this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2026
416 points (98.6% liked)

Microblog Memes

11690 readers
2331 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

RULES:

  1. Your post must be a screen capture of a microblog-type post that includes the UI of the site it came from, preferably also including the avatar and username of the original poster. Including relevant comments made to the original post is encouraged.
  2. Your post, included comments, or your title/comment should include some kind of commentary or remark on the subject of the screen capture. Your title must include at least one word relevant to your post.
  3. You are encouraged to provide a link back to the source of your screen capture in the body of your post.
  4. Current politics and news are allowed, but discouraged. There MUST be some kind of human commentary/reaction included (either by the original poster or you). Just news articles or headlines will be deleted.
  5. Doctored posts/images and AI are allowed, but discouraged. You MUST indicate this in your post (even if you didn't originally know). If an image is found to be fabricated or edited in any way and it is not properly labeled, it will be deleted.
  6. Absolutely no NSFL content.
  7. Be nice. Don't take anything personally. Take political debates to the appropriate communities. Take personal disagreements & arguments to private messages.
  8. No advertising, brand promotion, or guerrilla marketing.

RELATED COMMUNITIES:

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 41 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

I think it's more about scientists being extremely conservative with their estimates, because they know they'll get impaled over being 'alarmist.'

And then (effectively) fired from their job.

Also, you should check out conservative coverage. There is no timeline compression, its strait up cynicism, hostile denial.

EDIT: I forgot hand wringing. A perfect example: fairly scientific family showed me a WSJ article about how future geoengineering is going to make climate change a non-issue.

"Offended" did not begin to describe my reaction.

I've been reading geoengineering research papers for years, and they amount to things like:

Well, if we redirected a significant portion of the global economy to custom airplane and chemical production, we could rain sulfuric acid over the poles and wipe out all life beyond a certain latitude, and maybe counter the warming some if we keep it up... ecological implications aside, its still rather impractical, but an order of magnitude cheaper than previous proposals. Shows table.

[–] jtrek@startrek.website 4 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I feel like some counters should immediately banish the speaker to sitting in the corner. "Alarmist" and "divisive" are the top two that come to mind. It's almost always idiots not engaging with the material in good faith who pop those out.

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 5 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I dunno about "divisive." Sometimes thats a legitimate criticism, and pot-stirrers are little shits, IMO.

[–] jtrek@startrek.website 3 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

If someone is just trolling, sure. But usually I hear it when someone's like "gay people should be allowed to live" and someone else goes "you're being diViSiVe"

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Well there's no retort to that. If you're in a debate environment where an acceptable critique is "well, these people existing is not part of our beliefs, so its not okay," then the whole debate is rigged from the start.