This corresponds to the middle and end of the Internet atheist movement, and some of the same dynamics I discussed in my article there apply here as well, especially the slow shift from 2000s-era "argument culture" to 2010s-era "echo culture". The very early Internet had pro-argument norms; it was your god-given right to march into any blog or forum you wanted and tell the people there why they were wrong. Partly this was the inevitable effect of everyone on the early Internet being the sort of programming nerds willing to try this weird new invention. And partly it came from a utopian philosophy where the Internet was going to be a new medium that united humanity regardless of nation or creed in a great Republic Of The Intellect, or whatever. Maybe it was even partly due to naivete - a lot of people hadn't really met anyone who thought differently from them before, and assumed that changing people’s minds would be really easy. For whatever reason, the early Internet was a place for polite but insistent debate, and early websites centered around the needs of a debating community. The most obvious example was TalkOrigins' massive alphabetized database of arguments against creationist claims, with the explicit goal of helping people win debates with creationists.

Gradually throughout the 2000s this transitioned to "echo culture", where people hung out in ideologically sorted communities and discussed things from a shared perspective.

"You used the post function on a Postmill site you imbecile you fool you absolute cretin"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Scottish_Parliament_election

Agree. It's easier to fantasize about a better society than actually produce one.

Adobe

Infighting is counterproductive.

power per se is always prone to scallywaggery, it's not race-specific

America is completely neoliberal, lets corporations run roughshod over government. Europe at least smacks down corporations for doing things like abusing monopoly.

China's just far too authoritarian, government interferes in your life too much.

I'm opposed to superpowers but (👈 I've said enough to get myself in trouble with uncompromising anarchists there) if there's gonna be one I'd rather see it be Europe than China or America.

No problem, I suggest bookmarking archiveiya74codqgiixo33q62qlrqtkgmcitqx5u2oeqnmn5bpcbiyd.onion

For TORfrens: http://archiveiya74codqgiixo33q62qlrqtkgmcitqx5u2oeqnmn5bpcbiyd.onion/RCdIw

Even with your completely bogus example...

It's a specific example I saw in Veracruz. I have photographs.

you acknowledge that civilization destroys the environment.

I anticipated this point and already rebutted it before you said it, so I don't need to again.

You can plant trees and improve the natural environment as well as its productivity. Crops in the sense of broadacre crops are a little harder (though I've seen it done: a strip about 2-4m wide cleared in a forest to plant corn).

Says you: but you destroyed that 2-4m strip! Says I: trees come and go, and as long as the species still has a good population in the area I don't see a problem with utilising a few square meters. It's your daily bread, like when a wolf destroys/exploits a reindeer.

Misguisded patriarchal ideas of what a woman can or should be

A woman should not run secret torture camps arbitrarily detaining people around the world. A woman should not plot right-wing coups against democratically-elected governments that threaten America's business interests.