Jump to content

Talk:Doomer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

4chan Buzzword

[edit]

The term "doomer" is nothing but a buzzword. That's the reason why there are no reliable sources for it. It's used on places like reddit and 4chan and maybe in a few articles if reporters try to appeal to a younger audience. It is not a clear cut term and has no definite meaning. Including "doomer" is like including "360noscope" or "thot". 37.201.117.195 (talk) 06:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EMALIROVANNOE SUDNO! OKOSHKA, TUMBOCHKA, KROVAT'! But, seriously, a "doomer" is quite an archetype these days. Or a quasiarchetype, if you will. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 09:07, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

[edit]

This article was nominated for deletion. The result was no consensus. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doomer · Katefan0(scribble) 21:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

General category

[edit]

Why does this article only talk about peak oil doomers??? Doomer is a very general category Volterwd (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's supposed to be a specific usage of the term. If there are other uses, the there should be other articles, a disambiguation page, and this article would become Doomer (peak oil). Feel free to make some more articles if you see the need. NJGW (talk) 06:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the category section... at the bottom of the page... my own fault since I arrived through a link and it's not in the URL nvm Volterwd (talk) 12:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

term used in media

[edit]

I came across this while looking for something else. They say "Doomsters", but I figure it's close enough. NJGW (talk) 16:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page should absolutely stay.

[edit]

The Doomers of today are the prophets of tomorrow.

I am a doomer.

Time Will Tell

67.140.20.67 (talk) 00:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can one call themselves a "doomer"? It sounds like an insult/joke that makes light of everything that is at stake. I don't think we ever needed this silly term. 76.87.18.193 (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)KnightShade[reply]

Doomers of today are the prophets of tomorrow? Shame it didn't work out like that for the Y2K freaks. And, BTW, that's a subspecies of doomer that IMO should certainly be mentioned and discussed on this page. 75.94.230.111 (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

lead section

[edit]

someone should rewrite it to be more readable, I had to read it four times before I could understand it AlexWangombe (talk) 01:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mixed messages

[edit]

I don't think all of the people who behave as described in this article share all the properties described as doomer-like. The term is in this article associated with a belief system that is cataclysmic. It is possible to want to build a Permaculture village because it is the right thing to do, from among the many positive things one might do, not because it is the only way to survive societal collapse. "Assuming facts not introduced as evidence." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.205.78.97 (talk) 03:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DooM

[edit]

A Doomer is someone who plays Doom, surely? (Or am I showing my age?) 2fort5r (talk) 10:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not essentially. Regards, average "doomer music" fan 81.89.66.133 (talk) 09:07, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources / references

[edit]

There are currently 6 references noted on this page. The first 4 are dead (all from energybulletin.net), the 5th is a blog and the 6th points to the personal website of Toby Hemenway. It would be good if someone could add som reliable sources for this page (personally I'd prefer mainstream news outlets / peer-reviewed journals, etc but anything reliable would do) 87.112.153.66 (talk) 01:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is way off

[edit]

A doomer is anyone who believes mankind is doomed, and enjoys that belief. I've often wondered if it's a "grass is greener on the other side" thing ("I'm not happy with industrialized civilization intact, maybe I'll be happy after civilization collapses"). But it just occurred to me to wonder how much it's related to a comment a friend just made, a probably subconscious adaptation to current events in an attempt to be happy: "Just decide you like chaos and radiation and you'll be happy :)". This community may be helpful for understanding: http://so-very-doomed.livejournal.com/ —Darxus (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Needs an opposing view point

[edit]

For the sake of fairness this page should either have the opposing view point or the opposing view point on the opposing school of thought should be removed.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Cornucopian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.81.152.179 (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Agreed. I noticed that the Wikipedia entry for "Cornucopian" has a paragraph, "Description by an opposing view", which would apply equally I believe, to the "Doomer" moniker. Specifically, for many of those who I know who would fall under the "Doomer" description as currently defined in Wikipedia, they are merely engaged in conveying the obvious, predicting general outcomes based on hard data and logical hypotheses. Also, there are well known public figures, considered as "Doomers" in the mainstream, like Chris Martenson or Richard Heinberg, who are actually very careful to predicate their general predictions as being probabilistic and far from definitive. People who fall into this category are often self described as "realists", and find the term "Doomer" both inaccurate and a barrier that impedes their attempts to help educate the public regarding impending economic and ecological problems, with their objective of inspiring mitigation and constructive changes in people's behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.83.159.149 (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noteability? Rename article to: "Gloomer"

[edit]

What a bunch of piffle. WP:NPOV, WP:NOTE Just because a small group of anti-environmentalists on the political debate Newsgroup; alt.fan.rush-limbaugh (and similar dittohead & or an anti-environmental site or two,) started using "doom and gloomers,", "doomers, and "gloomers," etc doesn't mean it deserves a Wiki article. Cheesh! Should we also include Limbaugh's "environmental whackos," I'm sure we would find it much easier to ref.     For: "environmental-whacko" https://www.urbandictionary.com/tags.php?tag=environmental%20whacko http://rightwingnews.com/top-news/evironmental-whacko-vs-environmental-whacko/ https://westvirginia.forums.rivals.com/threads/whats-an-environmental-whacko-to-do.2412/ About 111,000 results (0.58 seconds)
    "Did you mean: environmental-wacko?" About 138,000 results (0.36 seconds) http://encyclopedia.kids.net.au/page/en/Environmental_wacko
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:D027:DE64:28F5:7ADF (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford[reply]

Discussion at RSN

[edit]

I have doubts that posts at resilience-dot-org are really what we mean when we say "reliable source". See discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any reliable sources

[edit]

This word appears to be a non-notable WP:NEOLOGISM and the article should probably be deleted. It will need quality WP:SECONDARY and [{WP:Reliable sources]] that discuss the phrase itself. If you know of any please add 'em NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I support this NewsAndEventsGuy–see my comments below, re my failure to find anything relating to this word–I cannot even find it used anywhere on Conservapedia! Rwood128 (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Religious precedents?

[edit]

Is it a secular version of e.g. Millerianianism? Zezen (talk) 07:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above there is a dearth of reliable sources to support this article. If you have a reliable source saying something like that, or any good source about the topic, then fine, otherwise speculation will just lead to more uncited stuff in the article and its possible deletion. Dmcq (talk) 10:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Word

[edit]

The word "doomer" is not in the Oxford English Dictionary and I am unable to find a reliable source for the usage in the lead. I also found nothing on Google Ngram. I suggest that that it be merged into the article on Global warming, in some way, or here [1]. Rwood128 (talk) 14:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC) Rwood128 (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See also "Are there any reliable sources" above. Rwood128 (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have now found sources (one example) [2]) using the search terms "doomer and peak oil" discussion of a earlier proposal to delete this article. This doesn't alter my views, however. Rwood128 (talk) 15:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A merge doesn't seem appropriate given the definition of the word in the Urban Dictionary. Rwood128 (talk) 11:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Urban dictionary is not WP:RS. In addition to that, do not use an external link in body. ShimonChai (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is still no source to support the definition of "doomer", therefore shouldn't the opening sentence (and therefore the whole of this non-notable article) be deleted? Rwood128 (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a few WP:RS citations for the ecological definition, though it's possible that this article could be merged into another page about ecology, given how few citations there seems to be, and that many of the citations already used are not actually reliable sources, (i.e self published blogs from non-notable people.) ShimonChai (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rwood128 and ShimonChai: This article's lead section was recently rewritten, so the article is about a different topic now. The lead section now describes an Internet meme instead of the word's original meaning. Jarble (talk) 02:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The rewritten lead was poorly sourced, I've restored the previous long-standing definition. That's what this article was originally written about, not a transient meme. Robofish (talk) 13:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With Jlevi (talk · contribs)'s recent edits, the article has brought back the topic of a recent meme, based on Wojak. While it seems to be properly referenced, it has no relation to the original meaning of the word Doomer, which is about environmental concerns rather the state of loneliness that surrounds this new meme. Clearly, this content needs to be moved to aforementioned article. Hakken (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am legitimately unsure whether the two meanings are related. The intelligencer and Buzzfeed News articles discuss the meme in the context of the environment/climate, and the intelligencer description of the meme includes the details that the archetype is “black-pilled on climate change/peak oil,” and “genuinely believes the end of civilization is imminent.”
In addition (this is original research/synth), notice that the Franzen article that is described as more broadly popularizing this term came out shortly before the original 'doomer' meme emerged on 4chan. I think I need to more closely read the sources, but the doomer description does appear legitimately connected to the conversation about climate doomerism.
How would this be handled? It certainly seems that the term 'doomer' precedes its September 2019 popularization, but it seems like the meme plays a (minor?) role in the term's history and broader popularity. I will more carefully collect the sources soon; the recent additions were just a rough start. Thoughts?Jlevi (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Having reviewed the sources, I wish to report an error on my part and to suggest that section be moved to Wojak. First, I seem to have misread the details of the Franzen piece: it came out a year after the emergence of the doomer meme. Second, I think the reliable sources are as confused as I am on the relationship between doomer (climate) and doomer (meme). Statements in these sources tend to only implicitly link the two, so until a stronger connection is made, I support moving the meme part to the Wokak page. I suspect, however, that brief comments on both that page and this one might be warranted. Jlevi (talk) 03:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is completely innacurate

[edit]

Vacatio (talk) 04:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC) I'm a first time Wikipedia talk-pager, but after reading this article, I felt I had a duty to call on someone less lazy than myself to fix this wretched mess. Doomers, at least in my fairly ample experience, are not people obsessed with global political issues. They're just depressed 20 somethings who fairly actively engage in self-harming activities(eg excessive internet use, smoking, bad sleeping habits) who reflect their internal misery as external pessimism.[reply]

BBC reference

[edit]

​ Do we need to give attribution to the BBC? It seems like we can say something in wikivoice if an outlet like the BBC says it. And if not, then would additional sources allow this? Beyond this specific issue, thanks for the copy-edit. Jlevi (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC is neither God nor the Pope with powers of infallibility. This article must comply with WP:NPOV, whether you say "climate change" or "climate crisis" among friends.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize that you probably have a better handle on this given your experience, so I would value some more explicit feedback. Do you feel that there is POV language being used in that section right now (if one were to remove the BBC attribution)? I feel that it describes the movement, rather than taking the position of the movement (if it is a movement). Or is there some other NPOV issue in play?
In general, to avoid a cluttered article, I avoid attribution where a sufficiently authoritative source presents it.Jlevi (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When you decide something is "Core" and describe it as such you are practicing "Editorializing"... injecting your own subjective interpretation of information. We don't do that. In addition, I'm not really sure this article merits existence, as the word seems to be a WP:NEOLOGISM, but I'm stopping short of nominating it for WP:AFD NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak sources

[edit]

I occasionally see sources sufficiently weak that I suspect using them here would be WP:OR if I were to try to integrate them. Nonetheless, they may be useful in some ways or in the hands of a more experienced Wikipedian, so I'll collect them here:

Jlevi (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jlevi (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jlevi (talk) 01:37, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Better sources

[edit]

Jlevi (talk) 11:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

Jlevi (talk) 01:37, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the definition given in the intro

[edit]

A Doomer is a young mand who has a gloomy, depressing view of the world and human nature. It has more to do with the subjective experience of an individual than with objective reality (like global warming etc) --Bageense(disc.) 22:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, it's more a way of life than a bundle of rational opinions about the world. --Bageense(disc.) 22:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bageense. Wikipedia uses (mostly) strong secondary sources to back up claims. Do you have any sources that support this claim? In particular, we had a discussion a little while ago in which we decided to separate this definition of doomer (which is backed up by a variety of secondary sources) from the meme template Wojak#Doomer. Jlevi (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also consider looking through the sources I compiled in the sections above. If you find any additional sources, please feel free to integrate them in the article or to simply add them to the collection on the talk page. Jlevi (talk) 01:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jlevi, I wasn't aware that there were two definitions of a Doomer. Anyway, while we discuss, could we add a "not to be confused with" hatnote, or a similar one? --Bageense(disc.) 20:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
​ No worries. As you can see in the section above about the partial merge to wojak, the sources are somewhat confusing on the issue as well. Thank you for your edit! Jlevi (talk) 02:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to climate apocalypse?

[edit]

I have been thinking about how this page has been tricky to find sourcing for, and how the sourcing seems somewhat confused.

Given that almost all sourcing is in the 'media' section, and all details in that section are specifically about the possibility of climate apocalypse in particular, what do people think about just merging into that page? I think all of the authors here are scattered around that page, and we could perhaps consolidate those mentions into a single section. Then just redirect that page over there. Jlevi (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to merge, but as Doomers might get worked up about a broader array of issues, I suggest the target for the merge should be Global_catastrophic_risk NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed about the merge. When people think of "Doomers" they think of the cartoon character who is depressed about their life. While it is true that many Doomers believe that society will collapse, that is not exclusive to the term. It seems to me that whoever wrote this article does not understand the term and sorta hijacked it to specifically refer to climate catastrophe which is hardly what the term is usually used in reference to. The term actually predates the use in a climate context by a year. (Votesmall (talk) 11:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Hatnote is misleading.

[edit]

As the Wojack article states, the Doomer Wojack and the real-life philosophy of doomerism are intertwined. For the hatnote to say "not to be confused with" instead of "this article is about the real-world philosophy of climate grief, for the 4chan meme see Wojack Doomer" is misleading.

Perhaps we should even including a heading about the Wojack meme, it seems relevant here as well as on the Wojack article.

Reading both articles, they repeat the same information. RobotGoggles (talk) 02:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was already discussed here here. I think there is a strong line between the 4chan meme (Wojak) and the philosophy regarding global problems, which is what this article is about. You have cited the Atlantic but it fails to establish a relation between the two topics. Even looking at the recent version of this article, there are clearly two separate parts that are not related to each other, as the first is about some memes which originated from 4chan (Zoomer, Bloomers etc) and the other covers climate concerns. Hakken (talk) 10:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Unfortunately, no clear link has been made in reliable sources. Even if the two versions of Doomer appear in the same article, the author is in all cases sure not to make a direct link between them. Jlevi (talk) 12:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "doomer" mindset clearly did not originate with the 4chan meme, it was merely what popularized it, which I think is notable enough to be discussed. The r/doomer subreddit was created in the 00's, and the 4chan meme began in 2018 at the latest. However, I couldn't find much primary information online about the doomer culture before 2018, and while I will be looking for it, I think it best the Wojak information be included in this article. Clearly, doomers are not merely motivated by climate concerns, but a general sense of hopelessness. Hence the source of The Atlantic. RobotGoggles (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

it should be noted, the Wojak doomer subculture was represented by the r/Doomers subreddit, which has since been banned, and the moderators for r/doomer have made it clear that the two subjects are separate. RobotGoggles (talk) 15:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is we need to use reliable sources to support our content instead of relying on original research or unreliable sources such as Reddit, otherwise that would be against Wikipedia's policies. I would dare to say that if there is an instance of connection by a somewhat known source, it would be a case of circular reporting, given how this meme became popular around the time this page started to wrongly merge both topics some months ago. Hakken (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with you, however, due to the lack of information online from reliable sources, this page will not be sourced effectively enough until good reporting is done on the subject. Most WP:RS don't cover internet subculture, at least not yet. I propose we leave the current, flimsy research and replace it later when better sources become available. Otherwise, there will be massive gaps in information, which is unfortunate for an encylcopedia. I will add the Template:Primary sources to the sections with primary research so that it can be updated at a later point, and to point out the flimsy nature of the information at hand. RobotGoggles (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Need of a Secondary Source or Source(s) in #Common_themes

[edit]

The Common themes section apparently had old, inaccurate information a few edits ago about far-right and far-left doomers, and the information did not reflect the source provided. The information I replaced it with, in the current edit, is taken from a Doomer's personal post on r/doomer, which is a Primary source, and not suitable for encyclopedic information. It is better than the previous information, which was completely made-up, but the section needs secondary or tertiary sources, not the personal post currently cited. I do think, however, due to the support of the post within the Doomer community, that, as a primary source, it is relatively strong, and I can't find any stronger primary sources. If someone reports on that post in particular, that may count as secondary, or if a secondary source reports on general doomer attitudes online, please replace the information provided and provide the improved source. Until then, the Primary sources template should remain under the header. RobotGoggles (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doomer music

[edit]

Regarding this removal.

I agree with this revert. Even after looking for sources, I don't think this can be included yet based on coverage in RS.

Nonetheless, this is clearly a thing, and it might be worth including at some point in the future (or if I'm just missing RS coverage). I found mention of this in Mouthing Off Magazine, which is a volunteer-run student paper (I think?), and a one-line reference in the Mel Magazine piece.

Don't think it's sufficient for inclusion yet. Jlevi (talk) 22:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One more Russian-language source with a pretty detailed coverage: TJournal. Finstergeist (talk) 14:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Found an article on Pitchfork, which is probably one of the best sources for writing about this kind of music. Also this article in Gazete Duvar, which also seems to meet WP:RS. So I think we have enough sources by now. Finstergeist (talk) 19:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He he yyertqhttp://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Doomer#c-Jlevi-2021-01-19T22:18:00.000Z-Doomer_music 62.217.142.7 (talk) 08:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doomer has nuance, and is widespread

[edit]

Here are some possibly reliable sources about "doomer." As a new cultural phenomenon, it is mainly documented in arts and chatty news-magazine articles. And apparently in some flavor it is very widespread among young people.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/21/meet-the-doomers-some-young-us-voters-have-given-up-hope-on-climate

https://mouthingoffmagazine.com/the-doomer-the-most-important-meme-of-a-generation/

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-23/tang-ping-lying-flat-generation-rejecting-chinas-work-culture/100477716

https://lwlies.com/articles/she-dies-tomorrow-amy-seimetz-doomer-generation/

Annika Morling (movie review): The word ‘doomer’ emerged as a meme in 2018, referring to a caricature of a forlorn twentysomething man who has given up on finding meaning in life. Since then, ‘doomerism’ has come to refer more broadly to a pessimism experienced distinctly by young people, who see themselves as coming of age into a world plagued by housing and employment crises, general economic instability, and impending ecological collapse.

https://caughtinsouthie.com/features/okay-doomersome-thoughts-on-doomscrolling-and-doomers/

https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/breaking-up-over-climate-change-my-journey-into-doomer-facebook/11678736

https://futurism.com/the-byte/humanity-is-doomed-poll

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3918955 Lancet preprint study of youth climate anxiety. Discussion A large proportion of children and young people around the world report significant emotional distress and a wide range of painful, complex emotions (sad, afraid, angry, powerless, helpless, guilty, ashamed, despair, hurt, grief, depressed). Similarly, large numbers report experiencing some functional impact, and identify pessimistic beliefs about the future (people have failed to care for the planet; the future is frightening; humanity is doomed; they won’t have access to the same opportunities their parents had; things they value will be destroyed; security is threatened; and they are hesitant to have children).

Artemisia-californica (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC) jlevi I see I am duplicating some of your refs. Artemisia-californica (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree, "doomer" is a prominent "Internet meme" slang word these days. IIRC, it has a meme face (one of Wojak face memes is used). And "mystrangefavmusic" YouTube user is the culprit of this whole meme taking off. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 09:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, "doomer" is nowadays a meme (and a subculture based on that meme) first and foremost, popularized by "Russian doomer music" playlists by that YouTube user. Not sure why nearly whole article is about peak oil and climate change - in my impression, those topics aren't popular in doomer memes at all. Finstergeist (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Political affiliation of Doomers

[edit]

If doomer philosophy falls on a political divide (I think it does), the article could be improved by expressing this. 57.135.233.22 (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Doomer&oldid=1251710833"