gayhitler420

Who decides if a criticism is unnecessary? We’re ten responses deep. No one’s gonna see even if I did somehow turn this into a “dunk”.

I’m really trying to help you understand what’s going on in the Nazi table saying.

“If there’s ten people at a table and six are wearing ss uniforms, how many Nazis are there at the table? The answer is ten.”

The specific counts change but people say this because there’s something so abhorrent about naziism that just accepting them into your company requires that you assent to their awful actions and ideology.

What awful actions and ideology? Why white supremacy and genocide of course!

So when someone says the same thing but points it at communists the implication is that communists are just as bigoted and genocidal as Nazis, which is what the antisemitic double genocide theory states.

You’re saying you didn’t mean it like that and I believe you. It’s just important to understand.

You should be making fun of that person for being too scared to own their proud communism, but you can’t use the Nazis at the table analogy.

You can always not post a response if you’re bored.

Even without English as your first language, surely you can see how bringing up the behavior and perception of Nazis and Nazi spaces in response to a person in a communist space would be seen as a comparison because of how those two groups stood in opposition to each other?

If something feels cringey to you why not just not do it? You brought up good faith, not me.

I am genuinely interested in helping you understand how bringing up people who accept Nazis being lumped in with Nazis invites a comparison no matter who you use it in relation to.

Surely you can’t expect me to believe you meant no comparison between two opposed political views when you invoked one in response to another?

Not after you said you won’t respond to my question because you can’t tell if I’m in good faith!

Why, a person would almost see you as some kind of troll if they didn’t know better!

I’ll tell you what, you set the rules for what constitutes good faith engagement and I’ll either abide by them or explain why I can’t and head on.

Hey I got a temp ban for my post and username (typical lemmy homophobia) but I wanted to come back and seriously recommend with nothing but civility that you engage with some of the ideas of people who’ve pushed back against you in this comment thread.

When everyone from conservatives to communists are frothing at the mouth it doesn’t mean you’re doing something right, it doesn’t mean the answer is somewhere in the middle and you found it, it means you overlooked a lot of ideas.

For my part, your claim that tech workers aren’t proletarian is absurd on the face of it because that claim denies the nature of tech work and proletarianization. An alarmingly small number of tech workers hail from the places they’re working in, almost all have moved there for the work. Unless everyone moved away from their families and homes because they just love the idea, they were pushed to move by the lack of work. And while you’re happy to put senior engineers in the tech worker category, call center tech support is notably absent in your analysis. Heck, entry level programmers are absent!

Your claims can only be put together as some form of gatekeeping based on aesthetics: they don’t look poor to you so they can’t be proletarian.

If I’m off base I look forward to your response!

If you wanna understand why it’s a bad idea to compare Nazis and communists that way, answer the following succinctly and quickly:

Why is it bad to lump with Nazis?

Didn’t meant to make it seem like an internet nerd debunking post. Sorry about that if the tone is off.

But yeah that’s what I meant by our choice of public transit (I don’t wanna say degrowth because of the goose chasing meme “who are we degrowing, who are we degrowing, motherfucker!”) or ecofascism.

Unfortunately no one wants to have public transit and no one’s making billions in profits off public transit so we’re gonna get ecofascism one way or another.

I’m sorry, I just assumed that was why you were equating communists and Nazis.

Why were you doing that?

Double genocide theory is a type of antisemitism.

Please stop making antisemitic comments on lemmy.ml.

I mean, the ecological damage is directly correlated with the quantity extracted. i also made a big ol post showing how there's not enough though so i agree on the damage but think its both.

that's from 2015 and relies on some assumptions that im sure were reasonable back then but would raise eyebrows now.

we don't need to extrapolate the amount of lithium in a tesla battery anymore, it's 60 or so kilograms, not the 10 the article uses for its calculation.

i like reserves a heck of a lot better than resources for this calculation, but even using resources i come up with a disconcerting 4.4kg lithium available for each persons ev battery. not nearly enough.

my own source here says typical EV batteries have only 8kg lithium in them (see the spoiler for the flaw in their use of a particular nature article that definitely wasn't making its calculation to represent an ideal universal median ev), but even then there's not enough to give everyone an ev.

but wait, it gets worse! we use lithium in a bunch of other stuff, and even if everyone on earth could get by with half a battery and didn't need to haul a load, go offroad or anything that would require a bigger battery, they'd still want lithium batteries in their phones, tablets, computers, power tools, flashlights, vapes, game controllers, standard size rechargeables of all kinds and you know, all the stuff we use lithium for that isn't storing charge (and there's a lot!).

it's not all the way worse yet! resources is great if we're trying to maximize for evs, but awful if we're trying to save the planet in any way. who out here is trying to frack (in terms of extracting a "tight" resource, not the process itself) more?

if we use the more conservative reserves figure it gets positively grim: just one and a half kilos of lithium for each person on earth! so if we don't wanna tear up every scrap of the planet to make batteries only a little over the current number of cars on earth (1.474B) could be accommodated and even then that's using the "typical" mass of lithium in each vehicle!

hold on, i can make it grimmer: producing enough evs for everyone on earth would need 6.6 billion more rolling chassis to put all those batteries in. so four times the productive capacity for cars that we have now. that's not gonna be easy on the environment!

so id say we can't put every person on earth in an ev. if we're getting out of this its gonna be with reduced consumption, not an increase!

I’m pretty sure you’re wrong even if we count the stuff that would take millions of tons of ore mined per kilo of lithium.

What numbers are you basing this on?

We also don’t have enough lithium to replace every car with an electric.

On some level it has to be public transit and better infrastructure or ecofascism.

No one wants the former so they’ll take the latter.