It’s not like that at all, though. It’s like interrupting a large games event to protest drilling for oil. No one has been spat on, and it’s about something much more important than shoelaces.
Protests are likely older than your last name, and have worked about as long.
You can tell kinda in the same way you can tell unions work. The people theyre meant to be used against get reeeeeaal agitated when they start happening.
You called it a tantrum. Which means you think that someone can overreact to the problem.
If someone can overreact to climate change, that means you think theres something not that serious about the problem.
If you were serious about climate change, you would understand that making a few people mad doesnt matter as much as getting as many people as possible talking about it as possible, because of how pressing and serious of a threat it is.
But you think doing anything that risks making others mad is too far, a tantrum. Which means you dont think its that pressing, because if you did you would be more concerned about stopping it.
So. What is it that you dont actually take seriously?
I disagree, some people get angry and then think about ways to make it stop, which gets them thinking about why people are doing the protests in the first place.
I mean, you objectively are. How a random person might react to a protest isnt a fact. Some people might react that way. Many will not. It is not the factual response to have a specific response to an event.
It your opinion that more people will respond in that way. Nothing factual about it.
Removed by mod
It’s not like that at all, though. It’s like interrupting a large games event to protest drilling for oil. No one has been spat on, and it’s about something much more important than shoelaces.
Removed by mod
I care, and I don’t hate them. Matters more than some fallout boys jackoff tournament or whatever it was
Protests are likely older than your last name, and have worked about as long.
You can tell kinda in the same way you can tell unions work. The people theyre meant to be used against get reeeeeaal agitated when they start happening.
Removed by mod
What part of climate change do you not take seriously?
Removed by mod
You called it a tantrum. Which means you think that someone can overreact to the problem.
If someone can overreact to climate change, that means you think theres something not that serious about the problem.
If you were serious about climate change, you would understand that making a few people mad doesnt matter as much as getting as many people as possible talking about it as possible, because of how pressing and serious of a threat it is.
But you think doing anything that risks making others mad is too far, a tantrum. Which means you dont think its that pressing, because if you did you would be more concerned about stopping it.
So. What is it that you dont actually take seriously?
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
I disagree, some people get angry and then think about ways to make it stop, which gets them thinking about why people are doing the protests in the first place.
Removed by mod
Disagreement works just fine when youre incorrect about your fact.
Removed by mod
I mean, you objectively are. How a random person might react to a protest isnt a fact. Some people might react that way. Many will not. It is not the factual response to have a specific response to an event.
It your opinion that more people will respond in that way. Nothing factual about it.
Removed by mod
Thats even less a fact, and far more baseless opinion.
Removed by mod