This is a subverse designed to encourage adult discussion spanning the entirety of the political spectrum. All are welcome, from Libertarians to Authoritarians, Democrats to Republicans, An Caps to Anarchists, Socialists to Fascists to Communists, Green, Blue, Black, White, Purple with Yellow Polka dots, whatever color, persuasion, or affiliation, this is a place for you to post your thoughts, articles, and engage in discussion meant to foster understanding.
Politics is best when we try to avoid personal attacks, limits on discussion, censorship, trolling, shilling, racism, homophobia, antisemitism, or any other forms of bigotry and malfeasance.
Election 2020 Politics Sticky
Politics 2017 Christmas Theme sticky
Nov 2016 sticky on new CSS
This subverse belongs to the community of users. Users are invited to post meta-threads about v/politics and I will gladly sticky them. @flyawayhigh
Use the "Report Spam" link to report spam and someone will review the report. J-mods have the ability to remove duplicate noncommercial spam.
v/politics is for all politics.
v/uspolitics is for US politics only.
v/worldpolitics is for international or non-US politics.
v/politicalnews is dedicated to virtually censor-free politics and news
v/news is for news around the world.
v/usnews is for domestic news only.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] Kurplow 4 points 2 points 6 points (+6|-4) ago
This is a very clever and concise piece. There is one reason to deny and oppose climate science today: greed. Bush is the epitome of a corporate candidate.
[–] Moonbat 0 points 7 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago
There's an opposing point of view to this, and it isn't climate change denial. You should stop and consider what you just said - that "greed" is behind climate-change denial. Without agreeing or disagreeing with either political stance, I simply want to point out that you injected politics into the conversation.
I'm thoroughly convinced that climate change is happening and is man-made, so I'm not disagreeing with you about that per se. But I also know that this is a scientific fact which plays into the hands of anti-capitalism types, who are against capitalism for ideological reasons which have nothing to do with the environment. It's for that reason I'm a little more reluctant to take at face value much of the "climate catastrophe" hysteria that's pumped out by that crowd on a regular basis.
[–] Kurplow 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
You make a fair point, that anti-capitalists might use this to serve their own goals. Global capitalism contributes significantly to carbon emissions, being the argument.
However, doubting science based on that concern is to likewise insert politics into the conversation.
I'm not sure I was wrong to insert politics into the conversation when discussing a presidential candidate's views on science. Are we really expected to think his views are not politically motivated?
[–] flyawayhigh 6 points -4 points 2 points (+2|-6) ago (edited ago)
I have to wonder .. are you one of the many misguided people who think regulation is "anti-capitalist"?
It's not.
Are there people who will use any fact available to promote a big political ends?
Always.
Can we stop that by distorting, hiding, or mitigating the facts?
Not likely.
So, I have an idea.
Let's stick with the actual facts.
Your comment is politicization -- the very thing that seems to concern you.
No response. Just an immediate downVoat. That's what happens when you corner yourself by making preemptive accusations of political motives which are the very political motives that you manifest. :)
[–] ShampocalypseWOW ago
I dunno... Hilldog gives him a run for him money.