Prove me wrong:
If every man on Earth was unable to get an erection due to carbon emissions—no matter what remedy or treatment they attempted—humanity would have banned fossil fuel extraction, fully transitioned to renewable energy, and reduced emissions to pre-industrialisation levels decades ago.
Prove me wrong:
If every man on Earth was unable to get an erection due to carbon emissions—no matter what remedy or treatment they attempted—humanity would have banned fossil fuel extraction, fully transitioned to renewable energy, and reduced emissions to pre-industrialisation levels decades ago.
It might be helpful to provide some context for this critique: I am a European-American Social Democrat, so I am very far left of centre within American politics—which itself is pretty far right of centre in most other Western nations—so I am especially sensitive to this type of couched language.
It also might be helpful to provide the context that I am a European-American Social Democrat which means I am very far left of centre within American politics, which itself is pretty far right of centre in most other Western nations, so I am especially sensitive to this type of couched language.
To be clear, my post is specifically critiquing Mills’ and other potential leaders’ language—which would include Planter, Wood, and others—when they speak about climate change. And I am advocating for far more clear and direct language that acknowledges the steps needed to functionally mitigate it.
I think most people would agree ‘imminent’ means “about to happen”, rather than already happening.
Beyond that, though, we actually agree that talking about climate change is better than *not* talking about climate change.
That doesn’t mean we can’t do a *better* job of talking about it.
To be clear, my post is specifically critiquing Mills’ and other potential leaders’ language—which would include Planter, Wood, and others—when they speak about climate change. And I am advocating for far more clear and direct language that acknowledges the steps needed to functionally mitigate it.
I agree that “pretend the climate doesn’t exist” is among the focus-group tested narratives we are hearing right now (very often from the right and centre-right), but it is not the only one. And “climate change is imminent” is very much a narrative consultants are pushing on the centre-left.
Mills does appear to be saying climate change in Maine is imminent (meaning “about to happen”), rather than here (already happening), which echoes focus-group tested, sanitised language we often hear from politicians that want to avoid acknowledging the actions necessary to actually mitigate it.
Perhaps—it wouldn’t be the first time.
But that framing does echo the more obfuscating, focus-group tested language we are more often hearing from politicians who are looking to thread the needle between acknowledging climate change and avoiding the implications of mitigation.
Hence my comment.
Some advice I just gave a friend:
Remember, you are an adult with myriad stressors, the current state of the world is only intensifying them right now, and you shouldn’t feel guilty for doing things that bring you a modicum of joy and respite (as long as you are not harming yourself or others).
#MEpolitics: “Climate change is at our doorstep” is a strange framing from Mills—it implies it’s an impending threat, rather than an intensifying catastrophe that’s been impacting ME for decades.
Couched language like this isn’t helpful.
We need our leaders to be honest about what is happening.
In other words, the Republicans have ensured the current electoral playing field is not level.
And they’ve now become nakedly fascist, working to fully entrench themselves in power for decades to come through even more extreme gerrymandering.
Dem gerrymandering is *re-levelling* the playing field.
I am waiting for the day my son asks me, as well—he is already showing interest in the cards and the basic premise.
Schalter fundamentally mischaracterises the problem:
Such citizen-lead initiatives to “ungerrymander” would only have any hope of succeeding in blue states—and even then many would likely fail because of gerrymandering by Republicans in the those states giving them disproportionate representation.
It’s even beyond exacting revenge, as Schalter is claiming.
From their follow-up responses they are arguing that we must work to “ungerrymander” the electoral system state-by-state, through citizen-lead legislative initiatives, not via citizen-approved counter-gerrymandering in blue states.
In other words, the Republicans have ensured the current electoral playing field is not level.
And they’ve now become nakedly fascist, working to fully entrench themselves in power for decades to come through even more extreme gerrymandering.
Dem gerrymandering is *re-levelling* the playing field.
Screenshots of Bluesky post (for which quote-posting has been disabled) from 21 April 2026 reading: “no actually, "we gerrymander as revenge for their gerrymander" is the bad stuff. if you can't win with a level playing field, tilting the field is not a long- or even medium-term solution (and nationalizing state politics is also bad)”
It’s important to understand that Republicans have worked diligently over the last 3 or 4 decades to heavily tilt the electoral playing field in their favour—it’s one of the *only* reasons they are actually still able to compete in national elections.
You can’t “high road” your way out of fascism.
I am sure Bluesky devs will vibe-resolve the issues soon.
Hey, if the beer koozie fits.
My 16 year-old beagle which has lost control of his bladder and struggles to move his back legs—so is always in a diaper and needs to be carried everywhere, but is still alert, smart, loving, and not a genocidal maniac—would be a better president than Trump could ever be.
Watson for President 2028
Watson for President 2028
I agree, though it is as very low bar.
My 16 year-old beagle which has lost control of his bladder and struggles to move his back legs, so is always in a diaper and needs to be carried nearly everywhere, but is still sharp and loving, would be a better president that Trump could ever be.
Apparently Maine weather has decided to partake in the celebrations today as massive snowflakes are currently falling outside.
Buffet isn’t bothered writing the check for Berkshire Hathaway’s tax obligations—and also advocates for higher corporate and top bracket tax rates—because he understands a fundamental truth about society:
The most well-off benefit as much as the least well-off when everyone’s needs are met.
Buffet isn’t bothered writing the check for Berkshire Hathaway’s tax obligations—and also advocates for higher corporate and top bracket tax rates—because he understands a fundamental truth about society:
The most well-off benefit as much as the least well-off when everyone’s needs are met.
This is the consequence of proving over and over again that you have no intention to ever negotiate in good faith.
Trump—and most members of his regime—believe you can undertake absolutely everything as if you were executing a hostile takeover of a business.
But that’s not how geopolitics works.
They’ve long since gone full Orwellian with their rhetoric, but these obvious mischaracterisations of Trump’s own words from regime surrogates is causing even their *own* supporters to question whether anything they say can be trusted.
And I think you can see that in Stefanik’s desperate responses.
Conditions for much of the top 10% (excluding the top 1%) aren’t actually looking that healthy, either, which is itself a big concern for everyone due to the way in which holders of private debt have entangled it with financial institutions that’ve positioned themselves to be “too big to fail”.
Today’s market insanity is yet another illustration of what I attempt to explain in the quoted thread, this time with helpful context from @rbreich.bsky.social and @yarotrof.bsky.social:
The equity markets have become largely detached from base economic reality due to extreme wealth inequality.