So it has to be a death sentence before anything should be done about it?

Yes, other groups and communities might have similar suicide rates and life is hard for them too, but this isn’t about them? So what is their relevance in this argument exactly? They should be helped too not seemingly pitted against the LGBTQ community like this is a them or us thing.

Agree, those other issues are legitimate as well, and access to those should be improved. But that can be accomplished along with allowing better access to gender affirming medication.

I will try to understand the point you’re trying to make here, but I’d like to interject with some questions and propositions of my own.

“…everything turns to lava at 14 miles down.”

-I would like some source on the claim that everything turns to lava at 14 miles down, where are you getting that information from? From what I’ve, briefly, read - the answer is more nuanced. The Earth’s crust is fairly thin at parts, like at the bottom of the ocean, but also denser. The mantle isn’t fully magma either, so I don’t think it’s fair to claim “everything turns to lava at 14 miles down.” The more nuanced take would be to say it depends on the material, temperature, depth, etc. before something may or may not turn into lava (actually magma, lava is when it comes out of the surface of the Earth).

“This leaves us with a very small livable zone on a massive lava ball.”

-For a bit of levity: Objection! Relevance?

“I propose the earth core is superheating and the real cause of the either real or perceived climate change bc a lot of data seems to be bullshit.”

-Ah, got it. It seems, and correct me if I’m wrong, that you do not believe in man made climate change at all? Not even as an addition to your proposed superheating core proposal? Hence your point above about small livable zone, correct?

-But also, like @ZodiacSF1969@sh.itjust.works asked, what about climate data seems bullshit to you? And how would you justify that? You made a claim, and I will now ask you for data for that claim. Seeing as you see things in a nuanced way, this shouldn’t be an issue.

“I also propose we deal with pollution only as it solves climate change at the same time”

-Might be a bit of a tangent since it’s not directly about climate change, but are you then proposing we don’t try to lower pollution even for health and safety reasons because solving it does not actually solve climate change, according to your claims?

“Question is, do humans want to backtrack progress, live more in tune with nature, or are we going to keep doubling down and hoping for an actual green energy so we can live in some sort of dystopian future?”

-Specifically, what do you mean by progress? Societal? Technological? Scientific? And why would backtracking mean we live more in tune with nature and that progressing won’t? Is wind or hydro or solar power not more environmentally friendly than coal? Isn’t deriving insulin in a synthetic way kinder to animals, and nature, rather than having to harvest tons of organs from cows and pigs?

-Why is having “actual green energy” leading us to a dystopian future? Is that not an overt claim as opposed to a nuanced one?

Ok, i’ll bite. Can you elaborate on these many variations of beliefs you mentioned and what that particular take would look like if it was compared to a strictly left and/or right opinion? You’re making a statement, so I’ll ask you to prove it. What’s the centrist take on, oh I don’t know, climate change?

I’m not quite sure how you can say you don’t use identity politics when you called yourself a centrist. A centrist opinion may contain nuance, but a nuanced opinion does not make it, or someone, a centrist.

I am reading The Dungeon Anarchist’s Cookbook by Matt Dinniman, book 3 of the Dungeon Crawler Carl book series.

Whoa, sorry this is a late reply. I don’t get notified if I get responses to my comments. Anyway, I can’t find it, but there’s a good resource on a subreddit I found before about book recommendations and reading order. In lieu of that, I can tell you what I remember: the setting, timeline, characters and lore are too many and varied to jump into, so focus on something smaller and more localized. A standalone series, or even a single novel, that’s more relatable and more focused can introduce you to the setting and themes of warhammer 40k (or 30k, if it’s related to the timeline around the Horus Heresy) better than some of the ones focusing on the bigger conflicts. All that to say, start with the Eisenhorn series of books.

Also, read up a bit on some articles about the lore for 40k available online, there’s a few wikis dedicated to Warhammer 40k/30k. There’s going to be spoilers, of course, but maybe focus on something you’d like to particularly know about the world of warhammer 40k, e.g spacemarines, the imperium, the other alien species, something more related to the tabletop game itself, etc. Then see if it’s to your liking, and you can branch off from there and read books about topics that interest you. Hope that helps a bit!

This is definitely an opinion, and definitely unpopular, so kudos on staying on topic. But I have to ask, why do you care about what the media says and not the science? Also, did I miss scientific studies being published about this? What are the other species of humans called?

Lol we get it man, you don’t like Apple. Move on.

The Lion: Son of the Forest by Mike Brooks. I’m on a Warhammer 40K kick lately, so started this after I finished the Eisenhorn trilogy