I mean I'm not sure I agree with your post. I agree that things are gonna get continuously worse for large swaths of the population likely including myself, but I don't think that means we're all doomed or that I should spend too much time thinking about that or aligning with an internet subculture that hyperfocuses on that.
Right, and I don't think you're a bad person or dumb or even terribly wrong about any specific factual claims that underlie the doomersism, and I still think it was a conversation worth having.
I think it's important, both socially and politically to combat the notion that emotional doomerism is an intellectual necessity so we're going to have to agree to disagree there as well.
You did not ever say it was a necessary, but I think that a plausible (not the only or even intended) reading of your post made the implication that the sheer weight of facts should compel a person to that position. And so I jumped into make sure that everyone was clear that it's not the only defeasible position to hold, and I'm glad to hear we might be in agreement on that fact.
Damn I guess I gotta ignore all the climate reports that conclude that we are all going to die
Look, maybe I misreading you there, but surely you see it's feasible how I might construe that as you claiming that the sheer weight of evidence should compel someone to think that climate change is going to kill everyone.
You don't have to do this for me, but I would appreciate it if you could point to one of the specific off-ramps I missed where you indicated that so I could see exactly where the wires were crossed.
Sorry for any distressed caused, that's usually the opposite of my goal, but I can certainly see that I may have contributed unnecessarily to that here as well.
I guess my confusion stemmed from you eventually saying it's just an emotional position, while also putting up an intellectual argument , and it only became apparent (to me) 2/3 of way through our discussion that the argument you were advancing was not in support of your original emotional position that I challenged.
deleted by creator
I mean I'm not sure I agree with your post. I agree that things are gonna get continuously worse for large swaths of the population likely including myself, but I don't think that means we're all doomed or that I should spend too much time thinking about that or aligning with an internet subculture that hyperfocuses on that.
deleted by creator
Right, and I don't think you're a bad person or dumb or even terribly wrong about any specific factual claims that underlie the doomersism, and I still think it was a conversation worth having.
deleted by creator
I think it's important, both socially and politically to combat the notion that emotional doomerism is an intellectual necessity so we're going to have to agree to disagree there as well.
deleted by creator
You did not ever say it was a necessary, but I think that a plausible (not the only or even intended) reading of your post made the implication that the sheer weight of facts should compel a person to that position. And so I jumped into make sure that everyone was clear that it's not the only defeasible position to hold, and I'm glad to hear we might be in agreement on that fact.
deleted by creator
Look, maybe I misreading you there, but surely you see it's feasible how I might construe that as you claiming that the sheer weight of evidence should compel someone to think that climate change is going to kill everyone.
deleted by creator
You don't have to do this for me, but I would appreciate it if you could point to one of the specific off-ramps I missed where you indicated that so I could see exactly where the wires were crossed.
deleted by creator
Sorry for any distressed caused, that's usually the opposite of my goal, but I can certainly see that I may have contributed unnecessarily to that here as well.
Cheers and stay safe.
deleted by creator
I guess my confusion stemmed from you eventually saying it's just an emotional position, while also putting up an intellectual argument , and it only became apparent (to me) 2/3 of way through our discussion that the argument you were advancing was not in support of your original emotional position that I challenged.
At which point we were deep in the weeds.