• @galloog1
    link
    English
    -82 years ago

    Those are some great definitions but that doesn’t change the fact that literally anyone can find someone that disagrees with these positions. Forcing them on people will not get the reaction you want. That right there throws out any thought of regulatory capture being the sole thing at play. It can hardly be considered a plutocracy when a good portion of the populous agrees with it.

    Even if that is the complete reality, very few people agree with you and antidemocratic actions will result in a massive backlash.

    • @Cabrio
      link
      English
      10
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      People agree with Hitler, doesn’t make them right, or worth listening to, nor does it make them willing to compromise, some people need to be forced to relinquish their incorrect and harmful opinions through violence and death.

      You’re relying on the wilfully ignorant and belligerent to go against their nature, and that’s a level of stupidity so divorced from reality that you’re effectively no different than them.

      You’ll sit here and argue that you’re right till you’re blue in the face but you’ll still never change anything.

      • @galloog1
        link
        English
        -62 years ago

        Well, I’m sure your unpopular revolution will force through all the changes our society needs. Just like they did in Germany in the 1930s.

        • @Cabrio
          link
          English
          52 years ago

          Appeasement doesn’t work, that’s why we killed the Nazi’s instead of waiting for them to agree with us.

          You’re the global warming equivalent of a Nazi apologist, so it’s a bit rich when you refer to me as the one pushing a harmful agenda for caring about the survival of the human race above and beyond the ignorance of individuals.

          • @galloog1
            link
            English
            -42 years ago

            Yep, that’s how they got elected. You’re doing a great job describing exactly how they came to power. I’m not an apologist, you are an enabler.

            • @Cabrio
              link
              English
              5
              edit-2
              2 years ago

              No, you’re both.

              Explain how I’m enabling climate denialism by saying we ignore climate denialists?

              And how are you not the apologist for defending their indefensible position?

              Do you practice being this stupid or does it come naturally?

              • @galloog1
                link
                English
                -42 years ago

                Climate denialists claim that climate action is a red herring for socialist changes. You literally are doing that.

                At no point did I defend them. That’s a strawman.

                Insults mean you have run out of actual argument. Sorry about your reading comprehension. That must make it hard for you.

                • @Cabrio
                  link
                  English
                  42 years ago

                  No, it’s a legitimate question. You said objectively incorrect things so you’re either disingenuous (practiced stupid) or just stupid (naturally stupid).

                  You could be uneducated but you seem to think you wield cognizance and comprehension with expert skill so I’ll take you at your word and contribute your wilful ignorance to belligerence rather than lack of education.

                  • @galloog1
                    link
                    English
                    -32 years ago

                    Citation missing