this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2023
246 points (98.8% liked)

Canada

10345 readers
703 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bioemerl@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

When you start out with such a massively misleading statement like:

Industry is responsible for more than 20% of all emissions

When industry is literally stuff like cars, industrial equipment, oil production, basically all chemical production, and so on and so forth.

Cheap disposable plastic mall trinkets are not a major industrial sector. The vast majority of industrial spend is stuff that actually improves people's lives.

If you're going to start criticizing "products" then again you're talking about stuff that for the most part people just want. And stuff for the most part that people would want regardless of advertisements.

This:

You have never been under your own motivation

Is what I'm talking about when I say it's conspiracy thinking.

Maybe.

Just maybe.

People are able to think for themselves.

It's extra hilarious that you link a study on subliminal messaging, which is one of the fields in psychology that have been embroiled in reproducibility issues and fraud.

[–] Touching_Grass@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

When industry is literally stuff like cars, industrial equipment, oil production, basically all chemical production, and so on and so forth.

All things required for manufacturing goods. Its in the link.

Cheap disposable plastic mall trinkets are not a major industrial sector.

That's a narrow constraint you put on this, it isn't mine.

The vast majority of industrial spend is stuff that actually improves people’s lives.

Improve lives how? That's a broad statement. My life can be improved by getting a new car every week. Doesn't mean it didn't cost a large amount or energy to produce and dispose of.

Maybe. Just maybe. People are able to think for themselves.

If that were true, how does a lawyer convince someone to divulge information in a deposition of a person that did not want to divulge information. You make a choice, but your choices are influenced by more than ourselves.

I provided one link for support. That does not mean its the only thing. Its used to show there is evidence and you are suppose to read between the lines that there is a whole field with much more. Its a stepping stone, not a destination. But you said this:

It’s extra hilarious that you link a study on subliminal messaging, which is one of the fields in psychology that have been embroiled in reproducibility issues and fraud.

"I believe this only underscores my point. I don't think you are a psychologist. But this is something we all have heard online lots in these arguments. We all have been influenced by this refuting sentence and often repeat it. I've done it in the past. It's something that affects our choices because at some point it has left a memorable impact on us. If you search for 'reproducibility,' you'll find headline after headline on the topic. Oftentimes, it's used in internet arguments by people like us to dismiss things. It's a learned behavior in our culture war discourse. It has been ingrained as a way to reject an argument and to disregard the 'other side.' You didn't engage with the study itself. You didn't demonstrate that the article I shared was incorrect. Instead, you simply rejected it by citing 'reproducibility problems.' That's a learned behavior. You didn't independently pore over academic studies to come to this conclusion; rather, you were influenced by someone else to use this argument in these instances.

[–] bioemerl@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago

"I believe this only underscores my point

I was caught peddling bunk folk psychology to peddle my conspiracy theory about we are all getting manipulated to serve the evil overlords and that only makes my point stronger

You didn’t engage with the study itself.

I don't engage with flat earth bullshit or other conspiracy theories either. I engage with things that are worth engaging with. An Amazon pundit piece peddling crap about your free will being taken away subliminal messages goes into the instant trash with the other garbage.