4 ms·
I'm generally against generalizations ("the rich have subverted ...") as it leads to witchhunt and lynching of the wrong people. However, he convinced me that a
by tajen 9y ago
I'm generally against generalizations ("the rich have subverted ...") as it leads to witchhunt and lynching of the wrong people. However, he convinced me that a wrong balance of powers is keeping us too much in the "status quo" of runaway pollution, using misinformation, and is slowing us down in the fight against massive destruction.
But what can we do?
For example, in French politics, there isn't a single person who proposes the right things against climate change. Melanchon comes to my mind, he has a half program against global warming but does hate speech against the 50% richer of the nation (and in France, that mean earning >2000€ pm). And that doesn't even guarantee getting the global warming solved... Macron won't solve much either, unless he digs in the debt, which isn't better for my children. Either way, we're stuck.
- notthemessiah 9y agoI don't suspect that you read the article past the headline otherwise you would have come across this section. "I mean that those with access to large amounts of money and raw power,” says Gore, “have been able to subvert all reason and fact in collective decision making. The Koch brothers are the largest funders of climate change denial. And ExxonMobil claims it has stopped, but it really hasn’t. It has given a quarter of a billion dollars in donations to climate denial groups. It’s clear they are trying to cripple our ability to respond to this existential threat." Gore (and Melonchon for that matter too) aren't referring to the "upper 50%", it's not even the 1% mantra of Occupy Wall St, it's an astoundingly small fraction that have this access to lobbying power and campaign funds.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- emodendroket 9y agoThat seems like a pretty big expansion of the concept of "hate speech" beyond what it is generally used to mean.