5 ms·
If you were a little more generous in understanding your opponents, you might be more effective at persuading them. There's the genuine concern that the soluti
by marcoperaza 9y ago
If you were a little more generous in understanding your opponents, you might be more effective at persuading them.
There's the genuine concern that the solutions being proposed will squander our lead over our competitors, by basically redistributing wealth from developed to developing economies[1], and that the people most loudly clamoring for action also tend to be the most opposed to solutions like nuclear power, that would allow us to cut emissions without sacrificing our self-interest as much or at all.
Also, you talk about the profitability of companies as if it is isolated from the prosperity of ordinary people. It's not. And higher energy prices wouldn't just affect a few companies, but just about every single industry.
Environmental activists aren't helping their case when they engage in behavior and lifestyle choices perceived as whacky, and worse, try to impose them on others. People aren't going to abandon the comforts of modernity, so trying to persuade them to isn't a good strategy.
[1] For example, the theory of deals like Kyoto and Paris is that developing economies can keep increasing emissions while developed ones have to immediately cut. Fair, but fairness between countries is naive. The US should do whatever it can to maintain and grow its lead over China.
- jimjimjim 9y agoso based on disagreement with a treaty, people are altering their brain state to be opposed to anything associated with protecting the environment? I dislike broccoli therefore people saying we should eat fruit and veg are liars?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- marcoperaza 9y agoPeople engage in political dishonesty to pursue their goals. It's not surprising. It's just like many well-informed feminists parroting deceiving statistics like "70 cents on the dollar" to claim that women aren't getting "equal pay for equal work" when they know it's not true. They know the disparity is largely due to choices made by individual men and women, plus the time consuming nature of child bearing, but they want government action to mandate equal outcomes. And there is a thoughtful argument to be made for such action. But they think they can better sell the idea by claiming pay discrimination. Understanding and engaging with the underlying motivations of the opinion leaders is going to be more effective than just demonizing or ridiculing the people who follow them.
- jimjimjim 9y agowhy did you choose to mention feminists?
- marcoperaza 9y agoJust an example from the "other side" to illustrate my point that we should engage with the most generous understanding of our opponents' positions, if we are really interested in persuasion.
- ddw 9y agoBecause somehow it always comes back to this
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- ddw 9y agoActivists: climate change is real based on these facts and years of research by climate scientists Deniers: quit demonizing us, you feminists!
- sctb 9y agoI don't think it's substantive to talk about dishonesty and say "they know", "they know", and "they think". The guidelines ask us not to do this kind of thing, so please try to do better when approaching controversial topics. > Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- marcoperaza 9y agoThat's pretty absurd. This thread is full of people mocking those who disagree with them, but this lukewarm comment is the one you took issue with?
- pjc50 9y ago> squander our lead over our competitors This whole framing is part of the problem, because it implies things like "if Bangladesh is going to be flooded by climate change, this is actually good for the US garment industry" > whatever it can How many deaths?