1198
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] kescusay@lemmy.world 184 points 1 year ago

I have kids. I am fucking livid that the assholes who pretend climate change isn't happening have decided to sacrifice their kids and mine on the altar of making a quick buck.

You can't eat money, assholes. And you can't bring it with you when you die. If the future is nothing but more and more severe weather to the point that civilization collapses under the strain, then I hope you live long enough to see it and are unable to hide from reality anymore.

[-] quantum_mechanic@sh.itjust.works 35 points 1 year ago

Why did you choose to have kids knowing what kind of future they would have? This is the reason I didn't, and also to reduce my footprint in the world. I mean even 20 years ago, it was obvious nothing was going to change. So I don't know why somebody would willingly have children these days.

[-] _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works 35 points 1 year ago

Sometimes, in an intimate relationship, babies.

[-] quantum_mechanic@sh.itjust.works 22 points 1 year ago
[-] DTFpanda@lemmy.world 37 points 1 year ago

I don't really like this narrative where we make people feel bad about having a kid. People are allowed to have kids.

[-] abbotsbury@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago

and other people are allowed to react to it

[-] DTFpanda@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

The holier-than-thou attitude on Lemmy is arguably worse than reddit

[-] abbotsbury@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

someone disagreeing with you is not holier-than-thou

[-] sdoorex@slrpnk.net 19 points 1 year ago

“We need to take drastic action to avoid causing our own extinction via climate change and leave a habitable world for future generations!”

People have kids so there will be a future generation

😠

[-] quantum_mechanic@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Well the guy acts surprised, like nobody has seen this coming for 50+ years and especially the last 20 years. Put some thought into having children before you do. If more people did, we wouldn't be as deep in the shit as we are today. And people are allowed to criticise other poeple for having kids when they shouldn't.

[-] DTFpanda@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Hey, this is a fair sentiment. I took your tone initially as a judgmental one, but after rereading, I think I assumed too much. Thanks for the reply

[-] GreenMario@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

Cum in her mouth or ass or tits. Get a vasectomy.

[-] jackie_jormp_jomp@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Yeah right, like I'd give away my cum.

[-] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 19 points 1 year ago
[-] FinalRemix@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

But, bringing kids into this mess is practically immoral.

[-] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

The world has always been a mess. What's your solution, wait until the world has solved every problem before anyone has kids? Humans would never have even evolved if that's the plan.

Even nature is fucked.

[-] FinalRemix@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I don't have a solution. You don't either. And those that can do anything about this shit, won't, because it'd cost them some of their precious precious money hoard.

Climate change is basically teetering at the feedback loop point, if it's not already there. Inflation is out of control. Corporate profits across the board are at an alltime high. Shit's only going to keep getting worse from here.

[-] speck@kbin.social 33 points 1 year ago

They have the money and/or ignorance to continue hiding from reality

[-] Chetzemoka@kbin.social 42 points 1 year ago

They think they do. No amount of money will protect a person from the collapse of a civilization. Never has, never will. Their plans are very much predicated on the assumption that markets will somehow magically continue to function after the general populace has lost all faith in them

[-] Chocrates@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

What about the ultra rich that have built bunkers and have their security outfitted with locking, exploding collars to keep them in line?

I forget who, but some consultant said that they did a talk with a small group of the ultra wealthy that are doing this.

Edit: This is what I was referring to https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/sep/04/super-rich-prepper-bunkers-apocalypse-survival-richest-rushkoff

[-] jcit878@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

I think the reference to collars was more a hypothetical in the article as the author was challenging the bunker dudes how would they ensure the people keeping them safe remained loyal, and that none of them considered anything like "treat them like people before the cataclism", it didn't even occur to them at all, instead they proposed a bunch of more controlling measures, which included "disciplinary collars"

[-] Chetzemoka@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago

They can buy themselves a few years at best without a functioning supply chain. We all depend on society, no matter how much they like to deny it

The ultra-rich will still be dependent on their retinues of loyal followers, whose loyalties will of course be tested by the collapse of civilization. Unless their retinues are robots, of course.

[-] FinalRemix@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

robots

That's it! We take all the rich and politicians and stick 'em in "FSD" enabled teslas for a while. The problem will solve itself.

[-] floofloof@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

These billionaires imagine they're rich because they're brilliant, not because they're the biggest assholes and lucky (and born rich). They overestimate their independence from all the people and other creatures that actually make the planet and human society work. Once they get to their bunkers or their Mars outpost, perhaps reality will gradually get through to them. They can't escape this using bunkers, rockets and weapons.

[-] speck@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

They have the money to potentially avoid repercussions long enough. This is especially true when collapse is relatively gradual

[-] juched@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

This is why we have 2A in the US. Maybe we should start thinking about using it.

[-] Dkarma@lemmy.world 36 points 1 year ago

Every 2a person I've ever met who talks this way wants to shoot the wrong people.

It's almost like maybe we shouldn't rely on the lowest common denominator to resolve complex nuanced issues, huh?

[-] killa44@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

You've never talked to a single socialist, anarchist, leftist, etc. about civilian firearm ownership before? It's very commonly thought of as a necessary evil to prevent systemic oppression. Maybe don't spend so much of your time talking to trumpers and neoconservatives?

To wit: there is no "right people" to want to shoot, and anyone who thinks there is probably has their own tribalism issue to work out. Community defense specifically does not have a target right up until the point someone else is an aggressor, and ends when violence is no longer needed. This is why you never saw "antifa burns down trump supporter's house" or whatever in the news.

[-] Dkarma@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Oh yeah sorry I forgot to mention I'm in an area where redneck right wing stupidity abounds.

[-] juched@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Yea fortunately im not a redneck. I totally understand how that line if thinking can make people uneasy. I think 2A is more useful in an "arm the workers" type of way

[-] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

Yeah, violence is the answer... 🤡

this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2023
1198 points (100.0% liked)

World News

38859 readers
1502 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS