I'm not sure I agree, as that would turn it into an exclusively science news community. A more general science discussion forum is admittedly much more demanding to moderate, but also opens things up for more activity.
Like, what if someone finds a funny clip from some flat earther or something, and wants to post it here for general amusement value, knowing it'd probably not do any actual harm here?
I agree, but it's this or nothing, as of the past couple years. Halting emissions in a world where major petroleum producers are engaged in warfighting, alongside the rise of fascism, is untenable.
Fascists see not just hydrocarbons, but humans as a resource, to be used. You better believe they give no fucks about climate. Pain and suffering are considered good things. And besides, would global warming really hurt Russia's long term prospects?
If that's madness, I'd point out that sanity by our standards is not the direction of very recent times.
Has he already assigned it to committee? A discharge petition is used to extract a bill from being stuck in committee. One of the Speaker's duties, however, is to assign bills to committees in the first place. The easiest way for him to block the bill is to simply never do this. It enters the House, and then it just sits there, going nowhere, forever. Unable to move to step 1.
Mike Johnson would then be what needs to be discharged.
The crust has a few tectonically stable regions that have never slid into the mantle. This is where we've found rocks that date all the way back to 2-3 billion-ish years. We call them geologic shields.
Our current activities would leave chemical markers in these regions that would be detectable for a very, very long time, and could come from no known natural process.
Otherwise you're right, everything else eventually slides into the mantle and gets turned back into magma over a long enough timeframe.
The reason you are being downvoted is because you're reminding people that the internet has a lot of very young folks on it. People don't really want to be reminded of that, they want to feel like all the hijinks that internet people get up to are with adults. But if your age cohort is here on a niche service like Lemmy, then there must be more of you elsewhere, on other services too. This is genuinely unhealthy, in many different ways, so it disturbs people.
So, they downvote you for reminding them of something they'd rather not think about. Afaik though, there is nothing wrong with this question being posted here.
Regarding the question itself, we do tend to call them urban myths for a reason. People have not yet outgrown silly, superstitious thinking from centuries ago. It's not necessarily an age thing either, plenty of older superstitious folks too. lol
Only Philips was able to get even a tiny bit of support. He's as centrist as Biden. This whole corporate conspiracy you guys love is nonsense. There's a shitload of corporate money in politics, make no mistake, but this is a far cry from the resistance that Bernie ran into. Bernie had actual support.
How do these guys poll? Have you even listened to Dean, the one doing the best? He's not espousing any leftist ideas you know, he's a reach-out-to-the-repubs style dem.
Phillips received 19.7% of the vote in the New Hampshire primary, despite Joe Biden not being on the ballot. Phillips received less than 2% of the vote in the South Carolina primary.
Yeah, I'm not sure there's a viable blueprint for that. Something has to handle huge moving bands of guys with guns, tanks and artillery. Otherwise they kill you and take your stuff.
No, we know, those of us that lean left-for-an-American, anyway. We just don't want an actual communist state. They have this nasty habit of turning into dictatorships somehow. We at least get to throw our shitheels out of office periodically, without having to resort to violence.
Who did "the establishment" block from running? You want to go make Bernie run somehow or something? Get the conspiracy theory nonsense out of here. People choose whether or not they will run.
Don't underestimate the backlash. The big, mellower, center segment of the population that is generally more chill isn't in favor of fascist idiots.
Just, do what you can to help maintain motivation in the face of the fascist fear-train. Fear is their #1 tool, it's the emotion that underpins their whole worldview. Control is simply a response to that fear. Without that underlying current of fear, though, how do they get people to grant them control?
I dunno, I think it's working fine. If some younger, fiery leftist had wanted to primary him, I think that'd have been fine too, but just ... none did. Among the couple of people that did primary him, none really stood out. Like, Dean Philips was fine, but the guy literally didn't have a platform that wasn't "I'm a mainstream dem that's not Biden."
That's not good enough to take down an incumbent.
But otherwise, what do you want? If nobody with positions runs against him, then nobody with positions runs against him. It's not like AOC was 10 years older and vying for the nomination and we all ignored her or something.
At least be honest. You don't want a functional president, you want a left-leaning one. That's fine, but at least represent yourself accurately. Otherwise you're just acting with the same childishness as the guys on the other side of the aisle.
From a pure functionality perspective, he's gotten a shitload done. Even if you don't agree with it all, like helping Netanyahu and such.
You think white supremacists shot Nazis...? I mean, yeah, I guess the most famous Nazi ended up shooting himself, that might count. Kinda.
Or do you think only white supremacists care about history? Really curious about this line of reasoning.
As a side note, falling into despair is exactly what the fascists want of you. It keeps you out of their way, which helps them.