politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
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.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Is this satire?
I browsed by new this morning and suddenly feel like I'm stalking that andreas user now.
Feels kinda 'bot' like with the word salad writing style, perhaps English is just not their native language so translation falls flat.
Really seems like they are attempting to push a narrative as a puzzle piece they want to jam into the wrong puzzle.
The fact that we even have to ask is sad.
I mean, it's not great satire, but even so, I hate that there are people who genuinely think like this.
Well, sort of satire. I suppose there are a few assumptions in it that may need clarification. Nowadays, what appears to be general agreement to one person can be complete bollocks to another.
So the assumption this post is based upon:
Why is there global warming? Because of exponential economic growth using finite resources (our planet).
Who benefits from this? Follow the money -> it's not you or me. Who has the money? Billionaires.
Yes, heat protection is important. Of course work conditions should be good - how is that even a discussion point? However, IF you buy into the previous two points, it follows that the need for "heat protection" is consequence of human actions (greed).
Hence, go for the greedy (billionaires) who created this situation (global warming), instead of only addressing the consequences (of global warming) by heat protection measures.
By talking about heat protection, we are not talking about greed -> the intention of the media spectacle.
Who owns the media? Billionaires.
Some shared world-view (or at least a capacity to imagine someone else's) is required, after which connecting a few dots should do the rest to understand the post
Perhaps commenting-bots are not capable of this. 😁
So you're saying that if tomorrow there were no more billionaires, then workers in Texas wouldn't need water breaks anymore because the climate would fix itself immediately?