4 ms·

Balanced comment. I do not find many when talking about this topic.

• cmrdporcupine 4y ago
  Since when is building a strawman "a balanced comment"? "the people who advocate addressing climate change" - who? "constantly be trying to tie it to other unpopular issues" - which? " lot more important than it’s advocates treat it as" The commenter builds up a profile of a "foe" to argue against, but it's all broad strokes and intimation. Each person who holds an opinion about climate change and policy possibilities around it has their own reasons and positions. Lumping them all together and building a strawman out of them doesn't serve any healthy discourse. The comment author evidently has their own opinions and feels like there is some consensus that leaves them out. They'd be better off making those assumptions about what other people apparently think explicit and their own alternatives explicit as well. Point by point. So they can be reasoned about. Instead generalizations are made so they can "win". Because this is just a rhetorical drive-by.
  • germandiago 4y ago
    I do not mean the contents are right or wrong. I mean it is a balanced comment. Nothing else.
  • rayiner 4y ago
    > Each person who holds an opinion about climate change and policy possibilities around it has their own reasons and positions. I agree, but that’s my point! If the people who support addressing climate change really believed it is an existential issue, that wouldn’t be the case. They wouldn’t be treating it as one bullet point on an overall agenda.