If a government raises taxes for something so that working class people cannot buy it, that government becomes richer by exploiting the working class.
If the working class cannot buy it, then they are not getting taxed. If the government is making more money from implementing that taxation scheme, then all that money has to come from those who are wealthier than the working class.
You only become richer if you hold on to the money. The government's job is to spend that money to the benefit of its constituents, not hoard money.
In the past there have been ice ages while the atmospheric CO2 level was 10 times higher than it is now.
Implying we want another ice age?
The notion that eating insects will save the world seems a little dubious.
When someone starts complaining about what bathroom everyone is using, you can't just ignore it and hope it goes away. It's your job as their superior to address these issues.
Similarly,
Their gender/identity should have absolutely zero impact on the ability to do their job.
Making this stance clear requires talking about gender identity and politics.
This is a great argument for the possibility of changing some minds. You've definitely changed mine. My policy is unchanged though; I'm not going to set out with the goal of changing minds in online discussions.
Life is more expensive when you're disabled. That's not news. But why should you be mad about changes that help other people save money? What you should be mad about is that the savings are turned into extra profits instead of going towards making your tickets cheaper.
Context will tell you that we're talking about losing access to water. If people won't procreate because they don't have water, it makes no difference if it's because we are literally all out of water or if someone else is hoarding it all. In both cases, there's no access to water.
In any of the senses you've listed or haven't listed. My point was that the outcome of the situation doesn't change regardless of the cause of the ignorance. What it does affect is how you address the problem.
Ok, and what should be done about it?
A start would be acknowledging the existence of a problem so that we can start looking for a solution. I've been thinking about this for a while and what I think would be nice is if we had something akin to a direct democracy where people could vote on the areas where they are experts. For most people, that would be their own lives and the problems they face, so they essentially vote on what problems to fix rather than how to fix them. Let the experts take care of figuring out how to do the fixing. There's still the problem of how to find good subject experts in domains where you're not an expert yourself and keeping them accountable. I don't have a good answer for those right now.
If the specialist cannot explain to the common population in a concise way the implications of carrying out a project of that size so that they can make a sensible choice in a vote,
There's no concise way to explain something complicated to a layperson that doesn't end with "trust me, I'm the expert".
then the problem lies with the specialist, not the population. Giving that kind of explanation is education.
Shifting the blame doesn't make the problem disappear. Whether the population is uneducated because of a lack of qualified specialists, or simply due to being incapable of understanding the information, the outcome is the same. You still have uninformed people making decisions.
I really can't think of a time where I have. But I also don't see myself making factual claims about anything without having sufficient first hand experience. If I get into any kind of online "argument", my contribution is basically only going to be logic, not facts. The other person brings the facts and we walk down the logic tree together.
Implying we want another ice age?
I agree