this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2025
1333 points (97.1% liked)
Microblog Memes
10376 readers
2060 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
RULES:
- Your post must be a screen capture of a microblog-type post that includes the UI of the site it came from, preferably also including the avatar and username of the original poster. Including relevant comments made to the original post is encouraged.
- Your post, included comments, or your title/comment should include some kind of commentary or remark on the subject of the screen capture. Your title must include at least one word relevant to your post.
- You are encouraged to provide a link back to the source of your screen capture in the body of your post.
- Current politics and news are allowed, but discouraged. There MUST be some kind of human commentary/reaction included (either by the original poster or you). Just news articles or headlines will be deleted.
- Doctored posts/images and AI are allowed, but discouraged. You MUST indicate this in your post (even if you didn't originally know). If a post is found to be fabricated or edited in any way and it is not properly labeled, it will be deleted.
- Be nice. Take political debates to the appropriate communities. Take personal disagreements to private messages.
- No advertising, brand promotion, or guerrilla marketing.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You're using a classic mott-and-bailey fallacy.
You're making a premise that is justifiable, but one that necessarily implies the real point you're trying to make.
Obviously global warming will not affect every place equally. But why would you even bother making such an obvious statement? You might as well be pointing out that the sky is blue. No, you didn't really feel the need to point out such a childishly obvious fact. You pointed out that fact to imply that global warming will be fine for plenty of regions.
You made the point that not all countries would be affected equally because you wanted to imply that some regions would be fine. You didn't state that, but that was the real point you were trying to make. Otherwise, there's no reason to bother bringing up such a trivially obvious point. Obviously nothing in the climate is uniform.
You're doing the absolutely classic mott-and-bailey tactic. You make a true, but trivial and irrelevant premise that no one can refute, but you make it in such a way to imply an argument you really can't justify. Then when it's pointed out that you can't support what your argument is implying, you retreat behind your true but trivial premise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy
I wanted to imply that some places wouldn't be reduced to Renaissance levels of technological advancement. There's a middle ground between things being fine and a year zero event.
Edit: Like the examples I gave earlier of Australia and Indonesia will be literally uninhabitable by humans. I don't see how places that are still habitable lose all their progress and become like Mad Max. Or at least I don't think that necessarily follows as a logical conclusion from the fact that global warming is happening.
Edit 2: A global year zero event is one of the possible outcomes but I don't think it's the most likely one. There's always a temptation for people to want to imagine that they are "the last generation", you see it throughout history. This temptation seems to come from people having a hard time conceiving of society progressing after they have died. It's like an egotistical impulse to believe that the world can't continue after you die.