130
Anxious scientists brace for Trump’s climate denialism: ‘We have a target on our backs’
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2024
130 points (100.0% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5380 readers
293 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
First and foremost, i'm an Australian. I know USA politics pretty well, but its not my context, i don't usually comment on this stuff on 'wild lemmy' to this depth, because i'm painfully aware that context matters. The only reason i'm commenting is because i know the fear and depression setting in won't help, you all gota carry on, and depression/anger won't help the effectiveness of your efforts. Take that as a caveat to dismiss me if you feel it just misses the mark.
Note: when i say 'your' i'm meaning it as a plural.
Okay, so in my minds eye, my comment was really for any scientist/stakeholder with an ongoing specific interest in an ongoing green project or something of that nature. Its not a comment for winning arguments with friends, its a comment for getting as close to what you need, from the people in power. Its Dale Carnegie, or Real Politik. So the "leverage", the "extraction" is all refering to a specific stakeholders case.
I'll start at the end, because i felt that was one of the more important parts. "Making demands they don't want to refuse" doesn't mean demanding exactly what you want and how you want it,
Take a street protest, as an example, the MAGAs will love nothing more than to stomp down a big street protest for climate action. It may be cathartic for the people at the protest to be a part of that protest, but whatever/if concessions are given will be 'blood out of a stone'. In this case they will do almost anything in their refusal.
I'm not saying don't protest, i'm sure there will be, and i hope they shake the foundations of Washington or wherever they are held. Please look after yourselves, i think the authorities will be coming for a fight.
Or the other option, i could use the first example of Solar Panels. Use China, the elite are so terrified they're losing to China they're willing to do almost anything. So state the case that China makes the most/best Solar panels. Don't define it in terms of climate action, state it in 'power and domination' terms. Appeal to their natural authoritive tendencies (they trust their own authority, undermine that trust). You could also make it binary China's win, is the US' loss and hopefully by the end they "won't want to refuse".
These two examples, i hope, show you both sides of that statement. They won't be perfect, and like any negotiation there never a guarantee it'll work. But its a strategy that stakeholders like scientists might need to rely on for the greater good.
After reading your paragraph below this I don't think you can justify calling it a cult in the traditional sense. I agree, its murky at best.
Its maybe a cult of personality, its probably better described as a cult of ragetainment. Once people get bored, they tend to drift away, let them get bored, that means people who disagree shouldn't rise to the bait. Instead make a joke out of it, satire is a sensationally satisfying art. Boredom is good it gives the brain time to be thoughtful, instead of reacting to the latest ragebait.
I'm definitely uncomfortable classing MAGA as a cult in the traditional sense. Maybe its a movement. My key point here is the strong and continued correlation between Trump voters and Bernie, and AOC voters. This is key in my understanding. It means theres a broad rejection of the status quo.
I'd like to caveat the above by acknowledging this isn't a one to one correlation. But, i could make a similar argument for the conservative-religious and trump voters, its more of a marriage of convenience in that instance.
There is absolutely a section who are fully signed up Trump. But in terms of voter rolls its likely a smaller share of voters than we give it credit.
Lastly, appeals to nationalism aren't MAGAs or fascists, or Conservatives, or what-evers exclusive domain. If your proud of where your from, even if its in the most roundabout ways, then you have some nationalism. Don't let a words bad reputation hold you back from making the place you love somewhere you can be even more proud of, Liberals, leftists, whatevers can be nationalistic to. Use that USA flag of yours in your own ways, theres no need to cede that shit to authoritarians.
What is this in reference to?
This context was important, thanks. This definitely work on neocons, because they actually care about this country. Unlike fascists, for whom the nation is just a means of implementing their racism. The issue at the end of the day, is that Trump and his cronies he wants to put in the White House are grifters. They know it's a scam, so there's nothing to manipulate on the nationalist side for the actual individuals in power. Trump's a fascist, he probably does believe in some kind of racial superiority for white people. But he has no loyalty to other white people or any people, only himself.
I would say what the people in the MAGA movement classify as MAGA is murky. A lot of Trump's cabinet picks think they are MAGA, but a lot of MAGA people seem to disagree. Trump is one of the elites. He inherited wealth from his dad. If his supporters can spot problems with his cabinet picks why can't they spot those same problems with him? It's like the cabinet picks don't match up with the Trump that lives in their head. Because they definitely match up with the Trump who lives in real life.
There's definitely a desire for populism that rejects the status quo from the electorate. As far as MAGA being a cult, if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, and shoots lasers from a minigun, then it's a duck with a laser minigun. MAGA has grown to include attributes beyond a cult. It's a full christo-fascist movement, but it also still contains the elements of a cult within it. Thus it can still be classified as a cult.
That's the distinction between patriotism and nationalism. Patriotism being a healthy love of one's country that can include the belief the country has something worthwhile to offer its citizens and the world. Nationalism being an unhealthy and destructive belief in the country's superiority that excludes a peaceful or cooperative coexistence with the rest of humanity. We can definitely have and many of us do have a sense of patriotism for our country. There's no sense in letting fascists claim everything good in the world for themselves. edit: typo
Nationalsim v Patriotism.
I's avoiding patriotism, (although also acceptable), because its often a mistake to divide each other apart if its unnecessary. In this case, the vast majority of the US population are not in some MAGA movement/cult. In fact about a third of US voters we can only say have lent these people their votes. However, many more than that would likely accept a nationalistic self image as a fair description of themselves.
I specifically want to counter the idea that to be nationalistic is only a negative thing. Civic Nationalism is a very important thing for countries like ours. The broad designation 'nationalist' shouldn't be surrendered, especially where common perceptions lead to unfavourable results, (see what i say above about likely self images).
Recognition of common interests is also harder if people are speaking different dialects. In this case there is no need to be distanced by that linguistic difference.
By avoiding its use, the broader population can misunderstand civic minded/progressive/left/etc, peoples lack of referrals to 'nationalism' as being ashamed of, or hating, their country.
This (dictionary.com) is a good base for the terms. You're right to assume the negative connotations. Hopefully you see i's attempting to counter the popular use by pointing out its importance.
In the context of my comment about the US flag, i saw someone paint one of those blue line US flags with the LGBTQ+ rainbow colours. In my opinion civic minded US people should be taking back their flag in those ways more often.