this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2026
925 points (97.6% liked)

memes

18800 readers
607 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 6 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Naming problems is okay. Do that. Name them. Try to find solutions. That doesn't make you a doomer.

Telling other people to not be happy, and be engaged without pointing to a specific problem does.

All I'm saying is that Big Tech and AI bots peddle and foment defeatism. Look at climate change propaganda if nothing else.

[–] TipsyMcGee@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 5 days ago

I think climate change is a good example where it’s not socially acceptable to discuss the problem in terms that capture the severity or the small margins there are for effective actions. Much effective actions against climate change are not ”politically realistic” (eg banning animal farming, eliminating private car ownership, building railways, walkable cities, redistribution of resources). Thus, to not be put in the doomer box, you basically have to subscribe to the ”realistic” option of tech optimism (ie, we will be saved by continuing to burn more oil because it will lead to unimaginable breakthroughs that make us unaccountable to the laws of physics).

I’m exaggerating, but I think you get the gist. The the demand that discussions to be ”constructive” takes a lot of the most realistic options off the table in favor of protecting the status quo at all cost. I’m less worried about overt climate deniers at this point – at least they don’t confuse the issue – but more of the neo liberal climate ”believers” that insist on doing nothing or deferring doing something, lest it disturb the oil or auto industries.

If solving climate change keeps coming in the guise of chopping down rain forests to build highways to make it easier for oil people to get from their private jets at the airport to making deals while schmoozing with the political elites, then doomerism is the only rational take on the issue.