- cross-posted to:
- climate@slrpnk.net
- cross-posted to:
- climate@slrpnk.net
You must log in or # to comment.
20/80 out of any population are absolute numbskulls
Imagine how dumb the average person is, then remember that half the world is dumber than that.
George Carlin
50% of humanity is below average Intelligence
average
M E D I A N
Intelligence is often modelled as a bell curve, where median and average (arithmetic mean) are equal.
Preach
W̵̛̬̜͇͕̊͛̑̓̎Ȩ̸̜̱̰̭̠̞͗̆͑́̈́͑̕I̴̮͚͎̲͇͈̯͐̋̕Ģ̷̭̆̑̿̾̀̅̓ͅḨ̴̧̹̩̮̼̟̆̃͆̈́̃T̴̡͔͙̰̣̈́̃́̌̄͗ͅE̴̠̻͇̐͑͂D̵̺̜̠̼̋̊́̈̀̕ ̴̨͎̩̙̤̦͂͐̋̕͠ͅM̷̞̣̺̼̕͜E̴̖̳̯̬̣̍͐̋͐A̶͈̿͌͊̄͋Ņ̷̝̭́͑̂̎̂̕͜
median is a type of average, just like arithmetic or geometric mean
P R E C I S I O N
'bout 1 significant digit, I’d say
Fourthteenth percent of people know that!!
I think that’s being generous
There are others that are somewhat numbskulls, then some that are sorta numbskull-ish.
I’ve been all these during my lifetime for sure. Just striving to be ‘Less Numbskull’ is a lifelong pursuit.
Yeah life’s quite a work in progress
Being teenagers they’ll have plenty of time to see who’s right. Good luck.
They’ll only have a decade or so on me so for my sake I hope they’re magically right.
i think it’s worth mentioning that a human will gain familiarity with the environment that they grow up in.
we foster an environment where the environment burns down, and the people earning a lot of money (suggesting responsibility) are wimpy losers who cannot solve this problem. let decades pass, and the new generation considers it unsolvable.
Or, worse, they consider the changed world normal because they never personally knew anything better. This is the “shifting baseline” theory and it is an absolutely terrifying thought.
the people earning a lot of money (suggesting responsibility) are wimpy losers who cannot solve this problem.
That’s not the problem, but I really wish it was. The problem is that the people who are actually in charge are psychopaths who don’t give a shit about doing anything to the problem, and are more motivated to actually make things worse
What do the other two thirds think?
the world is on fire and we should probs do something about that
Can we please talk first about whether we want to discuss the existence of this so called climate change? After we have decided whether we want to talk about it, we should talk about what we acknowledge as part of it and what not. Of course only if we decide that we do want to talk about talking about it first. If people are unhappy with this procedure i wantto first bring it to debate though.
From the country that brought you brexit.
In the new series. “We act. Than think. Maybe.” By badfoodproductions. (Imagine it read by Morgan Freeman)
The 5 minute baths and McDonald’s paper spoons will solve the issue.
Does that mean that ⅔ believe Climate change is not exaggerated? Or are there more options?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Researchers from the CCDH gathered a dataset of text transcripts from 12,058 climate-related YouTube videos posted by 96 channels over almost six years from 1 January 2018 to 30 September 2023.
They also included the results of a nationally representative survey conducted by polling company Survation which found 31% of UK respondents aged 13 to 17 agreed with the statement “Climate change and its effects are being purposefully overexaggerated”.
This mentality has seeped into UK politics, with rightwing politicians having campaigned for years to persuade the public that net zero is unachievable and too expensive, and that technologies including electric cars and heat pumps do not work.
They should refuse to amplify or monetise cynical climate denial content that undermines faith in our collective capacity to solve humanity’s most pressing challenge.”
The New Climate Denial report shows a disturbing shift in the tactics used by bad actors to derail the action needed to avert further disaster.
All social media companies must stop amplifying and profiting off the climate denial that threatens action on the most pressing crisis of human history.”
The original article contains 814 words, the summary contains 180 words. Saved 78%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
YouTube, censor my opposition!
Get your shit straight people. Climate change is real. That doesn’t mean do fascist shit about it.
YouTube, censor disnformation. The climate isn’t politics. If you’re a platform that amplifies climate disinformation, you should stop that for the good of every other plant and animal. Where your fascist statement came from I have no idea. Young humans are highly impressionable and gullible, setting guardrails on the amount of bullshit they’re permitted to access while their brain is forming isn’t fascism.
That’s not how your opposition sees it. They think this is all made up for the sake of the alternative power industry. They think your scientists are bought and paid for just the way you think theirs are. As far as I’m concerned, the actual truth of the matter cannot be determined and you all look like you wanna use Nazi tactics to have it your way. Censor the opposition. Indoctrinate the youth. Discredit anyone who says what you don’t like. This is politics.
Bro are you okay
There you go with the discrediting right on queue.
If you’re going to fight for what you think is right, fight the right way or I’ll never recognize you.
This fight has never been fair mate. Oil companies have held back their own studies for decades because those studies weren’t distortable enough to match their views. They do not need scientists paid by “the alternative power industry” to prove them wrong, they managed that themselves.
There is a quote from a very good HBO series that fits quite well here: “Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later that debt is paid.”
https://piped.video/watch?v=adhkn9lt76c
Apart from that, the comparison to Nazi Germany is used in such a sloppy way that it (even if unintended) casualizes the National Socialist ideology. There is a HUGE difference between censoring information regarded as wrong and National Socialism, like bolstering nationalist identity or discrediting and exterminating (or at least attempting to exterminate) other races - just to name a few examples. So for the sake of its danger please do not use it as a buzzword to overemphasize your point.
You’re all calling for your opposition to be silenced and you’re tone policing me. Ironic.
But climate is not an opinion. It doesn’t change just because the debate forces it to. Politics is debatable, economics is debatable, climate is scientific. Science is where you have to prove your point by providing actual evidence instead of saying “well I think it is so and therefore I am right”… And not just that, your evidence has to be reproducible and is getting reviewed by a plethora of other scientists with most of them having their lives devoted to that subject.
In the words of Daniel Patrick Moynihan: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
And therefore you should keep it shut until you can provide actual independent source based evidence that your points are valid but as it stands after decades of research on climate even oil companies have given in to the facts and are now trying to greenwash themselves by “offsetting emissions” and - with all respect - the only ones that are still backing climate change denial are profiting off of it, trolls that don’t actually mean what they say and think they are sooo clever by showing everyone how big of douchebags they are, or the stupid followers of first and second.
You have to remember that 98% of the people on earth think that absolute freedom of speech is something that only three-year-olds and Tourettes sufferers should have
It’s incredibly damaging when combined with the internet
Then obviously the country needs a public forum where freedom of speech is real because it’s government hosted and should have a rather significant crowd it caters to. Literally a forum. A public one. The Internet drowns out those guys standing around court houses and shit with their free speech.
To me that’s good news. “Exaggerated” is a long way from denial and it’s not unlikely that a lot of the teens in question thought of actual exaggerations when they answered. The extinction claims exist and they are vastly exaggerated. Climate change may kill more people than both world wars combined, but it’s not going to get us anywhere near extinction. Even a nuclear war triggered by climate change wouldn’t be able to move us from the “least concern” part of the endangered species list. The resulting famine might kill most humans, but you’d need a thousand times more nuclear warheads than in current inventories to wipe out everyone on the surface. And even then people in bunkers would survive.
