91–100 of 121 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Orwell wrote about communism not socialism in Animal Farm and 1984. Courtesy of his experiences, mainly in the Spanish Civil War, he became a left-leaning anti-communist democratic socialist, and supporter of UK Labour party until his death.
Neoliberal economics — or really any economic theory — is not going to prevent an apocalypse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Orwell wrote about communism not socialism in Animal Farm and 1984. Courtesy of his experiences, mainly in the Spanish Civil War, he became a left-leaning anti-communist democratic socialist, and supporter of UK Labour party until his death.
Um, in 1984 the ruling government instituted Ingsoc... English Socialism.
Let me see if I can find the actual quote...
[Edit:] There we go: "[Nineteen Eighty-Four] was based chiefly on communism, because that is the dominant form of totalitarianism, but I was trying chiefly to imagine what communism would be like if it were firmly rooted in the English speaking countries, and was no longer a mere extension of the Russian Foreign Office."
With lots of other references to communism, Stalinism and Stalin in the Wikipedia section. One more quote worth relaying:
In his 1946 essay "Why I Write", Orwell explains that the serious works he wrote since the Spanish Civil War (1936–39) were "written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism". Nineteen Eighty-Four is a cautionary tale about revolution betrayed by totalitarian defenders previously proposed in Homage to Catalonia
Hence calling him an anti-communist democratic socialist. :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four#Sources_f...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly, sensational headlines like this are why so many people have a difficult time buying into climate change. If the media would present it as it actually is then I think more people would get on board.
That is the problem. Without actual proof of something, sensational headlines are mandatory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I agree with you, it's not unreasonable to try to correct for expected press sensationalism.
> While I agree with you, it's not unreasonable to try to correct for expected press sensationalism. I don't see why a random internet commentator's pet theory (with nothing in the article to support it) should be treated as necessarily better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay. Clearly this discussion has drawn in the HN crank squad of denialist and anti-science nuts, so I'll cede this to them.
Maybe the reason you are getting pushback is your tactic of insults. Blowhard, HN crank squad and anti-science nuts... The best way to represent a position here is through dialog, not name calling. Emotional jabs tend to undermine your argument.
It’s gotten to the point on HN where the “highbrow lowbrow” is dominating all discussion, because you can’t outright call a lie a lie here. It wouldn’t be “polite”. But it’s pretty easy to toss off a quick, thoughtless dismissal of any particular subject that sounds smart and polite.
I’d almost wish Governments would do more to fight climate change so we can stop talking about it. Not only are we facing the end of civilisation as we know it, it’s going to be a long ass grind to the end constantly discussing the climate crises in between dodging one catastrophe after the next and obsessing over it all. I hardly remember life without talking about it, but I do remember it was nicer and more simple.…
Boy are characterizations like this getting tired. An actually accurate title would read something like: Farm and industry run-off in certain areas of the world is depleting oxygen in certain parts of the ocean. The vast majority of the issue isn't related to rising temps, it would still be there if there were no rising temps. It is the agricultural and industrial runoff in what I suspect are very, very specific part…
Honestly, sensational headlines like this are why so many people have a difficult time buying into climate change. If the media would present it as it actually is then I think more people would get on board.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know it's not "Ocean running out of oxygen"
Running out does not mean going to 0. It means too low to support much of the sea life.
The title is misleading whether you want it or not.
There is a reason they didn't write a precise title.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article is written by a single journalist, and clearly sensationalist. What does it matter he quotes 15000 experts if he intentionally distorts what they say? That random comment by a random guy on the internet is adding clarity.
What did he distort? What is sensationalist? This claim has been made multiple times, and the single example has been a misunderstanding of the English language (e.g. "running out"). "That random comment by a random guy on the internet is adding clarity." That random comment that inserted non-fact, dismissed essentially the entire report...yeah, no, it added just noise. Oh look now the root comment instead of just bl…
The journalist is at the same time lying about a problem where there isn't any and hiding a huge problem that can be solved if people focus on it.