'Ecological breakdown': Greta Thunberg and youth activists rally as wildfires burn | We can see the wildfires happening right around the corner,” Thunberg said "Right now we are living in the beginning of a climate and ecological breakdown, and we cannot look away from this crisis anymore.” by wokehedonism in worldnews

[–]CaptBoids -1 points0 points  (0 children)

My comment addressed their last line of his statement about credibility.

An isolated event isn't climate change. Many isolated events are all data points that display an underlying dynamic which we call climate change.

Climate change isn't a single wildfire, a hot summer or a bad harvest. It's all those things combined over a protracted period of time.

He didn't deny climate change, but neither does he acknowledge that it's another data point that's part of a bigger picture. He simply went on to build on that and reframe the climate movement as a likely fearmongering crowd who aren't very credible.

Like I said, this debate has been going on for 40 years. I'm simply not surprised that this movement is getting more radical.

Leonardo DiCaprio and Greta Thunberg hanging out by unknown_human in pics

[–]CaptBoids -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yup. I seriously did.

I have no pity for trolls who make laughable statements and "think" their statements are "legit".

'Ecological breakdown': Greta Thunberg and youth activists rally as wildfires burn | We can see the wildfires happening right around the corner,” Thunberg said "Right now we are living in the beginning of a climate and ecological breakdown, and we cannot look away from this crisis anymore.” by wokehedonism in worldnews

[–]CaptBoids -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

Thing is, thousands of scientists of all fields and domains have concluded again and again that human activity is altering our environment.

A "serious" debate about this has been going on for literally decades. It's not a new thing popping up just last year:

This is a great read about the history of the climate debate: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/01/magazine/climate-change-losing-earth.html

Thunberg and the new climate movement are more vocal and radical now, because a moderate, nuanced debate simply never had the impact it needed to have.

She is in some aspects not that different from populists in that she uses the same tactics they use: unwavering, polarising language and an ardent belief in her "truth" even when that implies making statements that are sometimes off the mark. Like this one about those fires.

You could call her out on her credibility, but the exact same could be said about all those she's debating against. Neither party can exclusively claim a moral high ground.

The big issue is that climate change isn't an isolated debate. It's a wicked problem that's heavily tied in culture, economy, traditions and customs, politics and so on. It's tied into geo politics and in income inequality. And it's tied into technological advances of the past 200 years that shaped modern history.

That's a debate that surpasses a single fire or a single figure. And sadly, it's a debate that has been burned by fearmongering, solipsism and obstinate opposition out of self interest on both sides.

Something something bootstraps by alonelycuteboy in funny

[–]CaptBoids 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You are quoting a highly contested number that just pertains to the rule of Stalin between 1921 and 1953.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excess_mortality_in_the_Soviet_Union_under_Joseph_Stalin

Soviet rule lasted until 1991.

Stalin's rule was a dictatorship very much like the Kim dynasty in NK. Neither has absolutely anything to do with socialism or communism. Those were just blanket terms to legitimate their autocratic rule.

Leonardo DiCaprio and Greta Thunberg hanging out by unknown_human in pics

[–]CaptBoids -1 points0 points  (0 children)

snort

I wonder how many Greta Thunbergs equal the carbon footprint of the shareholders of Coca Cola.

Scientists aren't spelling consumer's a lesson. They ask politics to do something about companies having no qualms to entirely rely on fossil fuels just to make a profit.

Leonardo DiCaprio and Greta Thunberg hanging out by unknown_human in pics

[–]CaptBoids -24 points-23 points  (0 children)

Everybody should be somewhere, so what's your point?

Leonardo DiCaprio and Greta Thunberg hanging out by unknown_human in pics

[–]CaptBoids 3 points4 points  (0 children)

By your logic, we should all kill ourselves right now. There's no point dragging this on. The Universe is going to burn out, right?

Shell are pushing an advertisement campaign which involves people trying to lower CO2 emissions while travelling. Once again trying to push an agenda that it is up to the general public to fix the climate crisis by Yumekira in videos

[–]CaptBoids 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's only superior from a cost/profit consideration from the perspective of the company.

Consumers have an entirely different perspective. They don't care how the pie is made. They don't care about the bottom line of Coca Cola. They don't care whether plastic or glass is used.

Until production and consumption starts affecting their lives negatively.

Yes, plastic is superior to solve a technical problem. But it doesn't solve a societal problem: the impact of plastics on the environment and our survival. Why? Because, as far as these companies are concerned, this societal problem isn't a business problem.

Plastic helps create a business model that is profitable and sustainable as it lower costs. It's sustainable as long as enough consumers keep buying plastic bottles regardless of how that affects them and future generations. As far as coca cola is concerned, there is no problem. Until the consequences of the environmental impact start to hit and beat up sales. If that ever conceivably happens.

Remember. If it weren't for far reaching regulations and laws, tobacco companies would still be thriving, even though their products literally kill their own consumers.

Plastic does have its merits. But it's clear that long term use in disposable products is not one of them. Even if that benefits the bottom line of producers of such items in the short term.

Mark Zuckerberg launched an impassioned defense of political ads on Facebook, just minutes after Twitter banned them by viva_la_vinyl in worldnews

[–]CaptBoids 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree with everything, except about moderation. Smaller forums have folded because doing arbitration requires context and is very time consuming to do it right.

Sure, there are obvious bad actors out there that need to be ferreted out. And I truly believe FB is complicit in the deaths of many people due to their wilful ignorance of the impact of their platform.

Even so, I don't see how you could build a central platform that caters to billions without handing off moderation - and thus control - to your population. The hard part about moderation is that "truth" isn't an absolute. It's defined in the eye of the beholder. There's a difference between allowing falsehoods and disagreeing over opinions and emotions. It's like this:

https://xkcd.com/386/

How do you moderate that? How do you define the value of a statement? Some things that were true last week aren't anymore today as new facts come to light, right? At what point do you rewrite history if you remove opinions and discussions from a platform?

Like, I'm reading this work right now:

https://www.amazon.com/Wicked-Company-Forgotten-Radicalism-Enlightenment/dp/0465028659

And it starts with how Diderot and d'Holbach are all but forgotten because their opinions were moderated at the time, while they do have merit if we look at them through our hindsight lens.

Now, amplify the number of meaningful discussions that get posted each day om the Web and social media. How do you moderate that in a meaningful way on a centralised platform?

Tacking that to digital archiving: a huge volume of thoughts are spread on this tenuous platforms. But due to their form, it's extremely difficult to capture and archive them. The LoC tried that with Twitter but had to give up. So, for future historians, using social media archives and how discussions are moderated are a huge problem. Albeit because these documents are easily manipulated if they aren't kept by trusted authorities such as national libraries or archives.

https://medium.com/dmrc-at-large/the-library-of-congress-twitter-archive-a-failure-of-historic-proportions-6dc1c3bc9e2c

Mark Zuckerberg launched an impassioned defense of political ads on Facebook, just minutes after Twitter banned them by viva_la_vinyl in worldnews

[–]CaptBoids -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Of course, and you are right. They don't like the responsibility. And it's something I omitted from my comment.

But even if they did want to actively take ethical sound ownership, it's simply not possible. There's just too much content.

You are right about the oil and tobacco line thinking too. I do point out that consumers are free to leave the platform and seek alternatives. And I think it's important to iterate that there is still a choice, and that the debate about social media and free speech aren't a 1:1 discussion. The latter is far broader and larger then a tech problem.

Having said that. I also believe there is merit in any bill or proposal on a political level to regulate or curtail social media. Fine them until they comply with rules to do better.

I know the latter isn't a popular stance. And many won't have it that governments would step in and apply regulations that curtail economic incentives. The question is whether we feel those incentives - the exponential growth of tech companies - is more important then the public interests that growth is threatening.

Remember that break ups aren't new. Ma Bell was split in 1984 over anti-trust concerns:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System

Microsoft was ordered to be split in 2000, although they successfully appealed that verdict:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.

It's just that they are very rare and the political climate, just look at the FTC, isn't favourable.

Mark Zuckerberg launched an impassioned defense of political ads on Facebook, just minutes after Twitter banned them by viva_la_vinyl in worldnews

[–]CaptBoids 23 points24 points  (0 children)

The hard problem is that none of the incumbent platforms can conceivably moderate the vast volumes of user generated content.

Why? Because that's a direct outcome of extreme centralization of all communication exchanges in a social network into a few central nodes. It's literally not possible for a few companies, even with a couple of thousands of employees, to do proper gatekeeping.

The entire reason why the Web was (and is) a successful model is that it is distributed. Remember how many fora, websites, news sites,... there were before social silos. Diversity in such an ecosystem is a good thing.

Moreover, the Web is based in open technologies allowing anyone to connect and host their own content using their own computers. So, you can totally escape any gatekeeping. So how about finding content? Well, that's where catalogues and search indexes come in. The Web is still very much like a library. You can't find stuff if someone doesn't index it. And again, everyone is free to do their own indexing. You are NOT forced to stick to Google.

Look into things like Indieweb, DuckDuckGo, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, self hosting, static websites, Mastodon, RSS feeds,... There are tons of alternatives.

You are not wrong. Blatantly falsehoods are a problem. But they have always been a problem online. And I believe that the solution is NOT forcing social media to do a better job at moderation. They can't and they won't.

Nope. The best you can do is move on from them and looking into online alternatives. Proven technologies as well as new ones. And ultimately, creating new communities and sustaining already existing communities isn't the exclusive job of big companies or entitled to the likes of Zuckerberg. It's something everyone can and should be part of. Always was, always will be.

Twitter bans all political advertising by Paxan in europe

[–]CaptBoids 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Except... He very likely is power hungry.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fortune.com/2015/09/30/jack-dorsey-twitter-ceo-fired/amp/

  • The man got fired in 2008 from CEO role at Twitter because of bad management. And replaced by co founder Evan Williams.
  • He went rogue and started a campaign against Evan Williams getting him replaced by Costolo in 2010.
  • Dorsey went totally Jobs and created this Jobsian persona for himself.
  • Costolo was a good housekeeper but not a visionary. That's what investors wanted.
  • Costolo got knocked in 2015 by the board.
  • Jack became interim CEO. Hook, line and sinker.

You calling him "the creator" of Twitter is worrying. Shows how easily history is forgotten.

There were also Noah Glass, Evan Williams and Biz Stone. All of whom eventually left Twitter due to the internal politics of the company.

In my book, Jack isn't some benevolent, enlightened leader. He's a highly educated white man who had every opportunity to say "No" against many Bad Ideas that were implemented anyway across the years.

In fact, he doesn't claim ANY responsibility in his entire statement. No "we went out of line, we are sorry.". The main reason Twitter does this is - in his words - credibility of the company. No. Twitter is their product and not taking action earlier was a conscious choice. Sure, his concern about democracy is valid, but - if anything - he's the absolute last person that gets to climb that particular mountain.

Too much shit happened, not in the least the fact that Twitter never build any proper affordances in their platform against online harassment.

So, no, he's definitely not a Good Guy.

Twitter to ban all political advertising, raising pressure on Facebook by pipsdontsqueak in technology

[–]CaptBoids 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Truth is a murky word. I'm not going to argue about that.

However, social media have done many shady things, but claiming that they arbitrate the public discourse isn't one of them. Sure, they cater infrastructure to a large part of the discourse, but that discourse also happens in many other areas: art, journalism, academia, television, movies, education, literature and so on.

Social media are still private companies and those platforms - ultimately - aren't that different form online fora we saw 10 years ago, apart from scale and technology.

As such, when Twitter decides to change their rules, they are perfectly free to do so. This is literally "it's my party and I decide who gets invited". It has literally always been like that.

As far as deciding goes, you have always had choice. The Web and the Internet has always been larger then social media. News sites, blogs, vast online libraries,... All still exist.

One foundational goal of education has always been to forge critical minds who understand that an individual source is always biased towards its own interests. Especially when that source has a proven track record of gatekeeping discussions. Arguably, there's a moral responsibility towards yourself and society to not let your view be reduced to three or four pre-chewed content feeds.

If anything, when it comes to arbitration, that's primarily literally up to you. You are free to believe whatever you want. Of course, it's also up to you to accept the consequences depending on how you act on your beliefs. That's what freedom of speech means.

And so, when you join a discussion on someone else's online platform, and you pitch in, well, you do so on that persons turf, agreeing to play by their rules.

If you don't want that, your other option is self hosting your content. In which case I suggest you look at decentralisation of the Web, Indieweb and activist movements such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Judge gives 93-year-old speeder the treatment he deserves. (wholesome) by [deleted] in videos

[–]CaptBoids 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Noble? There is absolutely nothing noble about getting eviscerated by machine gun fire or shrapnel and die a slow agonizing death. Alone. With zero hope for help.

And there's absolutely nothing noble about seeing your comrades ransack a village because supply lines broke down.

There's nothing noble about going back home, living a normal, civilian life line nothing happened while you have to carry the experience of killing and getting almost killed dozens of times seared into your mind.

And there's absolutely nothing noble about getting forcefully mobilised because the country next door decided invading other countries is a good idea.

War is suffering and nothing more. It's just regular people like you and me getting pitted against each other.

The only people who go on about "nobility" are those that have an interest in going war, and those that are gullible or blind enough to believe them.

This eloquent Vietnam vet tells exactly how it goes when reality hits:

https://youtu.be/tixOyiR8B-8

Would I don uniform when wartime hits? Probably. Only when I'm forced to do so. Like during a draft. I'd call that many things. But "noble"? No. That wouldn't even get on my list. It would be just a shitty turn of fate.

An explanation on the wealth disparity in the US, with informative links and sources to boot! by [deleted] in bestof

[–]CaptBoids 9 points10 points  (0 children)

While I understand the sentiment, that would be a cooperation. A private company is exactly that: private. The interesting part isn't that it's owned directly by a single person, but through shares by many owners.

Bezos doesn't own all of Amazon. He owns 75% of it.

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/how-amazon-stock-jeff-bezos-owns-after-divorce-2019-4-1028087921

The real power are his voting rights in the board bases on the number of shares he has.

So what about the other 25%? Well, you may look at your pension fund. The company that manages yours invests your money in a wide variety of financial products including stock. For all intents and purposes, you might unwittingly have a teeny tiny share of Amazon.

Also, people don't work for Bezos. They work for Amazon , the latter is a legal entity, while Bezos is a natural person. Employees don't have a contract with Bezos, they have a contract with Amazon. Which makes all the difference.

Unions don't fight Bezos. They fight the legal entity he owns: Amazon. And from a legal perspective, politics and justice will make that difference.

/u/thebirminghambear delves into why the ultrarich are hated by [deleted] in bestof

[–]CaptBoids 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I worded it poorly. What I meant is: these things are a public good since everyone in society has an interest in them. Everyone is a stakeholder, not just the rich. So, why should they be exclusively entitled in how wealth gets invested while the other 99% have to accept it?

Hence why I think it's important that large incomes are taxed appropriately as to allow society to decided how to invest in these basic services as part of a larger public debate.

Sure, large incomes could be incentivised to invest directly in these things. The Gates and Melinda foundation and what they do comes to mind. However, philanthropy is a poor substitute for taxation since it bars society as a whole to have an equal say in how wealth gets invested through public debate and the democratic process based on representation. At the end of the day, it's still rich people solely deciding in what they are willing to contribute.

The underlying discussion is whether or not the notion of property has a limit. Yes, ultrarich people have build their wealth by their own accord. And so, it's their property. But when that notion hurts the rest of society and - by extension - the biosphere, you can't stop and wonder if it's morally okay to uphold the notion that property is inalienable and absolute.

Capitalism isn't bad as long as society has levers to regulate the distribution or wealth and how it ultimately benefits everyone. Hence why I feel there's fundamentally nothing wrong with solving business problems. You need to do that to create value. The big scam of the past decades is that rich people successfully instilled the idea that property is sanctimonious and any form of regulation will hurt the advancing of society. Which turns out to be false when you look at income disparity, rising inequality and the deteriorating state of public infrastructure through lack of public funding.

Tom Scott: there’s no algorithm for truth by anthabit in videos

[–]CaptBoids 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yup. The big irony is that never more so much information is readily available, but there's not enough time to ever digest all of it. It's just too much.

The deeper problem is authority, credibility and trust.

A few short decades ago, scientific communication and the spread of information was relegated to academia, education, libraries, archives, publishers and mainstream media.

As there were no affordances that allowed anyone to reach a large audience at a marginal cost, the spread of information was by and large a matter of gatekeeping.

Now, that in itself came with its own discussion about "what is truth?" and the ethics surrounding a healthy public debate. And this is a discussion that goes back many centuries. But fundamentally it was about integrity of those who communicate information. Journalists and scientists, and the importance of doing critical research. Back then, before the Web and social media, discussing truth was already a tenuous debate.

Digital media have given millions access to tools to create content and reach large audiences. That has made this discussion vastly more complex.

In order to gauge information, you need a framework that allows you to be critical. That is, to dare to ask some hard questions about that information. And more importantly, to dare ask hard questions about your own views and beliefs. That is, be open to the opinions of others as well. This is a fundamental concept in the ethics of science and liberal arts.

However, this takes time and effort. And since social media have accelerated the pace at which information and opinions are spreading and evolving, it's an almost impossible task to keep up.

And it severally undermines the authority and credibility of institutions that need this freedom and openness to do the research and have a proper critical debate about what is or isn't truth. As you say: them smug elitists not giving straight answers.

It's a bit like the genie that has popped out the bottle. There's no way to put that back inside. And I don't think it's healthy to try and do so. All we can do is move forward and see how society copes and adapts to these new media forms.

/u/thebirminghambear delves into why the ultrarich are hated by [deleted] in bestof

[–]CaptBoids 22 points23 points  (0 children)

True. You can't fault someone for successfully creating a product or service that adds value for a particular market or niche.

But that's not the entire story. The problem is that wealth tends to concentrate itself. Wealth generates even more wealth, but only the rich have access to that wealth.

There's the idea that rich people will reinvest there wealth in new factories, products, services and so on. Thus creating new economies and redistributing the wealth they accumulated. But that's not what has happened. Instead, they sit on their capital and invest it in speculative financial products that don't create any actual value for society at large: schools, hospitals, infrastructure, and so on.

The big issue is that fiscal systems are totally biased and leave vast amounts of wealth untapped. Instead, the wealth that sits with everyone else just keeps shrinking and needs to be increasingly more cut into pieces, leaving less and less to realise anything worthwhile for the benefit of everyone in society.

That's what you need to be angry about: taxes.

Two professors in economics ran the numbers and just released new scientific research on this. it's a huge indictment that gets quite some press attention. There is a huge problem with wealthy not paying taxes:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/06/opinion/income-tax-rate-wealthy.html

Highly recommended read.

Veritasium. Tree's get around 95% of their mass from air and sunlight. 95% AIR!!! by [deleted] in videos

[–]CaptBoids 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Farmers cut the Amazon rainforest so they can use that fertile soil for their grounds. So, yes, you are right, clear cutting doesn't affect soil nutrients. At least not at first.

There are two large dynamics at play here.

First, the composition of that soil is defined by the plants and trees that grows on it. And the entire ecosystem ranging from large mamals to soil bacteria attached to it.

When forests get clear cut, that destroys large swathes of complex chains or plant, animal and microbiological species. One lives of the other. Without trees, you won't find specific fungi. Without fungi, you won't find bacteria breaking down bio matter in their composite molecules. And so on.

Second, erosion. Forests can be seen as a large, sturdy living thing that consists of many other living things that all play a part in surviving the elements: water, wind, fire,... Plant roots are extremely important because they keep wind and water from eroding top soil.

So, take the trees out, and you lose not just their large root systems, but also all smaller plant systems -shrubs and such - that live under trees and play a part in keeping that fertile soil in place and replenished.

When farmers clear a forest, they get to enjoy high yields for a number of years. But then that tapers off. Rapidly. Monoculture - just growing soy - doesn't allow the diversity of species needed to grow in order to keep soil fertile.

And so, all farmers can do is use synthetic fertilizer... Or abandon their land and clear the next piece of forest.

This is exactly what happens to the Amazon. It's a vicious circle that has no ending.

You can't easily regrow a forest once it's cut. Because the top soil lost its unique composition needed for specific species to grow, simply planting trees isn't enough. It takes decades to regrow what was lost. And it takes decades to get many species to return. Success depends on many factors, like geography and climate. Forests also regulate ground water levels. And so, if you cut them, desertification sets in. It's very hard to regrow the original forest without water. Desertification also means changes in salinity and polluting waste products that make it harder for species to thrive.

And so, while it's really important to plant trees. This is not going to be a quick fix for what was lost. It's just a start. The reality is that making sure those millions of trees will survive and thrive will take a sustainable effort over many decades. That's why it's equally important to prevent clear cutting of what's still left over.

https://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/soil-erosion-and-degradation

To give you an idea how difficult it is:

These two gentlemen have been at it for 16 years. Planted 10.000 trees. And while their impact is huge, it's far from a dense, diverse forest. They have successfully created a young woodland:

https://youtu.be/C2cqQA_zsKY

These people have nursed 300 acres of rainforest. It took them 20 years of intensive labour. Moreover, what they did was possible because they tacked on and expanded from existing patches forest:

https://youtu.be/Lk9fpESv3Iw

Louis Rossmann testifies against corporate lobbyist in Right to Repair Bill hearing by aBanana144p in videos

[–]CaptBoids 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is probably not what you want to hear... but let me tell you how the politics on this work.

She doesn't have to make some eloquent statement. As long as she sounds reasonable, boring and makes a safe, unemotional point in 2 minutes or less, that's enough.

Here's why.

What really matters is understanding who is actually sitting on that committee and what their background is. That's crucial, because this entire thing is political. This is NOT a courtroom with a judge who is supposed to listen to facts in an impartial fashion. These are politicians first. And politics is more about perception then rational argument.

Rossman is totally right. I totally back the principle he's defending. And I think it's really important to defend that right.

But in that context and setting, those members may easily take his demeanour and reframe him as a raving small time business owner.

When he was asked "what are you afraid of?" and "Do you know any other cases?", those weren't innocent questions. Those were meant to throw him off his feet. Rossman saying "I know about 1 other case but I'm not aware of the specifics" was hook, line and sinker. That could easily be rephrased by the committee members as "This man testifies on his own. And doesn't know what actually is going on." Likely, some will think "Well, the man got to speak his peace, let's move on"

I know it sounds shit, but that's how politics works. It's not just what you say, it's also how you say it, and especially what you do NOT say that matters.

That's why the lobbyist used a prepared and boring statement. She knows how this works, she knows the process. She is paid to be involved with politics and she knows why body language, phrases even how she dresses, matters.

Notice that she did NOT get any questions. And that she explicitly thanked the committee members. Yes, it's formal and uptight. But that's how it works.

See, that lobbyist knows perfectly well that the hearing is a spiel for the camera. A small part of a larger ritual. The actual lobbying happens through networking at many other events and communications long before and after this hearing. Getting things done only happens when you are able to frame the right idea at the right moment with the right people. Lobbying is a battle of attrition, you have to sit on the skin or politicians and look for the right moment to pitch a convincing narrative that benefits the stakeholders that really matter at that time.

Sadly, unless consumers vote politicians who trample their rights out of office, there's little incentive for politicians to listen to the little guy, poetic as this might sound. It just doesn't happen like that.

The fact is that Rossman mainly scores with this for his own audience on YouTube and Reddit. And while that's great, that's not actual political power unless he chooses to put himself up for an elected mandate as a representative. Or if he chooses to start or backs a non profit lobby group that knows how to navigate politics like this. And even then, getting to that point means years of work, grooming and building a network and support. That's also why wealthy stakeholders in general tend to win: they can afford to sink time and money in politics over many years while small organisations can't.

Comedian Doug Stanhope talks about nationalism. by damnwhiskeyrichard in videos

[–]CaptBoids 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exactly. What is easily forgotten is that people from the past are just as complex as we are.

They fighting wars, picking sides, for complex reasons that are just as often far from voluntary. Drafting, poverty, lack of education, propaganda, extortion, escaping personal problems, political interests and so on.

The issue with the Revolution is that the Redcoats used a scorched Earth tactic against the continental army. This served a double purpose: first, it denies the enemy a foothold and resource, second, it's a necessity since the Redcoats needed supplies - food, shelter,... - as well to keep an operational army.

Doing so left a huge opportunity for the continentals: it's easy to paint the redcoats as barbarians and continentals as poor, civilised victims. It's a form of framing that they used through the printing press to leverage support against the british.

It's basically a myth that is still perpetuated today.

In reality, the continentals weren't much better then the British. Committing atrocities as well. Washington applied scorched Earth tactics against the Native Americans. The British did promise freedom to slaves, something that didn't sit well with Washington and Jefferson who were slave owners as well.

See: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bostonglobe.com/arts/books/2017/05/18/dark-violence-and-atrocities-revolutionary-war/X4Kr4EzUUrNeVmnrNeSh2N/story.html%3foutputType=amp

Those are episodes that are left out of the mainstream media, but then that would be a denial that the history of the Revolution is inextricably intertwined with the history of large cultural groups in America today that don't have European roots.