I’d have a look at David greabers interviews on the subject. He was heavily involved and part-mastermind behind it.

Contrary to what a lot of people seem to think, a lot of it was about become too specific in their aims. The powers that be want to whittle away the numbers with infighting. So, they ask the sort of duck or rabbit questions to make that happen.

When they made specific demands, they stopped being a scary, faceless and uncompromising mob.

Theres more too and he’s very honest in his self critique imo.

No, toxic positivity is toxic but that you chose to twist that to something no one said says everything anyone will ever need to know about you.

You don’t even care what the truth is do you?

Even then, that pales in comparison to your attempt at dismissing hard evidence and the scientific consensus of 99.9% of the worlds scientists as “a general millais.” That was hilarious by the way and the peak of arrogance.

Speaking of grownups, we’ll be accepting the evidence of our eyes and ears, despite how adorable as your little appeal to hedonistic nihilism and weaponised ignorance was.

It can be fixed and, as such, its not fatalism. So, wrong on all accounts. All youre doing is further demonstrating your appalling reading comprehension, presuming any good faith from you, which is how you ended up thinking the silly nonsense you’ve come to believe.

Grow up, you don’t know more than all the scientists.

Plenty for what exactly?

I see, not content with making up your own science and your own reality, you have to make up that I only read the headlines. Oh, and despite me clearly saying genocide is of course wrong, I apparently think there’s too many humans too. Definitely a pattern emerging with you.

I think we can see how you came to your “conclusions” and it certainly wasn’t the mountains of evidence proving you wrong.

Some did mention it and some were about energy usage, the lack of materials we need to go full renewable, models of every option other than ECONOMIC degrowth, how ridiculous the idea of the answer being in the stars is, the crazy energy cost just to get closer to fully renewable, the concerted effort of lobby groups to convince people everything will be fine despite the evidence of their eyes and ears, the lack of being able to store renewable energy, the ultra high energy cost of extracting and refining uranium and many, many more problems not resolved by people being born at a slower rate.

Seems a bit too much for toxic positivity to cope with.

The planet won’t be able to sustain life before then, if we haven’t changed nearly everything about society. Deal with it.

Edit: again, no, we won’t be transported to a new, perfect home amongst the heavens, washing away our past planetary sins. Youre getting confused with something else.

Don’t be a sucker

No, the endless scientific reports that show a clear trend in data that you have already chosen to ignore in order to arrive at the conclusion you decided you would reach long before you reviewed any data.

Again, no, our saviour isn’t going to come from the heavens. A can-do attitude isn’t going to fix the problems we have. The answer isn’t to capitalism harder.

It costs billions just to bring a few rocks back from the moon. What on earth has convinced you we can bring back enough to sustain an entire planet?

Without serious degrowth in the economy, something the type of economy we have won’t allow, or mass genocide the human race will be beyond lucky to see the 2200s. Genocide being wrong, we only have one viable option and we will have to force it on those in power, if we are to stand any chance.

The spirit of capitalism is not going to return us, draped in the splendor of new technology, to spirit us away to a new, perfect home amongst the heavens where we will be absolved of our past planetary transgressions and all live in perpetual growth forever.

We’ve heard that story before and, this time, need a better solution.

Suggesting to stockbros that viewing money as both debt but also, specifically, debt that doesn’t have to be paid back and isn’t owed to anyone or anything anyway (thus making it, by definition, not debt) is, at best, problematic.

Tbf, most of them still think that federal banks create most of the money in circulation and, just to be clear, that is not true. The vast, vast majority of money in circulation is created by private banks when they issue loans.

Edit: sorry, I should add, money is debt. If its not debt, it’s not money. A bank note is a fancy I.O.U.