What does mean “being SA’d”?

Are you asking which CEOs are the most cynical?

Yeah, sort of

Lol, it’s the Schrödinger’s guilt. The news is supposed to be uplifting both because the guy is praised as a hero for killing someone and because he is presumed not guilty.

Personally, i don’t have any sympathy for him, regardless he’s guilty or not, some things he said are really disgusting.

At some point, defeatism is just realism, no matter the amout of hopium people try to sell to you.

Soil depletion, (micro)plastics in the water, biodiversity collapse, political instability, economical crisis, nuclear menace that is not a thing of the past anymore, sanitary crisis that will likely be worse than COVID, to name a few.

Actually, it’s too late, because those in power are accelerating in the wrong direction and we are less and less able to prevent them to do so.

And even so, given the current state of the society, even the “best case scenario” will be enough to make it collapse.

Personally, the “renewable” energies aren’t making me hopeful. Because they are absolutly not renewable, they can’t be build without pollution because of the materials you need. And even so, climate change is not even the worst of our existential threats, there are many more, but strangely, people are only talking about climate.

I don’t believe in the possibility of mass civil disobediance, especially in a context where most of people are either depolitized, either are voting massively for (wannabe) autocrats.

We shoudn’t rely on carbon capture, the technology is still at an embryonary stage and will not be ready on time to have a significant impact. Nor on a nuclear winter, for obvious reasons.

Actually, level of warming that could directly wipe humanity is technically possible, even the hopium dealers among climate scientists admit that (notably Michael E. Mann). But even if it doesn’t kill all of us directly, it will likely generate a domino effect for other existential threats.

Your statement is extremely naive, because when a politician establish a rule, you are legally forced to follow it, and believe me, the authorities don’t care about the means to enforce the said rules if they don’t want to follow them. Resistance to Trump will lead to increased repression, you should not forget he is a known authoritarian. If you want to risk your freedom -if not your physical integrity- to set yourself above the law, good for you, but don’t incite people to do so.

I don’t think healthy skepticism is forbidden here, so feel free to write your rebuttal.

Yes, until the political situation make it unfeasible without being treated like a dangerous terrorist. The OP didn’t said it either, but she should have.

In fact, they are already unstoppable. History showed us many times that when autocrats are in full power, they keep it forever, unless they lose a war or die without having planified their succession. And don’t talk me about the Biden example, his presidency did not prevented an unpreceded harm by the GOP.

The post is right, but only on the paper, and not really in a world that is progressively taken over by ecocidal autocrats whose program is to kill every bit of efforts in climate fight, so even the smallest progress we made will soon be distant memories and fighting will be increasingly dangerous and difficult and, ultimately, virtually impossible. And the locked-in catastrophes are now sufficient to collapse our already fragilized geopolitical context.

People saying it’s “not too late” are systematically downplaying the current political context, wich make their message pretty unconsistent.

English is not my mother language, i used an automatic translator for this word. In french, this is called “sas d’entrée”.

-Karl Marx: his ideology, that intended to fight oppression, was only used to build dictatorships.

-Martin Luther King: institutionalized racism is still alive and well.

-Marsha P. Johnson: the current situation of american queer -and especially trans- people in America is self explanatory.

Impunity of members of UN security council

If a UN resolution is vetoed by at least one of the members of the UN security council, the said resolution is thrown in the trash. That means that if a war crime is serving the interests of at least one member of the UN security council, its full impunity is de facto guaranteed. Even worse: some of the members are notably war-thirsty and 2 of them aren’t even democratic. And there is no way to change this way of functioning because it also can be vetoed by the said members. How many crimes have been made possible because of that?

Cyberbullying

Not a single judiciary system is able to tackle a phenomena that can happens from anywhere in the world to anywhere in the world an can imply a handful of thousand of persons. Big tech does not have legal obligation nor financial or ideological interest to tackle it because forcing them would be unconstitutional. The rare cases where justice give a fuck about it, you get at best the condemnation of a bunch of nobodies after years of legal procedure during which the bully continues, and most of your bullies are still unpunished and free to launch a punitive expedition.

Totally disagree. The rise of populist politicians using xenophobic rhetoric is the proof that this mechanism is still strong.