one that I saw on Facebook just yesterday: People getting upset and kicking up a fuss about the installation of a protected bike lane on a street, claiming that it causes traffic congestion and blocks emergency vehicles. This is truly a triumph of brainwashing or motivated reasoning. The pictures clearly show cars causing the congestion, and it's the carswhich would block the emergency vehicles. It's just that cars are so normalized and internalized that people can ignore the evidence provided by their own eyes, with the help of self-told lies about how another lane would fix congestion.
George Santos.
The WEF really is infiltrating governments with their pawns. One of Canada's national papers is finally acknowledging this, and its the more left one.
The correct usage of the word "c*nt" in Australian culture.
Tesla Model S is a sedan and KFC sells burgers, if you say otherwise you're a semantic nazi
I think to most people "burger" implies a ground beef patty, and a non-beef sandwich can only be a burger in a metaphorical sense.
This seems to be a difference between US and UK English.
"Chicken Burger" is a reasonably cromulent expression in the UK, but it would always be a "Chicken Sandwich" on the other side of the Atlantic.
Also, "Turkey Burger" has some currency, although that might have just been an extensive marketing campaign trying to convince Americans to swap ground beef for ground turkey.
It's more acceptable to call something a burger if the meat is ground.
"Piracy is a service problem."
"Unused RAM is wasted RAM."
"Communism doesn't work."
Pretty much any pasty-faced white boy talking point is a load of malarkey.
"The two parties are not the same!"
You are clearly a republican. The two parties are not the same in any way. Republicans at this point are just nazism, Democrats are not the best but not even remotely as evil. It's not even the same fucking sport.
Tell me which party I can vote for to stop dropping bombs?
The US have been bringing war to the world for decades, and this doesn't make the parties the same.
Liberals realizing that socialists exist. Challenge: impossible.
Why would a socialist think the US Republicans are the same as the US Democrats?
Just because you disagree with both parties doesn't mean they're the same...
Yes, we have one party here. But so does America. Except, with typical extravagance, they have two of them. — Julius Nyerere
Liberal democracy is the dictatorship of the capitalist class.
Tell me again which party I can vote for that will stop dropping bombs on other countries?
Acting like the fact that there is a difference in domestic policies of the two parties, but ignoring the fact that the foreign policies of the two are not substantially different while killing a fuck ton of people is just another way to say that killing brown people in other countries is A-Okay with you and something you don't think should be argued about.
I agree that there is an unfortunate bipartisan consensus on national security issues that is normalized bombings.
I would nevertheless say you can find significant differences on foreign policy. And, you can find huge huge huge differences on domestic policy, on things like respect for the rule of law, on the type of people appointed to courts, on economic policy.
So I think you raise a legitimate concern, but then you proceed to completely abuse it by trying to make that concern stand in for the whole of everything that matters about political decisions.
So you're saying one of them makes the world less worse, and is therefore preferable to the one that makes it more worse.
Not when genocide is one of the agreed upon actions.
Your argument is logically an argument of harm reduction.
It fails when you're trying to convince people that this genocide is better because the other sides genocide would be worse.
I will not vote for genocide.
No attempt to shame me and people like me for not voting for genocide will work.
Just by the by, genocide is a red line for a lot of people. Shame as a tactic for getting people to vote for your party works only up to a line.
So, to be clear, you would rather have more genocide than to acknowledge in this imperfect world, sometimes harm reduction is the best that is available to us. Do you think a trump admin would have been counseling Israel not to be flattening the West Bank? Because that's what the Biden admin has been doing, and I'm pretty sure that a trump admin would be cheering them on and demanding bloodshed, which to me seems worse. And yes, you'd get to feel better about not participating in the system, but your hands would in fact have more blood on them. You just wouldn't notice it.
When your options are:
50% dead
100% dead
Having only these options suck, but one of those is clearly worse, and if your tax dollars will be used for one your abstemiousness does the 50% who could have lived no favors.
They arent the same. They both want to fuck us in the ass but Democrats use lube.
Let's see if we can find any differences. Which party supports gun laws? Which party supports women's rights to bodily autonomy? Which party supports mail in ballots? Which party believes that there was an attempted insurrection on Jan 6, 2021? Which party does not tout the 'stollen' election lie? Which party knows 'stollen' is not how you spell stolen? (Just a little joke to break up the wall of text.
Now for a few other points which may help you see if they're both the same...
Which party refuses to even discuss putting any limits on gun rights? Which party believes a single cell nonviable organism trump's a woman's right to bodily autonomy? Which party thinks mail in ballots are an absolute no-go? Which party believes what happened on Jan 6 was a "peaceful protest"? Which party tells its constituents that the 2020 election was stolen?
And last, but most importantly of all, which party has closed ranks around a past president who tried to overthrow the counting of the electoral counts, who has been caught on several audio recordings pressuring state officials to throw out their electoral votes?
Maybe it's just me, but I see a BIG difference.
Right, this is what it means to have a sober and comprehensive look at the issues that separate the parties. Nobody who says both parties are the same ever seems capable of participating in this type of conversation, they just talk in memes.
Which party supports genocide in Palestine and continuously providing weapons around the world?
Which party is incapable of recognizing the relationship between all of our military spending, and worsening conditions at home?
Which party wants to continue acting like the world oceans are theirs and no one else has any right to control over them?
Which party is willing to use force to enforce the view above?
I'm old enough that I remember a time when the US was at peace (not that it was peaceful), and there was actual political debates around foreign policy, rather than a bipartisan consensus that if you stayed from will get you called a dictator-of-the-month sympathizer.
One side will tell you otherwise while voting for a zionist that's funding a genocide lol
Oh so close! It looks like you fell for The Big Lie™️
The answer we were looking for is - Oil companies spending decades telling everyone fossil fuels didn’t cause destruction of our environment and climate!
If only there was decades of peer reviewed scientific research, from countless reputable independent sources, that countlessly pressure tested each other’s work and overwhelmingly showed that man made climate was real.
Until that’s the case, I guess I’ll just listen to what the oil companies say. They probably know best.
Depending on where you live, how has home insurance gone in the last 10 years? Trust the money.
You're right, follow the money. My homeowner's rate doubled this year, but at least my insurance co. didn't pull out of my state. They know we are seeing climate change.
In addition to the money, the military, too. I suppose that the climate conspiracy theorists will just expand the imagined scope of the theory to say that the money people are in on the scam to extract wealth from the rest of us, and that Pentagon is in on it for, I dunno, reasons? (Seems like it already does okay on funding.)
As well as the oil companies themselves, somehow? I'd be interested to hear how they benefit from putting forth climate change lies in their internal memos, just to spend a lot of money suppressing the same information in public.
Recently, eh?
You consider the 1800's recent? Because there were news articles reporting on the issue back then.
Here's an article from 1896 for you to read over, provided you care about learning how you're wrong.
Maybe because it started affecting them?
Lolwut?
EV industry: 1 billion in annual revenue
Oil industry: 5 trillion in annual revenue
Where have you been this last few years? Do you live on another planet? Are you really so out of touch with reality? I hope at least you have an economic interest in this, because otherwise you are really pathetic.
Is Al gore recent? What about George H.W. Bush’s first presidential campaign?