Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

“Cancel Culture” and “Woke”


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Rich Conway said:

When someone asks for evidence of a "feeling", it is not condescending.  When the "evidence" presented is along the lines of "it's everywhere, just look around", calling that out as not really being evidence is also not condescending.

Let's see, you actually said:  "Just an opinion made up out of thin air.  Gotcha."

That comes across as snarky, dismissive and condescending.  I sited a Supreme Court case, one of the biggest liberal icons of the 20th century and i explained my logic.  To characterized (and even fabricate by putting quotes around something i did not say) is bush league on top of it.  

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

That was way too long a post.  Gordon Gekko is looking at that and wondering why I couldn't tighten it up a little.

Cancelling an awards show might be the best thing ever to emerge from the woke movement.  If they cancel the Oscars, I might become pro-woke.

Right-wingers do something dumb: "Look at those right-wingers.  What a bunch of dummies." Progressives do something dumb: "Look at those right-wingers complaining about that thing we did.  What a

22 minutes ago, ekbeats said:

The publisher is running scared.  They don’t want to be labeled as “promoting racism” by the geniuses.

If Dr. Seuss were alive he’d write a great book about this.

I keep seeing this sentiment repeated here, but I don't think the publisher has hinted at anything like this.  Why isn't it possible or believable that the publisher simply thinks the specific items in question are offensive?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, timschochet said:

@rockaction and @ekbeats: just want you guys to know that while I disagree with you two rather strongly on many points here, this is has been the sort of discussion that makes this forum worthwhile: it’s been thoughtful and illuminating, and smart people on all sides are offering excellent points and rebuttals. Plus there’s been no personal insults. I’ve really enjoyed it. 
 

That being said, you’re wrong. 

Wouldn’t be the first time I was wrong.  As I’ve been thinking about this more, one of the things I love about my son’s generation is how kind, thoughtful and inclusive they are.  If it’s at all due to stuff like this then maybe it’s worthwhile all things considered.  I do worry about it going too far though.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Woody Allen has been canceled, so can we talk about him in here?

I read his newest book a while ago. He spends a chapter explaining why the sexual abuse charges are malarky. He was pretty persuasive.

I haven't watched any of the current HBO mini-series. I haven't read whatever the strongest anti-Allen argument that's been published is.

I looked at the Wikipedia entry for the abuse allegations thinking that maybe there'd be stuff that contradicted Allen's book or otherwise added important new information that would change my mind, but there wasn't.

I don't believe that Dylan Farrow is lying. I think she's honestly saying what she remembers, but that her memory was affected by Mia Farrow's persistent coaching.

I suspect I'm in the minority, but the evidence of abuse seems to be really lacking (unless the Wikipedia page is leaving the good stuff out for some reason).

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Woody Allen has been canceled, so can we talk about him in here?

I read his newest book a while ago. He spends a chapter explaining why the sexual abuse charges are malarky. He was pretty persuasive.

I haven't watched any of the current HBO mini-series. I haven't read whatever the strongest anti-Allen argument that's been published is.

I looked at the Wikipedia entry for the abuse allegations thinking that maybe there'd be stuff that contradicted Allen's book or otherwise added important new information that would change my mind, but there wasn't.

I don't believe that Dylan Farrow is lying. I think she's honestly saying what she remembers, but that her memory was affected by Mia Farrow's persistent coaching.

I suspect I'm in the minority, but the evidence of abuse seems to be really lacking (unless the Wikipedia page is leaving the good stuff out for some reason).

I need to watch the special. Some friends of mine (one of whom was a huge Allen fan) said it’s very persuasive. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Woody Allen has been canceled, so can we talk about him in here?

I read his newest book a while ago. He spends a chapter explaining why the sexual abuse charges are malarky. He was pretty persuasive.

I haven't watched any of the current HBO mini-series. I haven't read whatever the strongest anti-Allen argument that's been published is.

I looked at the Wikipedia entry for the abuse allegations thinking that maybe there'd be stuff that contradicted Allen's book or otherwise added important new information that would change my mind, but there wasn't.

I don't believe that Dylan Farrow is lying. I think she's honestly saying what she remembers, but that her memory was affected by Mia Farrow's persistent coaching.

I suspect I'm in the minority, but the evidence of abuse seems to be really lacking (unless the Wikipedia page is leaving the good stuff out for some reason).

There have been many who said the same for Michael Jackson. That the allegations against him are just not true. Once a lie is out there though, it's a mountain to climb in order to disprove. 

The only difference for Allen and Jackson is that they have/had a ton of money. So they could withstand the negative publicity. A regular person cannot and often has their lives ruined. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure I’d put Woody Allen in with cancel culture, I mean if he’s accused of child abuse (true or not) that’s not the same as being canceled for thinking trans men shouldn’t compete in women’s sports.

One is potentially a real crime, the other is a thought crime.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, djmich said:

Not sure I’d put Woody Allen in with cancel culture, I mean if he’s accused of child abuse (true or not) that’s not the same as being canceled for thinking trans men shouldn’t compete in women’s sports.

One is potentially a real crime, the other is a thought crime.

Were the calls to vote against Kavanaugh a part of cancel culture? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:

Were the calls to vote against Kavanaugh a part of cancel culture? 

I don't think so. I think that was a cynical sexual harassment claim trumped up by political expediency. It was much more rational that a woke mob coming after somebody.

I agree that Woody isn't cancel culture. That's about abuse and abuse of power. Same with Kavanaugh. I think you hear so many straw men on the right that you're unaware of what fits cancel culture and what doesn't. I naturally assumed it was easy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Take, for example, the young adult author who is Asian. She tries to write a Latinx character into her book, but she's met with cries that she can't possibly know about Latinx culture because she's Asian and doesn't have extensive background with Latinx people. So the woke Twitter mob harasses her and calls the publisher, demanding the story not see the light of day. She responds with tearful apologies, but it's not enough. Nope. That character has to go from the book or the book is unpublishable. The publisher relents, not wanting to anger their target audience regarding the charge of cultural appropriation and inauthentic characters. They pull the contract and don't publish the book.

This actually happened and happens. The woke mob cancels and wins. 

Edited by rockaction
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Woody Allen has been canceled, so can we talk about him in here?

I read his newest book a while ago. He spends a chapter explaining why the sexual abuse charges are malarky. He was pretty persuasive.

I haven't watched any of the current HBO mini-series. I haven't read whatever the strongest anti-Allen argument that's been published is.

I looked at the Wikipedia entry for the abuse allegations thinking that maybe there'd be stuff that contradicted Allen's book or otherwise added important new information that would change my mind, but there wasn't.

I don't believe that Dylan Farrow is lying. I think she's honestly saying what she remembers, but that her memory was affected by Mia Farrow's persistent coaching.

I suspect I'm in the minority, but the evidence of abuse seems to be really lacking (unless the Wikipedia page is leaving the good stuff out for some reason).

My take is similar to yours, except for the part about reading his book because I would never read his book.

I think it's more likely than not that Mia Farrow coached her daughter because Mia was driven to rageful insanity by the thought of Woody cheating on her with her 21-year-old adopted daughter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, rockaction said:

Take, for example, the young adult author who is Asian. She tries to write a Latinx character into her book, but she's met with cries that she can't possibly know about Latinx culture because she's Asian and doesn't have extensive background with Latinx people. So the woke Twitter mob harasses her and calls the publisher, demanding the story not see the light of day. She responds with tearful apologies, but it's not enough. Nope. That character has to go from the book or the book is unpublishable. The publisher relents, not wanting to anger their target audience regarding the charge of cultural appropriation and inauthentic characters. They pull the contract and don't publish the book.

This actually happened and happens. The woke mob cancels and wins. 

Institutionalized wokism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, rockaction said:

Take, for example, the young adult author who is Asian. She tries to write a Latinx character into her book, but she's met with cries that she can't possibly know about Latinx culture because she's Asian and doesn't have extensive background with Latinx people. So the woke Twitter mob harasses her and calls the publisher, demanding the story not see the light of day. She responds with tearful apologies, but it's not enough. Nope. That character has to go from the book or the book is unpublishable. The publisher relents, not wanting to anger their target audience regarding the charge of cultural appropriation and inauthentic characters. They pull the contract and don't publish the book.

This actually happened and happens. The woke mob cancels and wins. 

It's a big deal in these times, you must be "authentic", she's not for that role.  This explains it more - https://jcommmarketing.com/2019/01/30/brands-should-be-authentic-in-woke-marketing/

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, djmich said:

Not sure I’d put Woody Allen in with cancel culture, I mean if he’s accused of child abuse (true or not) that’s not the same as being canceled for thinking trans men shouldn’t compete in women’s sports.

One is potentially a real crime, the other is a thought crime.

Yep, two totally different things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, timschochet said:

Were the calls to vote against Kavanaugh a part of cancel culture? 

I know rock hit on this but I'll build on that.

First, I am not the arbiter of cancel culture, so one persons opinion.

Woody Allen and Michael Jackson(somebody mentioned him).  Not CC to me.  Do I think it’s healthy...probably not.  Celebrity oddity voyerism.  Going to a circus to see the midget with three arms and throwing rotten vegetables type vibe.  Not anything I’d want to be part of.  If either of those men did something wrong it should be taken care of by our legal system.

Kavanaugh/Cuomo.  Not CC for me.  Do I think all elements of how these men are being handled is good and signs of a healthy society, not in all cases.  But they are accused of real misdoings or crimes.

For me the hallmarks of cancel culture are people, usually not in positions of power, and ideas that CC mob looks to extinguish.

Trump was anti illegal immigration.  He’s not part of cancel culture for me.  The woman who is against illegal immigration and engages in a discussion on Twitter about it and then people send notes to her employer or team up on her to destroy her social media existence branding her a racist and who knows what else...that to me is CC

Edited by djmich
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, IvanKaramazov said:
7 hours ago, rockaction said:

Latinx

Not you, too.  :( 

This is one that I agree is over the top and unnecessary.  Not to mention, choosing X as the replacement seems silly.  Latini would have made much more sense as a gender-neutral term.

For that matter, I've recently noticed that we gender specify some occupations but not others.  Policeman, policewoman?  I get why a woman might not want to be referred to as a policeman, fireman, mailman, handyman, etc.  However, I don't understand why we have gender-specific terms for waiter/waitress, host/hostess, and actor/actress, but not carpenter, plumber, chef, and sommelier.  I don't understand why "waiter" itself isn't gender neutral.  This comment has nothing to do with cancel culture or woke to me; it's simply a grammatical question for which I find the lack of consistency to be odd.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, rockaction said:

Take, for example, the young adult author who is Asian. She tries to write a Latinx character into her book, but she's met with cries that she can't possibly know about Latinx culture because she's Asian and doesn't have extensive background with Latinx people. So the woke Twitter mob harasses her and calls the publisher, demanding the story not see the light of day. She responds with tearful apologies, but it's not enough. Nope. That character has to go from the book or the book is unpublishable. The publisher relents, not wanting to anger their target audience regarding the charge of cultural appropriation and inauthentic characters. They pull the contract and don't publish the book.

This actually happened and happens. The woke mob cancels and wins. 

Please don't use Latinx. Hispanic people despise that word. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

This is one that I agree is over the top and unnecessary.  Not to mention, choosing X as the replacement seems silly.  Latini would have made much more sense as a gender-neutral term.

For that matter, I've recently noticed that we gender specify some occupations but not others.  Policeman, policewoman?  I get why a woman might not want to be referred to as a policeman, fireman, mailman, handyman, etc.  However, I don't understand why we have gender-specific terms for waiter/waitress, host/hostess, and actor/actress, but not carpenter, plumber, chef, and sommelier.  I don't understand why "waiter" itself isn't gender neutral.  This comment has nothing to do with cancel culture or woke to me; it's simply a grammatical question for which I find the lack of consistency to be odd.

It comes from the origin of language. A lot of English and most of the European languages come from Latin. Latin is a very gender based language but obviously several thousand years old. Things were simply different back then. Doesn't make them right or wrong. It's just what they did at the time.

Humans evolve but we don't destroy our history because it doesn't fit in with our current societal norms. We preserve our history to see how far we've come. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Insein said:

It comes from the origin of language. A lot of English and most of the European languages come from Latin. Latin is a very gender based language but obviously several thousand years old. Things were simply different back then. Doesn't make them right or wrong. It's just what they did at the time.

Humans evolve but we don't destroy our history because it doesn't fit in with our current societal norms. We preserve our history to see how far we've come. 

What does that have to do with anything?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Apple Jack said:

The people bent out of shape about the Dr. Seuss books and the nature of their reactions are pretty funny.

It would be funny if political leaders didn't pander to this lunatics.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Insein said:

How so? 

You speak for Hispanics, who according to polling by and large don't even know what that word is? And telling others what innocuous words to use and not use?

Edited by Apple Jack
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Not you, too.  :( 

The last starfighter crashes to earth. Our hero, taken away by Lilliputian mortals. Later a famous man will say, "I prefer my heroes to not get captured."

Does it make it okay that I deliberately did it but seem to have triggered the wrong people? I couldn't not use "Latinx" in that story. How would I have lived with myself if not now, if not in this particular thread?

Edited by rockaction
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Apple Jack said:

You think minor tweaks to language to make it more appropriate is a threat to our history?

Yes. Simple tweaks here and there that are deemed "progressive" for society further erase the origins of language until there is nothing original left. We only have the new, sterile language of the current power.

Ask any hispanic person what they think of Latinx. Most will say they never heard of it but those that have we tell you it's another attempt to colonize their language into white culture.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Apple Jack said:

You speak for Hispanics, who according to polling by and large don't even know what that word is? And telling others what innocuous words to use and not use?

Yes. By and large they never heard of it and those that have do not like it. 

 https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/11/about-one-in-four-u-s-hispanics-have-heard-of-latinx-but-just-3-use-it/#fn-29384-5  

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Insein said:

Yes. Simple tweaks here and there that are deemed "progressive" for society further erase the origins of language until there is nothing original left. We only have the new, sterile language of the current power.

Do all tweaks erase the origins of language or only tweaks that are deemed progressive?

If the former, then are you arguing that we should all revert to "the Queen's English"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

Do all tweaks erase the origins of language or only tweaks that are deemed progressive?

If the former, then are you arguing that we should all revert to "the Queen's English"?

Why aren't we still speaking Latin? Cripes!

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Apple Jack said:

Why aren't we still speaking Latin? Cripes!

I don't know about you, but I don't speak Latin because I never learned it.  If I could speak Latin, I assure you I would do so on a regular basis, mostly to assert my linguistic prowess and make others feel inferior.

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Rich Conway said:

I don't know about you, but I don't speak Latin because I never learned it.  If I could speak Latin, I assure you I would do so on a regular basis, mostly to assert my linguistic prowess and make others feel inferior.

Max Fischer was on to something.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

Do all tweaks erase the origins of language or only tweaks that are deemed progressive?

If the former, then are you arguing that we should all revert to "the Queen's English"?

Not at all. Language obviously evolves to fit modern meaning but it's done in a way that is natural and accepted by society. Changes that are forced upon the people degrade language. Many occupying forces throughout history have used language as a means to completely eliminate a society and take them over. The romans themselves forced Latin onto the areas they conquered and forbade the native language as a means of control. As the empire died, language was allowed to evolve naturally from Latin into what we have now. 

Forcing restrictions and changes upon society through fear has never gone over well through out history. Usually these threats are backed with force thus the topic of this thread. 

Edited by Insein
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Apple Jack said:

I've seen Latinx used but had to Google it this morning to get to the bottom of it once and for all. Have to say I initially thought it was a new fangled way to say plural.

I thought the same at first too. Then I saw what hispanics thought if it and I made it a point to not use that word. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Insein said:

Not at all. Language obviously evolves to fit modern meaning but it's done in a way that is natural and accepted by society. Changes that are forced upon the people degrade language. Many occupying forces throughout history have used language as a means to completely eliminate a society and take them over. The romans themselves forced Latin onto the areas they conquered and forbade the native language as a means of control. As the empire died, language was allowed to evolve naturally from Latin into what we have now. 

Forcing restrictions and changes upon society through fear has never gone over well through out history. Usually these threats are backed with force thus the topic of this thread. 

Are you suggesting that government is somehow imposing the word Latinx via threat of force?  I don't understand your answer and the relevance of Romans/Latin/conquest in the context of the discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Insein said:

I thought the same at first too. Then I saw what hispanics thought if it and I made it a point to not use that word. 

Wait, so you aren't even Hispanic and you are speaking for all of them on a subject not even a quarter of them are familiar with? Okay.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

Are you suggesting that government is somehow imposing the word Latinx via threat of force?  I don't understand your answer and the relevance of Romans/Latin/conquest in the context of the discussion.

I'm suggesting that just like many of the PC words that have been "accepted" over the years, LatinX will be forced upon the people and will become one of those things the minority harass people for not using. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Apple Jack said:

Wait, so you aren't even Hispanic and you are speaking for all of them on a subject not even a quarter of them are familiar with? Okay.

Same as the white people that invented LatinX. It's origins are based in academia and it's detractors are called homophobes and racists. Pretty familiar tactic. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Insein said:

I'm suggesting that just like many of the PC words that have been "accepted" over the years, LatinX will be forced upon the people and will become one of those things the minority harass people for not using. 

Out of curiosity, what are the many PC words to which you refer?  I'm not arguing that there aren't any, but I'm drawing a blank at the moment.

That said, I think there's an ocean of difference between "government enforced language changes" and "organic language changes", and my opinion is that "PC words that have been accepted over the years" are practically a textbook example of the latter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see a lot of parallels between climate change sceptics and cancel culture sceptics.  These are two different topics one of which is based on science, that's not the point, its how people justify their skepticism.

 

Gradual in change

Climate change has been going on...well its been going on forever.  Its gradual and it mostly does not impact individuals over the course of their entire lifetime in perceptible and/or negative ways.  It makes it easier to ignore the impacts and potentially dangers.  Who cares its only 2cm of sea level!!  And last year it was only .1cm of sea level!!  My life hasn't changed so this is way overblown.   

Cancel culture is gradual, it is not singular as Tim seemed to imply earlier that because it doesn't happen in a big bang its not real.  Its only one book!!!  Its only one professor!  It is the sum total of thousands of cases and frankly millions of people and their interactions over time.

I'd argue both can have "tipping points" where things accelerate.  Are we starting to enter a Cancel Culture tipping point?  Not sure but it feels a lot different than 5yrs ago or for sure 10yrs ago.  Once you get on the downhill part of the tipping point in events like these you usually don't come back....at least in any form recognizable to what things looked like previously.

 

Contrary evidence

Climate change sceptic:  Look, Texas was just frozen, global warming my ###.

Cancel culture sceptic:  Well, that person that was fired eventually got another job, so no cancel culture doesn't exist.

 

Misdirection of intent

Climate change sceptic:  You want to send us back to the middle ages and just get rid of fossil fuel consumption.  Thats silly and will destroy lives, it will particularly impact those that are most vulnerable.

Cancel culture sceptic:  You want to send us back to the middle ages where we can lock women in the home and white supremacy ruled the planet.  Thats silly, you're just racist.

 

Probably a few others but I gotta clock-in soon.

 

Edited by djmich
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, rockaction said:

The last starfighter crashes to earth. Our hero, taken away by Lilliputian mortals. Later a famous man will say, "I prefer my heroes to not get captured."

Does it make it okay that I deliberately did it but seem to have triggered the wrong people? I couldn't not use "Latinx" in that story. How would I have lived with myself if not now, if not in this particular thread?

Great movie of my younger days...though caught it once again when I was a bit older and realized how awful of a movie it really was.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how many are sceptical of cancel culture.  Id probably be called a skeptic by some here.  But I agree its happening, I agree its an issue.  I don't agree that many of the examples or things people complain about with cancel culture or wokism are actually those things.  Which weakens the counter movement some...and turns those pushing so hard against it just as touchy about things as those who are pushing for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, djmich said:

I see a lot of parallels between climate change sceptics and cancel culture sceptics.  These are two different topics one of which is based on science, that's not the point, its how people justify their skepticism.

 

Gradual in change

Climate change has been going on...well its been going on forever.  Its gradual and it mostly does not impact individuals over the course of their entire lifetime in perceptible and/or negative ways.  It makes it easier to ignore the impacts and potentially dangers.  Who cares its only 2cm of sea level!!  And last year it was only .1cm of sea level!!  My life hasn't changed so this is way overblown.   

Cancel culture is gradual, it is not singular as Tim seemed to imply earlier that because it doesn't happen in a big bang its not real.  Its only one book!!!  Its only one professor!  It is the sum total of thousands of cases and frankly millions of people and their interactions over time.

I'd argue both can have "tipping points" where things accelerate.  Are we starting to enter a CC tipping point?  Not sure but it feels a lot different than 5yrs ago or for sure 10yrs ago.  Once you get on the downhill part of the tipping point in events like these you usually don't come back....at least in any form recognizable to what things looked like previously.

 

Contrary evidence

Climate change sceptic:  Look, Texas was just frozen, global warming my ###.

Cancel culture sceptic:  Well, that person that was fired eventually got another job, so no cancel culture doesn't exist.

 

Misdirection of intent

Climate change sceptic:  You want to send us back to the middle ages and just get rid of fossil fuel consumption.  Thats silly and will destroy lives, it will particularly impact those that are most vulnerable.

Cancel culture sceptic:  You want to send us back to the middle ages where we can lock women in the home and white supremacy ruled the planet.  Thats silly, you're just racist.

 

Probably a few others but I gotta clock-in soon.

 

Wow. No not really. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, djmich said:

...<snip>...

I'd argue both can have "tipping points" where things accelerate.  Are we starting to enter a CC tipping point?  Not sure but it feels a lot different than 5yrs ago or for sure 10yrs ago.  Once you get on the downhill part of the tipping point in events like these you usually don't come back....at least in any form recognizable to what things looked like previously.

...</snip>...

In the bolded, does CC refer to Climate Change or Cancel Culture?  You may want to edit for clarity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sho nuff said:

Not sure how many are sceptical of cancel culture.  Id probably be called a skeptic by some here.  But I agree its happening, I agree its an issue.  I don't agree that many of the examples or things people complain about with cancel culture or wokism are actually those things.  Which weakens the counter movement some...and turns those pushing so hard against it just as touchy about things as those who are pushing for it.

I agree sho.  To stick with the comparison I also don't think many climate sceptics help the movement based on the extremism of their view or "absoluteism".

In terms of the many examples and some real/some not.  I'd compare to climate change in two ways....First, the ocean is vast don't get hung up on what happened in a 2 square mile radius in the middle of the atlantic, step back and look at the totality of evidence and change.  Second, some #### just isnt climate change or for sure not man made, sceptics will grab onto those to discredit the whole movement...same can be said for cancel culture.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...