I don't think so? The Socratic method wasn't necessarily a strategy intended to carefully persuade someone by bypassing psychological blockers. If anything, Socrates' counterparts were often antagonized and angered by his questions because he exposed contradictions.
I think the ethos behind it was that Socrates presumed he knew nothing, other people seemed like they knew things, so he asked them what they knew, since others were so bold as to make knowledge claims.
I just logged in to two smaller instances where I have accounts, anticapitalist.party and mastodon.xyz. I found them in one step and I could see their posts and replies on both of them.
This article depicts Elon Musk trawling for plaintiffs so he can fund lawsuits against Disney. Peter Thiel has publicly said in interviews he funded lawsuits aimed at Gawker as part of an intentional strategy. So that is in fact a perfectly legitimate comparison despite your protestations to the contrary.
You can find Gawker's behavior objectionable, that's fine, but that doesn't have anything to do with anything insofar as it relates to my comparison, since that is not the element I was comparing.
Edit: Also, be sure to downvote and run away without engaging with what I said. Thanks!
Right, and to your point, part of that is stymieing focused, direct action and ramping up of industry in the western world. So it makes perfect sense to be a global leader in every part of the EV supply and manufacturing chain while being interested in sowing division elsewhere so there's no convergence of public interest and policy momentum that grows competitive industries. There's no contradiction between those two things insofar as they serve China's interests.
When Taylor Swift’s JET ALONE produces more carbon annually than 1000 individuals driving their car daily, it doesn’t matter one iota what kind of vehicle the average joe drives.
Amazingly, you're missing your own point. If it's not about individuals, well, even Taylor Swifts jet by itself is a rounding error when considered in the context of global emissions.
But more importantly, it seems like you are contradicting yourself in a pretty fundamental way. You are perfectly comfortable taking Taylor Swift's emissions and holding her responsible for those due to her belonging to a class, namely folding her into membership of "corporations/billionaires". So Taylor, insofar as she represents the collective actions of that class, gets moral responsibility.
But individual consumers are also contributing significant emissions when conceived of as a class, which is a way of conceptualizing individual actions that, by your own Taylor Swift example, you are perfectly comfortable doing.
It doesn't mean it's the only thing we should strive to change, but it definitely is one of them, because the global collective emissions of people using internal combustion engines is in fact a significant input into CO2 levels, and we can reason about these things at those scales if we choose to.
Gee, when you say it like that, it makes extinction-level events sound not so bad! It is That Bad, so that would be the most direct answer.
The important thing to note is that even though some electricity is generated from fossil fuels, EVs eliminate the path-dependency that ties transportation to fossil fuels.
Pretty sure this meme originates from an actual, specific Twitter exchange. Which became so legendary that people just repeated it secondhand, and now the secondhand repetition of it is getting screenshotted and posted.
And when it became clear that there were no nuclear weapons, it became a dishonest equivocation about weapons of mass destruction. Meanwhile, there was also loads of dishonest communication about Iraq's coordination with terrorist groups.
It's too bad. I feel like they're a versions of Ubuntu from 2006 to, say, 2012 or so, that were beautiful and perfect and were accessible to me as a college student. It set a new standard. It seems like half the battle is having people with good vision making important decisions so things don't go off the rails.
(Psst it's not actually the socratic method)