politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
The guy who you think wants to "clean up the environment" told Jordan Peterson that governments were using the climate crisis to control people. So why would he use the power of government to clean up the environment?
Also, I have no idea what you think science is, but it isn't that.
If you actually listen to him talk rather than just fishing for gotchas, you'd see he points out that the government currently operates in the name of corporations - subsidies, liability protection, use of force. This is a big part of the problem in the ongoing proliferation of fossil fuel extraction and consumption. It's not as irrational as you make it out to be, to defend personal individual rights while still directing the power of government to clean up the environment.
I was not "fishing for gotchas." I heard the discussion. He was using denialist talking points. And Peterson was even more so with no pushback from Kennedy.
No pushback? The video you linked shows him leading with the fact that global warming is real and significant. And in other videos he has expanded more on that, clearly stating that it is an existential risk.
But in this video, he said that this (real) crisis could/would be used to further totalitarian controls. That's not denial, that's "yes and".
As I mentioned, it's rational to defend personal individual rights while still directing the power of government to clean up the environment.
That's absolutely a denial. That is not the real crisis. The real crisis is the possible end of humanity due to climate change, caused by humanity.
Obviously. But you are aware that there can be multiple crises at once, and that some people may be more aware of / concerned about one than the other?
And yet RFK doesn't think the most important one is actually the most important. And uses denialist talking points. And doesn't challenge the person in the room with him when he also uses denialist talking points.
You keep repeating this as if that will make it true. But you literally linked to a video where he leads by clarifying that the crisis is real in response to Peterson's rhetoric.
You're just making this up to try to put words in his mouth. This is harmful for actually finding solutions. Again, he has described it as an "existential" problem. RFK Jr is trying to address concerns, because that's necessary when people have concerns, but you'd rather pretend other concerns don't exist as if that were a way to achieve anything.
Yes, you can clarify something is real and still diminish it by using denialist talking points. It's something many of them do. I'm amazed you don't know that. Peterson himself does it all the time.
And I'm not making anything up. I listened to the words he said.