To get things started I’ll state my most controversial views.

  1. I think J.K. Rowling is alright. And that by definition I’m what some would call a “TERF”.

I think there are fundamental differences between men and women, and how one feels doesn’t really change that. Personality traits and mental illness do not change biology.

  1. I’m an atheist. I’m not convinced of any deities, but that’d be pretty cool to find out if there were any, or any deep answer to the universe for that matter.

  2. Climate change is a real and present danger, But there’s fuck all I can do about it from an individual standpoint right now.

  3. Aliens seem like a very real possibility with all the seemingly credible sources lately but I’m not convinced. My best guess is that it’s an intentional thing to mess with other countries.

  4. I’m nearly a free speech absolutist. I think one should not be afraid to voice their views. And that censorship only hurts human progress.

  5. The main controversy surrounding this instance, lolis. I don’t care what people beat it to as long as no one is being harmed. Drawings don’t have emotions, bodies, or rights.

  • livixPmfOQRj@burggit.moeOPMEnglish
    0·
    1 year ago

    As for the atheist part, there’s historical confusion as to what that means because of how religions use that term. Might as well be synonymous with devil worshipper, despite the contradiction.

    Atheism is a lack of a belief. It’s not belief that there absolutely isn’t any. If I tell you I have a pumpkin from 2007 still in my freezer you don’t know for a fact that I don’t, or even that I do.

    Same for gods, I don’t know that they exist, or that they don’t. I’m agnostic on the matter. Agnostic atheist is the term generally referred to this.

    As for climate, the government not doing something isn’t proof it isn’t a real issue. Governments fuck up a lot with neglect.

    But peoples careers being in the balance, sure, I can see that as being a potential conflict of interest. I do think the science behind it stands up for itself though. Past a certain global average temperature, parts of the food chain start dying and it starts to fall apart.

    Sure the world has always changed in temperature, but everytime it gets this high things start dying irrevocably fast. There’s a good reason they’re called extinction events.

    • alphadog@burggit.moeEnglish
      0·
      1 year ago

      I was purposely terse with my religious response, I was not attacking anyone or their use of the term. I’m simply stating that I’m not an atheist.

      Well, the science is what’s at issue. Climate science isn’t really a hard science. They have some data and it looks like some big increases. But I think there may be far too many variables for us to be certain about the conclusions. That doesn’t mean I think we should do nothing. I do what I can but I think the place to be looking is at the companies. It really doesn’t matter what a few countries in western europe (where I live) do: USA, China and India will produce far more than we could ever undo by being carbon neutral or even negative. And we can’t force those countries to change via threats or complaining. The way to get them to change is change how business works. And since no one is, and all we actually do are mostly useless virtue signalling, I hope the climate scientists are wrong because otherwise we’re screwed.

      • livixPmfOQRj@burggit.moeOPMEnglish
        2·
        1 year ago

        My mistake. I misunderstood you.

        I hear you, and I agree. Not much we can do other than changes in how we do business. We’re a capitalist society and profit drives it all.