Eat. Fucking. Shit. Boo hoo, the poor multibillion-dollar insurance companies have to honor their contracts and actually pay out for people’s policies. All I read is, “We want to increase our profit margins using the specious reasoning that it’s because of climate change; don’t like it, move. Also, we’re not going to do anything to address the causes, because that would hurt our bottom line.”

And who will be hurt most by these “necessary” price hikes? It’s certainly not people wealthy enough to afford them or wealthy enough to move. It’s everybody else who can’t afford to move and/or who are forced to carry insurance by their lender.

Welcome to streamlined corporatocracy, courtesy of SCOTUS.

I’ll be surprised if Florida isn’t wiped clean and mostly underwater in a decade.

It almost certainly will grind a lot of governance to a halt as every little minute regulatory effort is litigated to death by corporate plaintiffs, while the Conservative courts slow-walk their proceedings.

Government will still function, but at a snail’s pace, which I’m sure is the entire point: grind it to a halt when non-Conservatives have control and open the floodgates when Conservatives are in power.

TBH, it would be really funny and poetic to coopt the phrase “drill baby, drill” to mean something completely different. I hope the Internet makes that happen.

Good. End-stage-capitalism isn’t working for most people, and it’s time these polluters pay what they owe humanity.

If that means they’re sued into bankruptcy, well, then they should have better estimated the “cost of doing business,” hadn’t they have?

Worse. His policies would effectively nuke a lot of the global climate progress we’ve made and set the world back decades—as if we have the time to waste.

I’ll take one for the team and fucking put that shit to the motherfucking test. Pretty sure we can removed and moan all we want, as long as we aren’t attacking some other user’s ass.

I think you mean it might end up removed on this instance, though Lemmy itself doesn’t have some kind of global automod built in, controlled by some central censorship team at the top. It’s just regular mods following up on reports, generally. Maybe bigger instances have automods, but that would only affect those instances’ users and the communities that live upon them.

I had to practice in a VM before even considering vanilla Arch. No way am I going to fiddle around with getting everything right on bare metal.

Seconded. Also, Garuda “Dr4g0nized” is gaming focused and Arch under the hood, for a more traditional option.

I’ll add to that that it will be exacerbated by the fact that many locales have not built homes to a spec that includes climate extremes (if this is mentioned in the article, I can’t read past the paywall).

So not only will many structures have a harder time keeping up, but they weren’t designed to withstand the extremes in the first place (e.g. cheap windows, weak or no insulation, etc.).

What I would say is that I think what you articulate is climate denial here.

Unfortunately, Lemmy is not a good medium for nuanced discussion. I assure you that I was not articulating climate denialism, just that we need to take a step back and realize that saving our links to history is greater than humanity itself (in my opinion). Humanity may not survive this catastrophe, and I would rather think that some future species on this blue marble finds proof that we lived and were more than a bunch of stupid apes; and perhaps, they could even learn from our mistakes and successes.

I agree, though, that their assessment of the problem is valid; I would just rather see them punching at the actual polluters, rather than flailing at humanity. And in fact, they used money they raised from this stunt to be able to paint Taylor Swift’s private jet. That’s something I can sort of support, though they still haven’t taken any steps towards painting the private jet of an oil tyremoved, for example.

Like we all get it—the pollution is bad, but Taylor Swift isn’t directly responsible for manufacturing jet fuel. Taylor Swift isn’t responsible for lobbying governments to slow walk the transition to other energy sources. I want to see them use their effort to make headlines, because some rich oil magnate’s mansion is now orange (or whatever).

People need to be reminded that not only is the oil bad, but these specific people producing it are the villains making sure we get off of it too late. The act needs to encompass that full message, and so far, I feel like they’re only getting one piece and expecting the public to fill in the blanks—a big ask for average people who aren’t that engaged.

Anyway, thanks for the thoughtful reply. Take care.

Agreed. Depending on the business sector, the PR damage could be worse than the cost of litigation.

My company has a very expensive software product they sell to other businesses (to the tune of millions of dollars a year per customer), and the cost is a hurdle the salespeople have to overcome. If there was litigation against them over trampling another business, that doesn’t exactly instill confidence in a trustworthy business relationship. So they pay their licensing costs.

Don’t underestimate the power of the lie that is the American Dream. Even if you have food and shelter, many still think they can overcome late-stage capitalism with sheer effort.

Agreed. The key there is “important to the rich,” not “important to humanity.” Break all the rich people’s toys, make some noise. Go sabotage a SpaceX rocket or something.

But the fact that I’m focused on the act despite being effectively on their side means a ton of other people who aren’t on their side are too, and I can almost guarantee they can’t see past the act to really grasp the impetus behind it.

And if you believe that, then they’ve failed.

I guess, but who hasn’t heard of climate change at this point?

The conversation has to go beyond that, and their desire to raise awareness accompanied by acts like this only demonstrates their conviction, not the truth of our impending doom. They have to reach the people who still don’t think it’s real, and what does painting a historical monument have to do with climate change?

The plot they want people to pick up gets lost and the message is out of their control if the act isn’t self-evident with regard to their purpose.

I have a small issue with the analogy of lost things: throughout history, many things have been lost, living and nonliving, through both action and inaction. It is the nature of our impermanent existence.

But vandalizing our works of art servers our ties to the past and what they might tell us. Yes, we are currently accelerating the loss of species, but they will continue to come and go, regardless of our input. These links, however, can never be recovered. They are intrinsically unique, and their value to humanity is not something they have a right to gamble in a game of political chicken (because let’s be honest, it all boils down to governments’ responses to the current crisis).

And if this is truly an effort to draw parallels with our impending doom, it’s inelegant and ineffective, and I wish they’d put more effort towards actually doing something that makes the polluters want to change, instead of just pissing people off only to get lost in the next bombastic news story.

Then they send their message to the informed but poor and powerless.

I disagree, though, that the rich don’t care about their toys. They may be able to afford to replace them, but it’s not like they go out and buy a yacht every day. And activists vandalizing public works of art or history can and do still face legal action from the governments that oversee or maintain them.

Ultimately, the rich responsible for facilitating and encouraging climate change aren’t going to feel any compunction to change if you never even punch in their direction.

And that’s where we disagree. I don’t think anybody is researching anything. The average person does not have the drive or attention span for a Step 2.

Plus, I agree with their core ideology, yet I still think people who do this stuff are assholes, and I’m immediately annoyed on the outset. To expect people who aren’t invested in climate change to look past the “asshole” is a pretty big ask.