#Countering Climate Misinformation

[meteorologistaustenlonek]

"I was the greatest threat the Continuum had ever known. They feared me so much, they had to lock me away for eternity, and when they did that, they were saying that the individual's rights will be protected only so long as they don't conflict with the state. Nothing is so dangerous to a society."" - Star Trek Voyager: Deathwish --- “These defenders are basically trying to save the planet, and in doing so save humanity,” Mary Lawlor, the UN special rapporteur on human rights defenders, told the Guardian last year. “These are people we should be protecting, but are seen by governments and corporations as a threat to be neutralised. In the end it’s about power and economics.”

[lizardsfromspace]

The factchecking this cycle has been so profoundly incompetent that it's finally getting some real backlash, but the extent of it really should be clear. So much of factchecking is not based in reality, but in a kind of contorted moon logic that can find true claims to be false and false ones to be true based on wildly inconsistent reasoning.

But this one really shows off some of the base assumptions of modern factchecking, and also bc it got a community note which is funny:

Let's take this one by one

The idea that quotes have any options but "he said it" or "he didn't say it". It is a binary, maybe with a third option of "it was clipped wildly out of context", but something you see constantly now is the idea that quoting someone's direct words without deceptive editing or removal of context can somehow be false

Pointlessly noting that it's from 2016, and that it's not clear if he currently believes it. What the hell does that matter to the question of if he said that in 2016? People understood that the "dig up someone's tweets from when they were 17" thing was inane, but they counter-balanced by apparently deciding that citing anything someone said more than about six months ago is Misinformation if we don't have objective evidence they would say the exact same thing now, even if there's no evidence they believe anything else. Analyzing someone's high school tweets and analyzing something the literal President said seven years ago are not equivalent

Noting that he walked it back following criticism. You see this constantly, too. Again, what does that matter to the question of if he said it? But this is just taken as a given now: if someone gets blowback and says "whoops I didn't mean it", that should be taken at face value. Effectively, Politifact is letting Donald Trump self-factcheck Donald Trump: their only evidence (and I read the article too) this is at all false is that Donald Trump said Donald Trump didn't really mean the words he said, so they must agree with the judgment of Donald Trump that Donald Trump was treated so unfairly here.

A general confusion over what factchecking is. If you're asked "did Donald Trump say this in 2016?", your sole job is to determine if he really said that in 2016. It's not to divine if he, deep in his heart, still believes it now. That's completely irrelevant.

The two guiding principles of modern factchecking are this: one, it's strongly rumored - and also, obvious to everyone literate - that the major factchecking sites have either standing orders to find equal numbers of lies on both sides, or are staffed by people who think it's their job to hold both sides equally to account (the exception is Snopes, whose writers are just terrible at their jobs). In the name of this, Donald Trump can say something on camera only for it to be judged false, while a Democratic politician can be excoriated for mildly rounding down a figure in a speech. A factchecking website once determined that saying climate change was a threat to life on this planet was a lie, because climate change won't kill all life on this planet. Politifact's lie of the year one year was a Democrat saying a Republican plan would "end Medicare as we know it", which was judged to be a lie because it wouldn't literally end Medicare completely. Figurative language needs to be scoured, comments said directly on camera need to be made fuzzy. This makes factchecking sites worthless at factchecking, because what even is this?

It's not true that Donald Trump will refuse to accept the election results, because he's merely said he won't accept, and has said if he loses, it's only because the election was fraudulent. Okay, what, do you demand that people prove he said his plans in exact words? What is the actual, functional difference between "he said he won't accept it" and "he said if he loses it's because he won and they stole it from him, and he won't commit to saying he'll accept it"? What are you talking about, who is this for? When you go to the Logic and Reason Site for Debunking & end up having to puzzle out their convoluted logic and reasoning to understand anything, the plot's been lost a bit

The other is the idea that context is exonerating. Any context at all. If they said they didn't mean it, partially false. If they walked it back, partially false. If they said it was taken out of context, partially false. If they said it a certain number of years ago, partially false. If there's a longer video, even if it shows functionally the same thing, pants on fire, five pinocchios.

Again, we have footage of Trump saying this, and the footage in the ad is unedited, and the factchecking website is declaring something that OBJECTIVELY HAPPENED WITH HARD EVIDENCE IT HAPPENED didn't really happen bc we don't know his heart, maybe he believes something different now, we simply can't know for certain. But we do know for certain. Because "false" at least used to mean "didn't happen". But factchecking sites are now on those Beyond Belief definitions of "true" and "false" I guess

But the real problem here is that they just accept anything someone being factchecked says at face value. Because, and I can't believe I'm saying this

It seems like the people paid to determine if other people are lying...have forgotten that people lie sometimes

[acti-veg]

The Greenwashing of Leather and Wool

There is a great deal of money being put into the greenwashing of animal products, particularly leather and wool, and the purposeful erasure of any alternatives except for plastic.

Animal agriculture industries have been accused of using the same tactics as big oil corporations to sow doubt and downplay their own role in the climate crisis. It is frustrating to see this kind of corporate propaganda repeated so gleefully by so-called leftists in progressive spaces.

Here are three articles I’ve written in an attempt to counter this misinformation. Hopefully you can save these to help you respond to anyone peddling these industry myths later, and then maybe we can talk about literally anything else…

[a-student-out-of-time]

More Real Talk

Hey everyone. Mod Bubbles here.

I'm not gonna beat around the bush here: you all know what's going on, you've all heard about it, you don't need me to tell you about it. You've heard about it and you're gonna hear about it a lot these next four years.

I don't want to talk about that. Instead, I wanna address something else that, on a personal level, I believe is a lot more serious but a lot easier to grapple with.

You wanna know what I believe is the biggest problem we're dealing with these days? You can point to a lot of things, but at the core, they all have the same root to them.

Hopelessness.

Yeah, a DR blog talking about hope, how crazy is that?

But in all seriousness, it's at the core of every argument, every political discussion, every post I see made about not just the near future, but the long term as well. It's always the same points about neo-fascism, climate change, wars, cyberpunk dystopias, and global extinction. Very few people today seem to have any faith that the world can be better.

And I can't say I blame them. I was there too once, when I was a teenager. I lived in constant fear of the future, worried about what it means for me, and I'd get trapped in doomscrolling cycles. I'd lay awake at night and cry my eyes out. Yet I'm still here, on the cusp of turning 30, and I'm at a better point in my life than I've ever been.

Fear and desperation are ultimately useful, but they can be self-destructive. They can prevent you from seeing the truth and make you ironically vulnerable to the ones you should be most afraid of.

Why do people join cults or militias or vote for bad politicians? Are they all just stupid or evil? Sure, some may be, but most are just desperate, afraid and don't understand how the world really works. They need a helping hand with deprogramming what they were told.

Here's the facts:

We've already beaten climate change's worst predictions and the changes we've made can be reversed.

Plastic pollution in the oceans is being cleaned up.

Conservation success stories just keep coming.

More people are living better lives nowadays, with lower rates of child morality, starvation, crime, preventable diseases, even bullying rates have declined.

The Green Energy Revolution is here and nothing is going to stop it.

New advancements in materials science are on the way and will revolutionize everything from construction to manufacturing to space exploration.

I say all this because the ultimate source of hope is knowledge. Yes, you can open yourself up to a lot of dark avenues when you start learning about the world, but you'll also learn how much good there is out there being done.

This isn't a distraction, it's how I help people understand that the world can always be better and that just one person being in power will not change that.

Now, I know what you may say to that. I've seen posts about how the internet is going to be censored, that propaganda spread everywhere, that there'll be concentration camps, the constitution will be ripped up, etc.

And to that, I have to be honest: I've already heard it all before.

The things you're worried about today? I was worried about them in 2009 during the Great Recession. People worried about them in 2005 when Bush was re-elected, and the concerns there also included terrorism. Do we even still talk about Al-Qaeda? Not really!

And misinformation in this age has always been a problem, especially on the big sites. These are old problems brought to the forefront, and it's always been important to learn the skills to spot them.

More importantly, all this assumes the administration would actually be able to implement any of their promises. Every administration does that and few of the truly big ones about change have happened, especially because said promises ran counter to reality within the system.

I'm not trying to downplay any concerns about the situation, I promise. It's okay to be sad, scared, and concerned about peoples' safety. It's okay to cry if you need to. What you should not do is give up just because of all this.

I'm going to sound very harsh for a moment, but I need to say it: by being doomerist and defeatist, you're part of the problem. You not only stop helping, you run the risk of discouraging other people from trying because you believe it's pointless. When you succumb to pessimistic nihilism, you create a self-fulfilling prophecy that only rewards those who benefit from your inaction or your death.

Don't do that to people. Don't do that to yourself.

The world gets better when you first believe it can be better. How do you do that?

Well, I can't speak for everyone, but here's some suggestions that I'm sticking to:

Live daily life. Get up, eat, stay hydrated, take your medication, bathe, dress comfortably, listen to music, watch a movie, clean your home, play a game, hang out with friends, just do things that make you happy. As you should always do.

Stop looking at doomer posts. It literally does not help with anything and they are not credible sources of information just because they're cynical.

Do not let go of your ambitions. Always have a dream or a goal in mind, no matter what it is, and always aim for it. It's never stupid, it's never too late, it's something you aspire to and that's really awesome.

Stop looking for enemies. There are more important things to devote your time to than arguing over inane bullshit on the internet. That's been true since the start.

Be kind to people. Let go of whatever anger and resentment you may have for people, try to make new friends, and recognize when you can help someone else in need. Sometimes it's as simple as letting them know you care.

Be kind to yourself. You are not a failure, you're not a burden, you're not a lost cause, you can always improve as long as you're alive.

Remove toxicity from your life. Cut out bad influences and replace them with better things. If you have to leave a toxic environment, you can work on doing so.

Always learn new things. It's really fun to end the day with a new piece of knowledge you didn't have the day before.

Let yourself feel. Are you angry? Sad? Scared? Worried? Let yourself feel it, and then you can move on. Don't bury an emotion or let it stagnate.

Learn to recognize bad faith posts/misinformation. This is a critical skill to possess and one you need to always pass on to others. Not everyone who posts it is evil, sometimes all they need is a simple correction on a matter and the situation will be resolved.

Clown on Evil. Whenever people want you to fear them or take them seriously, you mock them, make memes about them, treat them as a joke and defuse whatever power they try to have.

Be true to yourself. Above all, don't let the next 4 years turn you into something you're not.

I say all this as someone who's been around longer than a lot of people who follow me: your future is not empty. I wished I'd done years ago everything I'm doing now, but I've decided I'd rather do them than spend the rest of my life lamenting and wondering what might've been.

You can spend years convincing yourself there is no future, and then the future arrives and you have no idea what to do anymore.

Change- actual change- starts from below and works its way up. And no matter how much life beats you down, no matter what's on TV or what the future may hold, you can always choose to do something about it.

You can always choose to be kind to yourself and to others. You can always choose to believe. And that's where you can start.

[probablyasocialecologist]

“So, relax and enjoy the ride. There is nothing we can do to stop climate change, so there is no point in worrying about it.” This is what “Bard” told researchers in 2023. Bard by Google is a generative artificial intelligence chatbot that can produce human-sounding text and other content in response to prompts or questions posed by users.  But if AI can now produce new content and information, can it also produce misinformation? Experts have found evidence.  In a study by the Center for Countering Digital Hate, researchers tested Bard on 100 false narratives on nine themes, including climate and vaccines, and found that the tool generated misinformation on 78 out of the 100 narratives tested. According to the researchers, Bard generated misinformation on all 10 narratives about climate change. In 2023, another team of researchers at Newsguard, a platform providing tools to counter misinformation, tested OpenAI’s Chat GPT-3.5 and 4, which can also produce text, articles, and more. According to the research, ChatGPT-3.5 generated misinformation and hoaxes 80 percent of the time when prompted to do so with 100 false narratives, while ChatGPT-4 advanced all 100 false narratives in a more detailed and convincing manner. NewsGuard found that ChatGPT-4 advanced prominent false narratives not only more frequently, but also more persuasively than ChatGPT-3.5, and created responses in the form of news articles, Twitter threads, and even TV scripts imitating specific political ideologies or conspiracy theorists. “I think this is important and worrying, the production of fake science, the automation in this domain, and how easily that becomes integrated into search tools like Google Scholar or similar ones,” said Victor Galaz, deputy director and associate professor in political science at the Stockholm Resilience Centre at Stockholm University in Sweden. “Because then that’s a slow process of eroding the very basics of any kind of conversation.” In another recent study published this month, researchers found GPT-fabricated content in Google Scholar mimicking legitimate scientific papers on issues including the environment, health, and computing. The researchers warn of “evidence hacking,” the “strategic and coordinated malicious manipulation of society’s evidence base,” which Google Scholar can be susceptible to.

18 September 2024

[krill-joy]

The reality, of course, is that the political climate surrounding contraception and abortion will not improve anytime soon. But contrary to the dominant narrative, we don’t have to wait for political change to act. There’s a lot that we can do right now to ease people’s anxieties and expand access to contraceptive care. A major barrier to access is confusion. Misinformation about contraception, particularly emergency contraception, is rampant. In states where abortion is banned, more than half of the population — including half of women — don't know that Plan B remains legal. This confusion extends to less restrictive states, where a third of adults are "unsure" if emergency contraceptive pills are legal where they live. In Massachusetts, where I practice medicine, patients can get an entire year of birth control medication at once from their pharmacies, reducing the chance that they will miss doses because their busy lives prevent them from getting to the pharmacy monthly. Few patients are aware of this change. Birth control pills are also over the counter and available without a prescription, another change that is not widely known. We also need to make people aware of their rights, raise awareness about what remains legal and underscore how restrictions on abortions have widespread downstream effects. We're already seeing abortion bans impact access to medications like mifepristone and misoprostol, which are used for managing miscarriages and other medical conditions in addition to medical abortions. Similarly, hormonal medications used for birth control, including estrogen and progesterone, also treat conditions like polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), acne, endometriosis and menopause symptoms. There's nothing partisan about these medical uses.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Jay Kuo at The Status Kuo:

As climate disasters increase in frequency and severity, we are faced with still another grave threat: misinformation, along with its more sinister sibling, disinformation. 

As strong evidence that the writers of 2024 have jumped the shark, we have to begin today’s discussion with a simple fact: The government cannot control the weather, let alone create catastrophic hurricanes that it can send at will. Yet because of irresponsible conspiracy mongering by political leaders, with a healthy assist from online influencers and amplification by foreign actors, this bizarre claim became a top priority that many leaders, both Democratic and Republican, had to spend valuable time debunking, when they could have been focused on saving more lives and property. It’s tempting to simply laugh, but just as with the insane and false claims about immigrants eating pets in Springfield, this disinformation also carries serious and dangerous consequences. In today’s piece, I discuss how we got to this point and how political leaders and experts are pushing back. I also will place this particularly weird claim in the larger context of everything else we are seeing to help make the otherwise nonsensical make a bit of perverted sense, at least in terms of the political value it contains for those seeking to undermine our democracy. “They can control the weather.”

In a press conference yesterday, President Biden’s exasperation was evident as he shot down the newest conspiracy theories around relief efforts and hurricanes. Biden noted that “even one congresswoman” was “suggesting I control the weather and implying I’m sending it to red states.” “This stuff is off the wall. It’s like out of a comic book,” Biden declared. He’s talking of course about the Jewish Space Lasers QAnon lady, Marjorie Taylor Greene (Q-Moscow), whose tweets around the hurricanes have reached new levels of both stupidity and dangerousness. In one particularly off-the-wall tweet, viewed five million times as of this writing, Rep. Greene attached a video of a speech by CIA Director John Brennan from eight years back. Director Brennan at the time was discussing innovative ways to use aerosols to deflect the sun’s heat to reduce climate change. But in Greene’s smooth, hollow brain, that somehow became “Yes they can control the weather”—implying the hurricanes were manmade and not the long warned about by-product of an overheated ocean following decades of increased carbon in the atmosphere.

Note how she provides ample cover for her ignorance, telling her followers that anyone who counters or ridicules her claims “is lying to you” and that this is all part of some massive cover up and “the people” know it. (As Jimmy Kimmel pointed out last night on his program, Greene used to say bad weather was God’s way of punishing liberal sinners. Funny how that changes when it’s her region that is hit by it.) Rep. Greene also posted a map of the areas affected by Hurricane Helene, with an overlay of an electoral map by political party, implying strongly that the hurricane was created by Democrats to hurt the political chances of the GOP. 

Notably, however, when Democrats presented the North Carolina legislature, which has a GOP supermajority, with a proposal to extend the time for affected voters to register and to allow absentee votes more time to arrive, not a single GOP legislator voted in favor of it.

[...] But experts are worried about more than their own safety or the difficulty of their jobs. A sharp decrease in public trust during severe weather crises could lead to some terrifying outcomes. As Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL), who served as director of Florida’s Division of Emergency Management for two years, warned on MSNBC, “At some point in time, we’ll see people tell residents not to evacuate because the hurricane’s not really hitting you.” If that sounds implausible, we’re already seeing versions of that from large, influential accounts on the right. The troll account Catturd (again, I can’t believe I have to write about this) declared last night that, due to the changing wind speeds of Hurricane Milton, “I’ll never listen to weather channel again.” As of today, that was viewed 2.4 million times.

Why lie about the weather?

There’s something particularly sad when the weather—one of the last, normal topics of conversation, even between people of divergent political views—is no longer uncontroversial. Victims of the hurricanes cannot even commiserate without the threat of political backlash.   “How did you ride out the hurricane? “You mean the one you Democrats sent here to destroy us?!”’ Never mind that this government weather machine seemed to batter the Gulf and the Caribbean during Trump’s presidency, and he never bothered to turn it off or order it to stop. Our foreign adversaries have long viewed the ignorance of U.S. voters as an exploitable weakness. They understand that during crises, Americans historically have come together and stood united, helping each other out wherever we can without regard to political viewpoint. And that is precisely why they have targeted these crises now, to spread rumors about the government seizing lands, bulldozing whole towns and hundreds of bodies in massive cover ups, and apparently now even generating and directing the deadly hurricanes in the first place. Bad political actors thrive where there is little common factual ground remaining for the public to stand upon. Their goal is to continue until it has all been swept away, the zone flooded from a storm surge of shit, to coin Steve Bannon’s infamous strategy.

Jay Kuo rightly calls out the far-right climate-denying conspiracy theorists pushing dangerous lies about Hurricanes Helene and Milton.

See Also:

The Guardian: How could hurricane misinformation affect the US election?

[mariacallous]

Republican President-elect Donald Trump has called on California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat and political foe, to resign as wildfires tear through the Los Angeles area — a once-in-a-generation disaster that’s unleashed a gusher of political attacks and misinformation in its wake.

As historically devastating blazes ravaged LA on Wednesday, Trump blamed Newsom for the fires, which have resulted in at least five deaths and the displacement of more than 100,000 people. Meanwhile, the president-elect’s son Donald Trump Jr. suggested on Thursday that the effort to contain the fires is being hampered by initiatives around diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI — part of a broader push to blame liberal policies for the perception of chaos and lawlessness in blue states like California.

“One of the best and most beautiful parts of the United States of America is burning down to the ground. It’s ashes, and Gavin Newscum should resign. This is all his fault!!!” the elder Trump wrote Wednesday on his Truth Social platform as he used a derogatory nickname for the governor, who is likely to emerge as a major foil for Trump during his second term in the White House.

“Fire is spreading rapidly for 3 days — ZERO CONTAINMENT. Nobody has ever seen such failed numbers before! Gross incompetence by Gavin Newscum and Karen Bass….And Biden’s FEMA has no money — all wasted on the Green New Scam! L.A. is a total wipeout!!!” he added in a post Thursday, referring to LA Mayor Karen Bass (D), Democratic President Joe Biden, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and so-called Green New Deal proposals to address climate change.

The president-elect had also written that the fires “may go down, in dollar amount, as the worst in the History of our Country. In many circles, they’re doubting whether insurance companies will even have enough money to pay for this catastrophe. Let this serve, and be emblematic, of the gross incompetence and mismanagement of the Biden/Newscum Duo.”

In reference to his inauguration date, he added, “January 20th cannot come fast enough!”

Asked to respond to Trump — while standing in front of a blazing fire swallowing a structure — Newsom told CNN’s Anderson Cooper in an interview aired Wednesday: “People are literally fleeing. People have lost their lives. Kids lost their schools, families completely torn asunder. Churches burned down. And this guy wanted to politicize it.”

Trump appears to be wrong that FEMA has no money, according to what the agency itself indicated at the end of 2024. That was even after FEMA’s resources had been stretched by a number of catastrophic disasters last year, including flooding in North Carolina from Hurricane Helene in September — when FEMA was forced to wage a public relations campaign countering incorrect and potentially damaging information about its relief efforts and aid for disaster victims.

Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), a senior House Republican, said it was too soon to discuss if California, like North Carolina, would require federal disaster assistance funding. Trump’s comments raise the prospect that such aid could easily become another partisan battle.

“Until they actually get it [the wildfire disaster] under control and sort of end it and have a chance to assess what the damage is, there’s not much we can do,” said Cole, who chairs the House Appropriations Committee.

On the culture war front, Trump Jr. blamed the fires on “woke virtue signaling” affecting California fire departments as they work to contain the flames amid whipping winds that have made that task virtually impossible.

“Can we rename DEI to DIE since that’s what seems to happen to the people downstream of those who place woke virtue signaling far above competency,” Trump Jr. wrote on X, formerly Twitter.

X owner Elon Musk, an ally to the elder Trump, agreed. “That’s what it is,” Musk wrote in a reply.

Trump Jr. and other Republicans appeared to be referring to a California program that aims to diversify the ranks of professional firefighters, which are overwhelmingly white and male. But there’s no connection between the ability to contain the fires and something like the racial makeup of the department.

Blaming everything but climate change itself, Republicans — who in the past have cited poor forest management for the worsening intensity of West Coast wildfires — have targeted not only DEI initiatives, but the LA mayor’s absence at the start of the fires. (Bass, according to the Los Angeles Times, was on a diplomatic trip to Africa when the blazes broke out.) They have also targeted the appearance of budget cuts to the LA Fire Department that are being presented out of context, even by left-leaning media, as efforts to slash the department’s manpower.

Amid the fires, conservative activist Charlie Kirk revived the forest management argument and seemed to dismiss climate change as a liberal hoax.

“Instead of cleaning the forest floors, removing dead trees, capturing rain runoff, and making sure California has water in the fire hydrants, Democrat politicians will instead deflect responsibly and blame ‘climate change,’” Kirk wrote on X.

Trump similarly claimed that hydrants ran dry at a critical time due to California environmental policy, which diverts water to wetlands for conservation.

“This is a true tragedy, and it’s a mistake of the governor, and you could say the [Biden] administration. They don’t have any water. They didn’t have water in the fire hydrants,” Trump said Wednesday at the U.S. Capitol. “With that being said, I got along well with him when he was governor. We worked together very well, and we would work together. I guess it looks like we’re going to be the one having to rebuild it.”

A hydroclimatologist pushed back on Trump’s water policy claims to the LA Times, calling them “blatantly false, irresponsible and politically self-serving.”

The scientist, Peter Gleick, explained, “There is no water shortage in Southern California — the state’s reservoirs are all at, or above, levels normally expected for this time of year.” The very real problem with dry hydrants is “entirely the result of the massive immediate demands for firefighting water, broken or damaged pipes and pumps, and homeowners leaving hoses and sprinklers running in hopes of saving property,” he said.

[rebelwheelssoapbox]

The Influences Of Ableism in Veganism: A Disabled Vegan Perspective

by Michele Sommerstein

I don't know about you, but for me between the multiple genocides, the rise in COVID cases, the massive COVID denial, the related rise in mask bans, the elections, police violence, the rising threat of fascism, climate change, and so many other issues – for fuck's sake! it's a lot. And so lately, I've been feeling like while I am doing what I can to be part of the collective effort for justice, (for another world is possible), I can't only make protest art. My heart also needs lighter projects.

[image description: a collage. background is a field with a blue sky and white clouds and a field of rows of flowers of various colors. standing in the field is a silhouette of a pig that takes up most of the art. their shape is filled with a photo of from the universe (space) there is a human eye on them that slightly blends in with the space pattern. lastly behind them but towards the right is a pink cosmo flower with an orange center. as if the pig is smelling the flower. ] And so recently I've returned to making vegan content. But not some call for intersectionality, articles discussing inner-movement issues, kill counter references, and environmental stats, as I had done in the past. Just lighter. And perhaps because it has been a while since I have made vegan content, I found myself unexpectedly reflecting on the intersections of my disability and vegan identity. Before my disability identity-themed YouTube show (Rebelwheels NYC), I had a short-lived vegan cooking show called My Easily Amused Kitchen.

[image description: video thumbnail. a screenshot from the video taken in my apartment. a white wall and a purple couch behind me. text reads MEAK ep 1 creamy pea soup of vast fantasticness! my easily amused kitchen. there is olive oil being poured onto a bowl of peas. and I am pointing with my finger up sitting next to a penguin stuffed animal. I have glasses, a black shirt, and longer hair with bangs] And looking back on that time, I realize that I really wasn't being fully authentic in the videos. Of course, it was done in my motorized wheelchair and there was some of my quirky humor, but I remember I often downplayed any kind of physical fatigue even though that is part of my disability.

You see, between my animal rights activism at the time and the vegan content that I watched on YouTube, I was very much familiar with the protein myth. The false idea that if you go vegan, that you will by default, be physically weak due to not being able to get enough protein on a vegan diet. Often I saw other (physically able-bodied) vegans whether in person or via YouTube videos who were very intentional about presenting veganism as part of an energetic lifestyle in an attempt to counteract said misinformation.

And there are many professional athletes who are vegan. I personally knew a guy (not professional) who was vegan, who lifted weights and ran marathons with ease.

[image description: The background is a colorful collage of blue, yellow, and pink. The main text reads pity is not compassion! The vibe is artsy and punk. There is smaller text on top that reads spare us your pity we want our rights! And then towards the lower left-hand corner, it reads intersectional disability solidarity. Lastly underneath the word compassion is the phrase unlearn ableism.]

And then there was me, a disabled vegan, and not Paralympic disabled, disabled with low spoons (slang term for energy), disabled with health problems, disabled where muscle weakness is literally part of my disability. And now I can type that and say “represent” with a sense of disability pride, but back then it almost felt like it was a hindrance to the cause. And to be clear, no one ever said to me “hide parts of your disability for the movement.” It was just the way it was presented that made me feel like I should. And it wasn't just the impression I got from a lot of people in the vegan community. I could sneeze and an omnivore would say “Is that because you're vegan?” (as if they themselves never sneezed?)

As a result, I was very aware of how my disability was somewhat being linked to the protein myth. As if I wouldn't be disabled if I wasn't vegan. As if people aren't born with disabilities. As if disability and veganism were somehow incompatible.

[image description: white background. black typewriter font. "Ableism is... (a form of) discrimination. The false idea that disabled people are by default, inferior. When in truth disability is just another way for a mind and/or body to be." ] And so part of me felt that to show my truth was feeding into that weakened stereotype, thus hurting the movement and thus hurting the animals, which obviously as a vegan and animal rights activist, you don't want to do.

Looking back, it was also a lot of internalized ableism on my part, for I had yet to be aware that ableism was even a word, let alone working to unlearn it, and certainly had not yet found my groove and voice in my disability identity.

That said, I now see how essential it is to have a variety of vegan representation in all areas but in this case, ability and health.

And so, in the name of creating something lighter, and because it just so happened that I needed a new vegan cheese (long story), I filmed a taste test where I was un-apologetically me. Full throttle neurodivergent, processing delays, immensely honest, not downplaying when I was physically fatigued or in pain nor the fact that while there are many vegan cheeses out there, I could not try a lot of them, due to dietary intolerances and ingredient sensitivities.

[image description: tumblr has cropped the video thumbnail. the full thumbnail is as follows. Background gold glitter. Over that rainbow stripes. Purple blue green yellow orange red and dark red. To the left a photo of myself wearing a silence equals death with a watermelon pink triangle symbol on it holding up a piece of vegan cheese. I have oversized black cat eye eyeglasses and my rainbow flower crown hair band is pushing back my dark hair. Next to me is a collage of various vegan cheeses. And over that is the text in a bold black font "disabled and neurodivergent vegan taste test vegan cheese." Every line has a white rectangle behind it and behind that is a black rectangle shadow. In white text with a black rectangle behind it. "Not sponsored. Very honest."] And as a result of being authentic and sharing my truth, I'm starting to come across other disabled vegans like me, chronically ill vegans, neurodivergent vegans, etc. and it's lovely Many years ago, I wrote an article entitled Is Veganism Ableist? A Disabled Vegan Perspective. And in regard to the ideas of veganism, the answer remains no. However, I do think in the wanting and sometimes desperation to do all we can to save the animals (and to a certain degree, the planet as animal agriculture is one of the larger contributors to climate change), a lot of us took action to dispel the protein myth, and while in ways it was good, some of our actions had consequences that also caused harm. It is a reminder that when we take action to fight misinformation, we must make sure that we are also not punching down in the process (whether intentionally or not.) This is something that goes far beyond veganism. In the end, us vegans from marginalized communities must represent with as much realness as possible, not only so people know that vegans vary, but so other marginalized people who are perhaps 'vegan-curious', will know that they too are welcomed in the movement. After all, the animals need as many allies as they can get. (Author's Note: In the past, I have written articles using my birth name Michele Kaplan. However, in the past year, I have decided to use my mother's maiden name, and thus why this article is by Michele Sommerstein, while past articles are by Michele Kaplan. Same person. I didn't get married. This just felt right to me for personal reasons)

[rjzimmerman]

Excerpt from this article from Jacobin:

In Canada, false environmental claims are now illegal. Under legislation passed in June, companies may be penalized for making representations to the public about their products’ ability to mitigate climate change without being based on an “adequate and proper test.” It was a success for environmental groups who spent a year and half working on the antigreenwashing law.

The legislation is just one moment in a much wider “disinformation turn” in the climate movement: the US Congress has been holding high-profile hearings with titles like “Denial, Disinformation, and Doublespeak: Big Oil’s Evolving Efforts to Avoid Accountability for Climate Change.” Academics are convening conferences on “climate obstruction” with multiple days of deep dives from the network of scholars that meticulously track corporate climate misinformation. Environmental NGOs are making disinformation databases with lists of individuals and scientists and leading programs on climate disinformation. And think tanks that work on disinformation are now moving into climate, with reports like the Center for Countering Digital Hate’s The New Climate Denial.

Disinformation is a curious focus for the climate movement at this moment, however, at least from a US standpoint. This is because we actually have some funds for climate action on the ground. The 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill and 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) unleashed a trillion dollars to use to address the climate crisis. But much of the public is unaware of this massive investment — and local governments, tribes, and organizations often struggle to navigate accessing the new funding.

These material victories would make it the perfect time for a climate movement to focus on things like explaining to people what heat pumps are, campaigning to expedite transmission lines, and helping communities understand the labyrinth of federal funding. Indeed, many regional government organizations, municipal planners, and volunteer committees who work on climate action have their hands full with these activities. They are engaged with the ground game of mitigation and adaptation.

Yet the nationwide connective tissue and broader narrative about climate action feels absent. If there is a role for “climate intellectuals” — for the online climate commentariat, the journalists and national NGO leaders who tell us the story of climate action — it would be to focus on the new opportunities for action on the ground, and knit together those people in Peoria or Altoona who are trying to talk to people about resilience, connecting them in a broader story that fuels their motivation. Instead, the intellectual wing of the climate movement has decided to wage an information war focused on uncovering what Big Oil knew and policing speech.

Given that funding and public attention is limited, this climate-disinformation obsession is a missed opportunity and a strategic dead-end — part of a larger liberal tendency to make disinformation a bogeyman we can blame for our major political problems.

[ritunn]

A Very Short "Essay" On Why They Should Teach Philosophy in School (and Why You Should Learn It Anyway)

Something I've realized formally studying philosophy now is that holy mother of all gods, this stuff would be super useful to teach in school. Why? What are Plato, Aristotle, and even modern philosophers going to teach us that's useful for adulting as many people are concerned about now when it comes to high school? Philosophy boils down to how to live a good life, a civic one at that in many cases! It's how to be a good person and how to have direction in life. Honestly, that's something I think a lot of people need right now. There's no one philosophy either, there's so many schools of thought, so you can find the one that fits for your life.

Other than this though, philosophy also helps deal with a few other surprising things: misinformation and being a fudging a**hole. Misinformation is rampant in online spaces, HBomberguy even highlighted how misinformation from James Somerton led to it being accepted as fact by some people. Philosophy is a counter to this. It asks to think critically of life, of the things we encounter in it, and how we accept it. Misinformation thrives on either willful ignorance, or a simple laziness to not fact check what you're hearing. Sometimes that's understandable, like with the case with James, people trusted him and the information he shared. However, spreading something like that like fact yourself requires you to first confirm the information, often from an additional source (always have multiple sources for information, it's a life saver). Philosophy itself as a subject is the art of critical thinking, and this is exactly what critical thinking teaches us, to never trust the words of just one person. Get different views, look into it yourself! Teaching philosophy can reinforce this idea and help folks avoid falling down rabbit holed that lead to social isolation in the cases of things like flat earth and climate change denial.

I also mentioned preventing a**holes. A**holes are a pretty common problem. Just look at Elon Musk, Trump, or rich guy YouTubers like Logan Paul. Why does this happen? It can be a mix of social pressure, how they were raised, and even the very institutions of our world that can lead to it. A**holes: A Theory, by Aaron James, is a great way to learn more about this, but to put it plainly, a**holes often exist because they feel an entrenched and high sense of entitlement. They won't apologize for their actions in a meaningful way, and they certainly don't see you as having the same moral standing to them. They're a bane to a cooperative society. So, how do we deal with this? James suggested a few ways, landing on that there's an understanding that life kind of sucks. However, if we, as cooperative people, unite, we can life a little less sucky, and by virtue, better. Philosophy comes into play here yet again. It teaches social values, how to be a good person, how to be a civil person. Being a civil person means we can meet that call, we can make society less sucky, and make it better. If we understand our civic duties to one another, learn critical thought, and have meaning in this turbulent boat of world, we can be better people, we can live better lives! Teaching philosophy does that.

In the end, life sucks, but it doesn't have to. In fact, I'd say there's hope. I know some schools (especially in the States, I'm Canadian myself) already teach philosophy. Does it help? I can't quite say. I can tell you it's helped me when I learned it just as an interest by myself, but my peers who did go to schools with it often share that they were the better for it when I ask them about it. So, give it a try. Explore philosophy a bit! It can truly be a delight.

[aromanticduck]

Or they could eat neither? I'm not vegan but I only occasionally eat things that contain honey. It would be fairly easy to just remove those things from my diet if I decided I wasn't okay with humans keeping bees to take some of their produce. I personally am okay with that, but I'm not vegan. Yes, we should not be eating agave, but that doesn't mean everyone has to eat honey.

The information on eggs and wool is helpful, but I also don't think it's a bad thing if someone would rather not use those products, provided they aren't replacing them with something environmentally unfriendly. Polyester and other plastic-based fabrics aren't a good choice, but unless you're in a particularly cold climate, cotton knitwear will do the job. It's what I usually wear for sensory reasons. (Also r.e. wool: are the same farms which raise sheep for wool also raising sheep for meat? If so that's something that might put people off). The most common vegan egg substitute in baked goods is banana, a mainstream fruit that as far as I'm aware is not a key food source for endangered animals. Not all substitutes are created equal.

I guess what I'm saying is that while some vegan substitutes are environmentally unfriendly and should be phased out, simply being vegan isn't a bad thing that people need to stop doing. Yes, counter any scaremongering or misinformation about animal products, but you also have to accept that some people just won't want to use them, and instead focus on whether what they use instead is harmful or not.

And for anyone who is vegan, I would stress the importance of doing your research on any plant-based substitute that you're not familiar with, to make sure it's not causing more harm than it's preventing.

Vegans of tumblr, listen up. Harvesting agave in the quantities required so you dont have to eat honey is killing mexican long-nosed bats. They feed off the nectar and pollinate the plants. They need the agave. You want to help the environment? Go back to honey. Your liver and thyroid will thank you, as well. Agave is 90% fructose, which can cause a host of issues. Bye.

[kick-the-clouds]

United We Stand

The world is not as divided as it seems. Powerful forces want us to believe otherwise. They thrive on division, feeding off the chaos it creates. But we have the power to fight back.

The Misinformation Machine

Every day, we’re bombarded with misinformation. It’s designed to keep us apart, to make us distrust one another. These forces want us to see each other as enemies. But the truth is, we have more in common than we think.

Evidence of Unity

Look around. Communities are coming together to solve real problems. In cities across the country, people from all walks of life are working side by side. They’re tackling issues like climate change, healthcare, and education. They’re proving that cooperation is not only possible, but powerful.

Breaking Down Barriers

Critics say it’s impossible to bridge the gap between the left and the right. But history tells a different story. The Civil Rights Movement, the fight for women’s suffrage, and the push for marriage equality all show that change is possible when we unite. We can overcome manufactured divisiveness.

Take Action

What can you do? Start by listening. Engage in conversations with those who think differently. Seek common ground. Support organizations that promote unity and understanding. Share factual information to counter misinformation.

Conclusion: Hope in Unity

We have the power to change the narrative. By coming together, we can build a future where cooperation triumphs over division. Let’s stand united and prove that hope is stronger than fear.

[acti-veg]

News had a section on the issues of agave farming, how rising demand gets them prematurely harvested without being able to flower, more monocultures and loss of genetic diversity in the plants. To no one's surprise, the reason is increasing tequila consumption in Europe and agave syrup wasn't mentioned even once. And while we're at it, blaming rich vegans in particular for agave syrup consumption makes no sense anyway, as organic agave syrup is in the lower price range of the honey sortiment at the stores I checked.

I’ve found that when it comes to misinformation, it doesn’t actually matter how visible or readily available the truth is. They choose a narrative that fits their existing views based on whatever clickbait article they’ve stumbled on, and it takes an enormous amount of counter-information to force them to let the fallacy go.

Even when they do let it go, they move on to the next thing before circling back. We debunked the quinoa thing five years ago, then it was agave, then soy, then plastic. Now we’re talking about agave again, as if this wasn’t already widely debunked. Anything to avoid talking about the actual issues. It’s the same with climate denial, it’s a constant battle to address misinformation, and every victory is unfortunately only temporary.

[sarnews]

UK Gov’t Deploys ‘Behavioural Manipulation Teams’ to Counter ‘Anti Climate Change’ Viewpoints

The British government has set up 'behavioural manipulation teams' to combat online anti-climate change views. The Behavioural Insights Team aims to change public perceptions by portraying skepticism about heat pumps as misinformation, despite some individuals resisting adoption due to their beliefs.

Toby Park, head of climate at BIT, pointed out that heat pumps are efficient and low-carbon heating systems, but negative perceptions hinder their adoption. Some skepticism arises from market issues like costs, while other concerns stem from myths, such as heat pumps not working in cold weather. The UK government’s contract with BIT emphasizes the role of media coverage in shaping public opinions, criticizing articles from outlets like the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph for spreading negative claims about heat pumps.

Though some criticisms, like high installation costs, are valid, others are labeled as misinformation. Critics argue that the government's focus on media narratives aims to control the conversation rather than address public concerns. The push for heat pumps faces political opposition, particularly from Reform UK, which questions the technology's effectiveness.

Despite these challenges, installation numbers have increased, with 42,000 units installed last year, yet this falls short of the 600,000 target. The government provides a £7,500 grant to help with costs, but affordability remains a barrier. The reliance on behavioral nudges over clear communication raises concerns about manipulation in public policy and the debate on achieving climate goals without coercion continues.

[darkmaga-returns]

The UK government has taken a controversial step in its campaign to promote climate-friendly heat pumps by employing the Behavioural Insights Team (BIT), a group known for psychological manipulation under the guise of “nudging” public behavior. This move, which cost taxpayers £100,000 ($123,000) seeks to counter what the government claims is widespread misinformation about heat pumps — a technology central to Britain’s net-zero agenda.

More: The Shadowy “Nudge Units” Working Online to Manipulate You from Afar

Heat pumps, powered by electricity rather than gas, are touted as vital to reducing carbon emissions from homes. The government aims to install 600,000 units per year by 2028, but public resistance has been a significant obstacle. Rather than addressing the root causes of skepticism, such as affordability and practical challenges, officials have chosen to frame dissenting opinions as a product of misinformation.

Unpublished research from the Department for Energy highlights a troubling contradiction: those who believe they know a lot about heat pumps are often more reluctant to adopt them, while those with a basic understanding of the technology are more receptive.