Well, sort of satire. I suppose there are a few assumptions in it that may need clarification. Nowadays, what appears to be general agreement to one person can be complete bollocks to another.
So the assumption this post is based upon:
Why is there global warming? Because of exponential economic growth using finite resources (our planet).
Who benefits from this? Follow the money -> it’s not you or me. Who has the money? Billionaires.
Yes, heat protection is important. Of course work conditions should be good - how is that even a discussion point? However, IF you buy into the previous two points, it follows that the need for “heat protection” is consequence of human actions (greed).
Hence, go for the greedy (billionaires) who created this situation (global warming), instead of only addressing the consequences (of global warming) by heat protection measures.
By talking about heat protection, we are not talking about greed -> the intention of the media spectacle.
Who owns the media? Billionaires.
Some shared world-view (or at least a capacity to imagine someone else’s) is required, after which connecting a few dots should do the rest to understand the post
Perhaps commenting-bots are not capable of this. 😁
So you’re saying that if tomorrow there were no more billionaires, then workers in Texas wouldn’t need water breaks anymore because the climate would fix itself immediately?
Is this satire?
I browsed by new this morning and suddenly feel like I’m stalking that andreas user now.
Feels kinda ‘bot’ like with the word salad writing style, perhaps English is just not their native language so translation falls flat.
Really seems like they are attempting to push a narrative as a puzzle piece they want to jam into the wrong puzzle.
The fact that we even have to ask is sad.
I mean, it’s not great satire, but even so, I hate that there are people who genuinely think like this.
Well, sort of satire. I suppose there are a few assumptions in it that may need clarification. Nowadays, what appears to be general agreement to one person can be complete bollocks to another.
So the assumption this post is based upon:
Why is there global warming? Because of exponential economic growth using finite resources (our planet).
Who benefits from this? Follow the money -> it’s not you or me. Who has the money? Billionaires.
Yes, heat protection is important. Of course work conditions should be good - how is that even a discussion point? However, IF you buy into the previous two points, it follows that the need for “heat protection” is consequence of human actions (greed).
Hence, go for the greedy (billionaires) who created this situation (global warming), instead of only addressing the consequences (of global warming) by heat protection measures.
By talking about heat protection, we are not talking about greed -> the intention of the media spectacle.
Who owns the media? Billionaires.
Some shared world-view (or at least a capacity to imagine someone else’s) is required, after which connecting a few dots should do the rest to understand the post
Perhaps commenting-bots are not capable of this. 😁
So you’re saying that if tomorrow there were no more billionaires, then workers in Texas wouldn’t need water breaks anymore because the climate would fix itself immediately?