4 ms·

Good gracious there are a lot of precious snowflakes who can't manage their own emotions. "Stop making people feel guilty"? Like, how? I'm as anti-judgy and an

by mrkurt 9y ago

Good gracious there are a lot of precious snowflakes who can't manage their own emotions. "Stop making people feel guilty"? Like, how? I'm as anti-judgy and anti-bad argument as anyone but this seems a bit silly. Yes people are awful at convincing other people of things, but it's entirely unreasonable to expect anyone to package up knowledge in a way that soothes peoples' feelings.

nsxwolf 9y ago
I agree with the post except for the feelings part. I don't feel guilty. People try to make me feel guilty, but it doesn't work. That's the problem - nobody is feeling guilty. They look at what they have, they like it, the alternatives sound terrible, so they don't go for the alternatives. Most of us just aren't buying what you're selling, that's all. From an energy standpoint, we want a certain amount of work done. We don't care if the energy generation is CO2 producing or not. Make it cheaper and more plentiful. We want to live in the future, not the stone age.
- mrkurt 9y ago
  Then you don't really agree with the post. It literally said "people aren't changing behavior because you're making them feel guilty". Which is really an impossible-to-address pretend argument. Cheaper and more plentiful? Sure, those are helpful to talk about. Whether the government should be subsidizing particular things? Also useful. "Making me feel guilty" or the science? Probably not productive.
  - ars 9y ago
    > It literally said "people aren't changing behavior because you're making them feel guilty". No it did not. It said "stop using guilt to try to change behavior". People hate that, and it turned this subject in a political issue (which it should never have become) instead of the engineering issue it should have been.
    - mrkurt 9y ago
      > All in order to make people feel guilty and thereby get people to reduce their usage. Once that happened there was a backlash, that backlash needed a target and the science was chosen. Guilt -> backlash -> people reject science. That sounds an awful lot like you're saying science would drive progress but people aren't changing behavior because "you're" making them feel guilty. It's not _just_ an engineering issue, but if you believe it is why on earth are you contributing to the politics?
- ZeroGravitas 9y ago
  How do you feel about the suggestion that not using coal for electricity generation would save the USA 10 billion dollars a year? Why isn't this drive people allegedly have to save money and live in the future of cheap energy working to phase out coal?
  - nsxwolf 9y ago
    Fracking is a very successful cheaper alternative to coal. Nobody likes that one, though. Nuclear is far better and cleaner, but nobody likes that one either.
- pjc50 9y ago
  > We don't care if the energy generation is CO2 producing or not. Let's play "trolley problem". There is a switch in your house, as there is in every house in the City Of Hypothesis. It has two settings. "Safe" and "Unsafe". Every day you have to put a dollar in the machine or it trips back to "Unsafe". Every day, if less than (say) 1% of the population put a dollar in the machine, a random person in the city falls down dead. Nobody is quite sure what would happen if we tried to do away with the switches, but everyone thinks it would be terrible. Do you have a moral obligation to put a dollar in the machine? Sometimes? Ever? Does it matter how big the percentage is? At 1% I suspect enough people would do it every day that it would never be a problem. What about 10%? 50%? (People have suggested centrally monitoring the switches, but this has been rejected on grounds of privacy. You don't know who's setting the switch unless you look in their house.)
- okreallywtf 9y ago
  Who is making you feel guilty? What choice do you really have? I'm vocal on this issue with people that I am around but I've never tried to place the blame on them (except for when they support candidates that refuse to take action or take negative actions that is).
othersideofcoin 9y ago
I have studied the science on AGW and believe the central hypotheses to be true. However, I reject the moralization that has become the bread and butter of environmentalists. I've had many "ends justify the means" conversations with people who believe they can/should make energy usage a moral issue. It's a science and engineering problem, not a moral one. The religious fervor around much of the environmental movement (complete with significant social virtue signaling) turns me off both the person and the message by association.
- mrkurt 9y ago
  Ok. So you believe the science but reject the message because of how it's framed? That doesn't make much sense. I do think it's a little short sighted to the ignore moral/philosophical implications of anything that effects large groups of people. But it doesnt really matter if you can stay reasonable The kneejerk "don't tell me what to feel guilty about or I'll do the opposite" reactions are pretty funny, though.

by mrkurt 9y ago

nsxwolf 9y ago

I agree with the post except for the feelings part. I don't feel guilty. People try to make me feel guilty, but it doesn't work. That's the problem - nobody is feeling guilty. They look at what they have, they like it, the alternatives sound terrible, so they don't go for the alternatives. Most of us just aren't buying what you're selling, that's all. From an energy standpoint, we want a certain amount of work done. We don't care if the energy generation is CO2 producing or not. Make it cheaper and more plentiful. We want to live in the future, not the stone age.

mrkurt 9y ago
Then you don't really agree with the post. It literally said "people aren't changing behavior because you're making them feel guilty". Which is really an impossible-to-address pretend argument. Cheaper and more plentiful? Sure, those are helpful to talk about. Whether the government should be subsidizing particular things? Also useful. "Making me feel guilty" or the science? Probably not productive.
- ars 9y ago
  > It literally said "people aren't changing behavior because you're making them feel guilty". No it did not. It said "stop using guilt to try to change behavior". People hate that, and it turned this subject in a political issue (which it should never have become) instead of the engineering issue it should have been.
  - mrkurt 9y ago
    > All in order to make people feel guilty and thereby get people to reduce their usage. Once that happened there was a backlash, that backlash needed a target and the science was chosen. Guilt -> backlash -> people reject science. That sounds an awful lot like you're saying science would drive progress but people aren't changing behavior because "you're" making them feel guilty. It's not _just_ an engineering issue, but if you believe it is why on earth are you contributing to the politics?
ZeroGravitas 9y ago
How do you feel about the suggestion that not using coal for electricity generation would save the USA 10 billion dollars a year? Why isn't this drive people allegedly have to save money and live in the future of cheap energy working to phase out coal?
- nsxwolf 9y ago
  Fracking is a very successful cheaper alternative to coal. Nobody likes that one, though. Nuclear is far better and cleaner, but nobody likes that one either.
pjc50 9y ago
> We don't care if the energy generation is CO2 producing or not. Let's play "trolley problem". There is a switch in your house, as there is in every house in the City Of Hypothesis. It has two settings. "Safe" and "Unsafe". Every day you have to put a dollar in the machine or it trips back to "Unsafe". Every day, if less than (say) 1% of the population put a dollar in the machine, a random person in the city falls down dead. Nobody is quite sure what would happen if we tried to do away with the switches, but everyone thinks it would be terrible. Do you have a moral obligation to put a dollar in the machine? Sometimes? Ever? Does it matter how big the percentage is? At 1% I suspect enough people would do it every day that it would never be a problem. What about 10%? 50%? (People have suggested centrally monitoring the switches, but this has been rejected on grounds of privacy. You don't know who's setting the switch unless you look in their house.)
okreallywtf 9y ago
Who is making you feel guilty? What choice do you really have? I'm vocal on this issue with people that I am around but I've never tried to place the blame on them (except for when they support candidates that refuse to take action or take negative actions that is).

othersideofcoin 9y ago

I have studied the science on AGW and believe the central hypotheses to be true. However, I reject the moralization that has become the bread and butter of environmentalists. I've had many "ends justify the means" conversations with people who believe they can/should make energy usage a moral issue. It's a science and engineering problem, not a moral one. The religious fervor around much of the environmental movement (complete with significant social virtue signaling) turns me off both the person and the message by association.

mrkurt 9y ago
Ok. So you believe the science but reject the message because of how it's framed? That doesn't make much sense. I do think it's a little short sighted to the ignore moral/philosophical implications of anything that effects large groups of people. But it doesnt really matter if you can stay reasonable The kneejerk "don't tell me what to feel guilty about or I'll do the opposite" reactions are pretty funny, though.