421
submitted 1 month ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
all 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] metaStatic@kbin.earth 68 points 1 month ago

if you're spending the rest of your life in jail anyway might as well stop protesting and start taking direct action. This is self defense.

[-] jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world 65 points 1 month ago

Questioning the staus quo is the single greatest crime.

[-] ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works 50 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

handing them prison terms akin to rapists

If this was the case, over 99% of them would be free to go.

I'd say it's 100% rage bait to include rapists in the title, but it's worse - it's a flat out but very deliberate lie made up and perpetuated by patriarchal rape culture to give the illusion that all crime is treated the same, and that there are significantly fewer rapes than there really are (E: because, in this lie, rapists are not only generally convicted but seriously punished, and those who believe it, use the low numbers of convicted rapists as evidence of it not being the serious and widespread problem that it is, rather than of the system being complicit).

A more accurate headline should be: patriarchal pro oil "justice" system punishes anti-oil protestors significantly more harshly than it does rapists

[-] TheFriar@lemm.ee 23 points 1 month ago

I think you’re giving CNN too much credit. So much so that it dips into conspiracy logic.

Never over complicate and attribute to malice what can be attributed to ignorance and greed. Why would they do this? Because it’s clickbait. It’s a jarring word, and they want people to visit the site. Rapist are under convicted, yes. But to spin an entire web about the wording in the headline? C’mon. The body uses the suggested sentences for each crime as reference, which is why they could use the attention grabbing headline.

[-] ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 month ago

It's called bias, it doesn't have to be intentional to exist and be pervasive.

[-] TheFriar@lemm.ee 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I get and understand the concept of what you’re trying to say, but it’s more than a bit of a reach to say it’s in play here, I think. Not fitting in the complicated history of untested rape kits and leniency in sentencing based on the rapists’ backgrounds and the socioeconomic backgrounds and skin color of the victims into a headline about climate protesters having the book thrown at them isn’t bias. It’s just kinda superfluous information in regards to the topic at hand.

I get it, it’s a massive problem. And one that desperately needs to be addressed. I just don’t think it extends to this article. Bias can be subtle and often is. And I understand that trying to point it out can be like trying to catch smoke in a butterfly net. But the subtlety of it cuts both ways, and I just think you happen to be on the wrong side of that divide. Just my opinion, though. That’s the great thing about subtlety and nuance, it’s up for discussion.

[-] RandAlThor@lemmy.ca 34 points 1 month ago

The laws were passed under conservatives weren't they? Tells you all there's you need to know. All they care about are the rich and corporations which are owned by the rich.

[-] hanrahan@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 month ago

Which is widely know but surprisingly well supported by a vast number of voters.

[-] strugglingtiger@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 month ago

Because everyone seems to have it in their mind that they too could be this wealthy... ironically, because the wealthy told them they could be.

[-] hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone 32 points 1 month ago

how dare these pesky protestors midly inconvience people >:(

[-] Comment105@lemm.ee 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Rapists and muggers might belong in the same tier, but thieves and vandals should largely be in a lower tier of sentencing. Maybe with the exception of seriously harmful vandalism.

[-] feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I really hate the writing, it feels like watching an American news channel. I literally stopped reading it, I don't need that in my brain.

this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2024
421 points (99.5% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5181 readers
644 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: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS