huey_m

yet flying accounts for 4% of global emissions, and private aircraft (so, little Cessnas as well as private jets) account for under 2% of that.

So in other words, the unnecessary actions of a very, very limited few alone consume nearly a third of the entire country’s use of a pretty basic comfort.

I see this as rather damning if I’m being honest.

But the fact is that we can’t afford to wait for the ultra-rich

No, the fact is reducing a portion of 7% of energy use (because again, we’re excluding health reasons and such which are ever more relevant in 40+C summers) will not have any noticeable impact on climate change. It just won’t. And let’s keep in mind this is in the shadow of many deaths here in Europe this summer… nah man, we just do not share the same principles here, I flat out disagree that’s in any way a good take.

There are some cultural changes that can make a big impact; if we convinced most people in the industrial world to only eat meat once a week or go vegetarian entirely, this would definitely make a large impact. AC use will not. For the most part, systemic change is the only thing getting us out of this. And yes, our odds of accomplishing it don’t look good… you not using AC in extremely hot weather will have no impact on that outcome at all, not measurably anyway.

Of course reducing energy consumption is always nice, but

then you deserve criticism.

Nah, this is the thing. This is pushing off responsibility for huge corporate energy consumption onto consumers. Even in very AC heavy America, it accounts for something like 7% of energy use. Imo, fuck telling people to just deal with the heat over 7% of energy use while private jets are allowed to flit around and data centers are gobbling up power, often very energy inefficiently. It’s a comparative drop in the bucket.

You’re doing the thing the comic is making fun of here.

“Just don’t use AC (during a heat wave killing thousands) and you can save the Earth!” (2026)

In fairness, that could be said of some of the know-it-all summaries as well. 😅

Your grandad’s AI summary, if you will.

I’m sorry but you really don’t understand

For what it’s worth, I stopped reading after this, so the rest was a waste of time on your part, and a possible opportunity for interesting conversation was missed. After I left reddit years ago, I just learned to stop engaging when people have shown this kind of unnecessarily adversarial attitude instead of just accepting another person might understand your position while disagreeing with it. It just doesn’t accomplish anything.

Just a suggestion, but if you want people to engage with you and not just a mindless Monty Python-esque argument, this isn’t the way to do it. You’d be served by some good faith assumptions of the people you talk to.

The conversation moved there though because you said there was no primary; there was, it’s just the left didn’t use it at all and then didn’t show up to the general because they didn’t like the uncontested candidate they chose (or his continuation).

My original point (aside from pointing out it was often the abstainers making moral superiority arguments) was that people who abstain from voting in the general with the idea that withholding their vote will change the party are going about it wrong. The primary is purpose built for this. Even if there was no other candidate in the primary, as in '24, not voting still isn’t going to motivate the party to change. They already did that with Clinton and the next candidate was Biden; while Biden was left of her in some ways, he was clearly another deeply established pick. I’d argue withholding the vote for Clinton did nothing to change the party. I think voting in people like Mamdani, Nixon, and el-Sayed has already done so.

I do understand the argument that allowing the mainstream to shoot themselves in the foot boosts left politics, but I think it’s so diffuse of an effect it isn’t worth taking things on the chin like losing abortion rights that come with that strategy when we have a process right there we can use that’s a lot more effective.

The primary where nobody except Biden actually ran.

This is exactly part of my criticism, though. Everybody is waiting for someone else to run. That’s why we’ve been stuck voting for the same candidates the party leadership approves of every year; what we’re witnessing now with people like Nixon and el-Sayed is that it’s always been possible to challenge them, but you’ve got to actually run to do it. AOC has mixed reception now, but when she was elected she was on a very progressive platform against a deeply established party candidate and won.

Those are not particularly groomed candidates. AOC was a fucking bartender for crying out loud.

My whole point is the left has, until recently, really sucked at using the primary process to change the party. We see now it’s worth doing. There shouldn’t be unchallenged party leadership picks anywhere, essentially.

There absolutely was a primary… the left didn’t utilize it.

There’s always a primary. Harris wasn’t selected by primary, but she was clearly - as his vice president - a firm continuation of Biden’s policies. People who voted Biden in the primary weren’t voting to change the party, which is what we’re talking about here; if you want to change the party you need to use the primaries to put actual left candidates on the ticket. That didn’t happen. Whether Harris or Biden was selected by the primary, neither were change candidates.

what does that solve other than satisfying your own desire to be morally superior?

Couldn’t we reverse this question though and ask what not voting and feeling morally superior but getting Trump elected has solved?

Not voting doesn’t change the party. Showing up at primaries and ousting establishment candidates does. We have multiple examples of it working now and getting actual progressive politicians in place against the wishes of Democratic leadership that worked hard to see that they didn’t get elected.

One thing I will say, from my perspective, is it’s less that it induces apathy so much as it makes you comfortable with it, and so you lose motivation to change.

That’s the greatest boon and curse of it all in one, imo: it makes bad situations tolerable. Which sounds great to some until you realize that bad situations being intolerable is usually what drives you to try to change the bad situation.

I’m sure it can manifest different for others, but that was my experience.

Also, despite what Reddit/Lemmy will tell you there are cannabis addicts.

Being one, you’ll get no disagreement from me. I can’t have just one, I’ll be stoned non stop until I run out. I tried starting with more healthy and measured use at least a half a dozen times… no dice. It’s binge until gone for me.

It’s a bit more insidious than alcohol, because the impacts are less obvious in the short term imo, and there’s less acknowledgement it can be a problem because Bob Saget said a funny line once. It’s a slow burn.

I absolutely believe this and that was my unscientific conclusion as well; a lot of the previous study we have on the safety of cannabis is with comparatively very low THC amounts. Some of the new study isn’t so rosy, as I recall (though it’s been some years since I’ve looked at it). My experience after 10+ years of few issues was a very bad panic attack bordering on psychotic episode. Though it is much better a few years later, I still have issues with panic and dpdr I didn’t have before which were very crippling in the months after the event. I can’t really mess with weed anymore and encourage youngers to at least watch their THC intake.

I recall reading some studies showing that it starts to catch up to you, and can certainly say this was my experience. After about 10 years of chronic, heavy use I started to have serious issues with panic and dpdr and had to quit.

If you abuse Mary Jane, she will leave your ass eventually ime.

Weed is legal in more places than ever.

I will say from experience though that long term, chronic, heavy use of weed comes with its own problems, though. Probably not as bad as alcohol, but pretty unfun still.

Yup, people always talk about opiate withdrawals, and they are awful, but they don’t usually kill you directly. It’ll make you want to die, and that sometimes does people in, but in terms of directly killing you not so much. Alcohol and benzos absolutely will.

Can we maybe acknowledge for 3 seconds that people are human, have human reactions, and a very common one upon seeing for the first time truly evil people who have done truly evil things is to wish bad things upon them as a knee jerk response, and that this probably doesn’t really inform their actual desired policies instead of just making a pithy reddit-snark response that ignores that context and blames them for that very human reaction?

“Believe it or not, straight to jail”.

'Eyyyooo, where the genocide deniers at? Love to hear the explanation for how this totally isn’t genocidal intent.

I mean, that’s got to be covid inflation, right?

I’m living in Hungary and our inflation, especially food inflation, was ridiculous in that period… I think it topped out at ~70% (for food specifically, so especially bad). Though we had the double whammy of Ukraine as well…