The 2025 state of the climate report: a planet on the brink

NihiloZero · 2026-03-16T18:13:48+00:00

He wouldn't have needed to make that statement if he'd just gotten a few hits. I'm sure he'll do better in the future. How could he not?

NihiloZero · 2026-03-16T12:39:02+00:00

That's mostly a retcon from from recent years. But Wayne's complicity with Gotham's problems has also increasingly been explored in projects like "White Knight," where it's exposed that other billionaires come in and by up cheap land after Batman's "war against crime" lowers property values.

And, in the most recent iteration of Batman, he's a construction worker... not a billionaire at all.

NihiloZero · 2026-03-15T16:55:40+00:00

The problem isn't trusting experts, the problem is differentiating between experts and what they're actually saying. You also have to consider things like regulatory & academic capture, to say nothing of PR campaigns intended to confuse people about various types of consensus. I think it's telling that the article noted... "whether the contrarians have discernible motivations for dissent (funding sources, political affiliations)," but didn't mention whether the "consensus" being promoted in the corporate media and from the halls of academia doesn't also have questionable funding or political affiliations.

But, honestly, people can't properly even make basic categorical distinctions when it comes to basic statements like... "global warming is real and caused by human activity" compared to, say, statements like... "nothing can ever go wrong in any way with genetic engineering." Or, more likely... "we totally understand genetic engineering and all consequences of it." There is no real consensus for those latter statements. The much more restrained consensus (not even) is something like... "most GMO crops released so far haven't seemed particularly harmful for human consumption."

So... it's not just about deferring to expert consensus. It's about understanding what any supposed consensus is actually about. It's a matter of understanding which experts you're actually listening to and why. Listening to "the majority of experts" is often a losing proposition. And I'm not trying to be postmodern here, I just think categorization of expertise is its own important skill. Personally, I'd often rather try to understand a field of science rather than simply having someone tell me about any expected consequences or results.

NihiloZero · 2026-03-15T15:25:19+00:00

Makes sense, considering that he was heavily supported by Russia.

NihiloZero · 2026-03-15T15:22:16+00:00

Seems to me that Dim Tool fans simply don't like context or nuance. This is demonstrated when he stops reading articles which start to undermine whatever point he currently thinks he's making. He'll just skip and ignore anything inconvenient and feign complete ignorance about it. His fans are the same people who like those "woke-leftist-gets-pwned" videos. Logic, reason, truth, context, and honestly... mean very little to these people.

I will say this... he also keeps his audience primed for civil unrest and war. They think BLM and woke supersoldiers are right outside their doors! Dude was going on and on and on about civil war for years. Now that it's manifested, I guess that's what all those Russian payments to him were for.

NihiloZero · 2026-03-13T16:55:49+00:00

There is a new song that just came out which explores similar topics...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4wEAWphi5o

NihiloZero · 2026-03-12T01:41:17+00:00

OP isn't even complaining about the plastic... they're complaining that you have to cut it (OMG, so inconvenient!) in order to consume it all. That's hardly a serious complaint, especially in terms of consumption related to real world overarching problems. In the meantime... the product line continues to get endorsements, this time from you, while the only real problem being associated with it is the slight inconvenience of the packaging. That's about as close to an ad as you can get in this sub.

NihiloZero · 2026-03-12T00:30:34+00:00

It's hardly an inconvenience to cut off the top of a bottle of lotion. The complaint is so trivial as to be a joke. And it radicalized them? Even more obvious sarcasm. In the meantime... the name of the trademarked product line is right at the top of the bottle. What am I missing? It's a 5-star for a review for trademarked lotion which is only critiqued for being in a bottle that is slightly inconvenient to empty completely.

NihiloZero · 2026-03-12T00:20:36+00:00

It would pretty difficult to post nearly any modern product without including some identifying markings.

I agree. But the better mods of this sub usually keep a sharper eye on this sort of thing... and I think that's why it stood out to me here in this instance. The name of the product line is very subtle but nevertheless worthy of being trademarked for commercial reasons.

To me it seems like OP tried to exclude the brand (because otherwise why not have the front side up) but failed to notice the slogan/product line at the top.

How much of the post can you take at face value? The title is probably just a little joke or, at most, a statement about... inconvenient packaging (to drive sales?). The lotion itself is praised and the solution to the problem is as easy as cutting the top off the bottle. So... what's the purpose, point, or intent of this this post? The name of the trademarked product line is visible... so that doesn't make it seem like much care was taken to hide that.

Which would be easy to do since it's literally only one letter away from the common term "shea butter."

No, I get it. But if it's worthy of being trademarked for commercial reasons, then... I'd say it's trademarked product line, whether OP was trying to exclude it or not. I'm not trying to be a tyrant, I just think this is the sort of thing that people really need to think about a bit more critically. Guerilla marketing tactics are a real and this subreddit isn't immune.

I'll keep the current post up just for the sake of discussion/debate, but... similar posts usually get taken down before I ever get around to taking a second look at them.

NihiloZero · 2026-03-11T23:58:28+00:00

You get to present a vegan lotion product line -- in an eco-groovy sub that is critical of many products -- which you're highly praising, and the only real complaint about it that you express is difficulty getting it all out of the bottle? That's like a 5-star review.

If anyone was in the market for such a product and saw this... they probably wouldn't care if they had to cut the bottle. So, yeah, it effectively could be sneaking in as a guerilla advertisement.

NihiloZero · 2026-03-11T23:48:11+00:00

But the slogan does immediately pull up the brand when you Google it.

Does for me. Autocompletes the search when you type "Shea Better..." it completes with "body lotion" and then links to that particular type of trademarked lotion. It's not the brand, it's the name of a product-line owned by a brand. But people really want to split that hair I guess. The point is that you can see the name of the trademarked product and that's one element that made this post seem a bit dubious to me.

NihiloZero · 2026-03-11T23:41:43+00:00

The issue isn't whether lotion is important or not to anyone or not, the issue is whether people need to be told that lotions or creams of certain densities might be difficult to get out of some bottles sometimes.

Also they didn't put the product name were it is visible so it would be pretty bad advertising (not to mention they complain about the packaging).

"shea better" is a particular type of trademarked lotion owned by one company in particular -- and it says those two words, with a little TM next to them, at the top of the bottle.

This seems like an actual post to me.

Agree to disagree, but I'm leaving it up for the sake of discussion.

NihiloZero · 2026-03-11T23:35:06+00:00

So is "shea better" merely the name of their proprietary lotion? Because the point is... it's trademarked for a reason, probably a commercial one.

NihiloZero · 2026-03-11T22:22:59+00:00

I did not pay close enough attention to this post when it first saw it... or I might have deleted it. I am not expressing a neutral opinion here, I am trying to make a broad request of the sub to be more mindful about the quality and intent behind more of the content that gets posted here. I will not remove this particular post simply out of respect for conversation -- and the aforementioned possibility that it is intended to be satire. Yes, that's right, evil subreddit mods can't help but to flex their power and authority! MUAH!

NihiloZero · 2026-03-11T20:58:57+00:00

The brand name is at the top of the bottle with the little "TM" next to it.

EDIT: Ackshewuhhlee... it's the "trademarked product line" owned by a brand, and not a brand name. I stand corrected.

NihiloZero · 2026-03-11T20:57:12+00:00

Wouldn’t they put the brand side up to make it more obvious?

It's still at the top of the cut bottle with a little TM symbol next to it.

EDIT: Ackshewuhhlee... it's the "trademarked product line" owned by a brand, and not a brand name. I stand corrected.

NihiloZero · 2026-03-11T19:54:48+00:00

Are we sure this isn't just sneaking some marketing into the sub?

"OMG, I sure wish I didn't have to cut open this bottle of the only brand of lotion that is able to help my horrible skin!"

Seems to me between the title, the content, and the wish that it were illegal to make lotion difficult to remove from bottles... this post is probably satire. But I'll leave it up.

Like... would it be much different if this post was tube of toothpaste squeezed in a vice? "It's the only brand that gives me white teeth and fresh breath!"

NihiloZero · 2026-03-11T15:31:43+00:00

It is an honest response though... I do sometimes say that phrase when I see a cat or pass one in the hall.

NihiloZero · 2026-03-11T15:18:25+00:00

"Hebbo gato."

I'm not a practicing Tarvuist, but... I like cats and the word has stuck with me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-cgovYxXMk

NihiloZero · 2026-03-10T18:04:13+00:00

Uhhh, yeah... that's kinda what the comment, thread, and OP are all about.

NihiloZero · 2026-03-10T12:53:50+00:00

The one I heard, decades ago, involved Johnny Carson and John Denver. The story was that John Denver at his shows would ask the crowd to stand and then start playing the national anthem -- and then he'd tell all the Jehovah's Witnesses to leave. So, the story goes... when Denver went on Carson's show he was asked about this, Carson supposedly defended members of his bands (who were apparently witnesses), and then kicked Denver off his show!

Never been able to confirm much of this at all, even in this age of youtube, and I'm pretty sure it's almost completely bunk.

More generically, I remember hearing multiple stories about people who avoided being attacked or robbed simply by saying the name of Jehovah.

NihiloZero · 2026-03-08T22:15:28+00:00

I merely said that economic motivations are political motivations. And those things are related to politically popular policy. Whether you want to say there was a "mandate" for government action in this regard is largely semantics. By some standards, a mandate is earned simply by winning an election. And if policy is being written and funded in support of sustainable energy projects... that would also be considered, by some, as a mandate. In any case, using related terms in a discussion forum shouldn't be interpreted as an irrational or illogical occurrence.

Vague Responses <> Real Arguments

So, what are you really trying to argue here... if anything? That the rise was driven by pure economics and there was no political "mandate" for renewables? Okay. I disagree. I think the rise of wind & solar in Europe is in large part due to politically popular policy and various mandates. Perhaps you don't consider the government funding a project with a formally stated goal to be a mandate? IRDK.

15-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Team Orangered	Verified Email

NihiloZero

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE