4 ms·

To address your first point -- I am sure it is the case that idiot bubble people on the internet who don't believe in climate change will use phrases like "virt

To address your first point -- I am sure it is the case that idiot bubble people on the internet who don't believe in climate change will use phrases like "virtue signalling". What is not supported is the claim that they would otherwise go along with environmental initiatives, if only the right ones were chosen. It may simply be the case that the class of people you are talking about are always going to drag their heels and oppose everything, and they simply choose the manner of how they'll yell about it based on what they're responding to. Coal rollers aren't people who are responding to "nonsense laws" (in this case, apparently, ten-year regulatory plans to marginally improve emissions standards and fuel efficiency) -- they're just people who have been convinced climate change is a liberal hoax to destroy their way of life, lashing out angrily. They get no benefit other than a performative one by "rolling coal". Burning costly fuel to trigger the libs is the very definition of virtue signalling, except somehow worse because the virtue being signalled is a cruel and evil one. In general arguments like "virtue signalling" are a process argument. The words say "You can't possibly mean what you're saying", but the intent beneath them are "I don't agree with what you're saying, so you can't possibly mean what you're saying". They're not a reaction to the mode of argument being presented against them, they are the default mode of argument to show contempt. Ditto for the exact same group of people bemoaning "identity politics" while having twitter bios that read "Conservatarian #TradLife Proud to be who I am #MAGA The only thing right of me is the wall" or whatever. It may be the case that straw bans are, specifically, as a matter of policy, counterproductive. I don't think all laws which prescribe policy or all messages which lecture are, but it may be the case that straw bans are. I don't have a strong feeling either way. But when it comes to 4chan weirdos whose literal slogan is "Fuck their feelings", no, I'm not going to spend time making sure they don't feel as though I'm belittling them.

finnthehuman 8y ago
>I'm not going to spend time making sure they don't feel as though I'm belittling them. Not caring about your impact on voter's opinions, while caring about political issues seems counter productive. But whatever, you do you.
candiodari 8y ago
Just because someone has legitimate criticism on a small (and particularly stupid) portion of an environmental movement (who, let's face it, aren't known for their members' intelligence to begin with) does not mean they're extremists of the other camp. I am sick and tired of this attitude that people keep having. There are a great many environmental standpoints, and there are idiotic morons on either side. But what sometimes looks like the entire environmental movement has adopted this "with us or with the devil" attitude. And of course, these organisations push things like travel, with their videos images and activities which are hugely damaging to the climate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7igAHbqEyQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7igAHbqEyQ Note the shoes ... note the glasses ... note the cellphones ... the T-shirts that are obviously created just for that one event and will probably be thrown out immediately ... note the freaking beverages ... all damaging to the environment. If your criticism against others is that they're hypocrites, you might want to look in the mirror a bit. In fact, let's just describe a bit of reality here. There are 1000 people worldwide who have any decent knowledge of climate models. 1000 (and even that seems pretty high). That means that on either side of the debate, all but 1000 of them are BULLSHITTING. Incidentally, statistically, that means that there are far more environmentalists who don't know anything about what they're saying than denialists. So if that's really going to be your standard for stupid and unfair ... well that's just not going to reflect well on your side. > Burning costly fuel to trigger the libs is the very definition of virtue signalling, except somehow worse because the virtue being signalled is a cruel and evil one. Maybe ... just maybe ... they're just doing the same as the people they're protesting. You know, as a protest. Imagine that. And ... "cruel and evil" ? Hardly. You're no longer allowed to use the words "cruel" or "evil", they are value judgements and mostly reflect a clear lack of tolerance on your part.

finnthehuman 8y ago

>I'm not going to spend time making sure they don't feel as though I'm belittling them. Not caring about your impact on voter's opinions, while caring about political issues seems counter productive. But whatever, you do you.

candiodari 8y ago

Just because someone has legitimate criticism on a small (and particularly stupid) portion of an environmental movement (who, let's face it, aren't known for their members' intelligence to begin with) does not mean they're extremists of the other camp. I am sick and tired of this attitude that people keep having. There are a great many environmental standpoints, and there are idiotic morons on either side. But what sometimes looks like the entire environmental movement has adopted this "with us or with the devil" attitude. And of course, these organisations push things like travel, with their videos images and activities which are hugely damaging to the climate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7igAHbqEyQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7igAHbqEyQ Note the shoes ... note the glasses ... note the cellphones ... the T-shirts that are obviously created just for that one event and will probably be thrown out immediately ... note the freaking beverages ... all damaging to the environment. If your criticism against others is that they're hypocrites, you might want to look in the mirror a bit. In fact, let's just describe a bit of reality here. There are 1000 people worldwide who have any decent knowledge of climate models. 1000 (and even that seems pretty high). That means that on either side of the debate, all but 1000 of them are BULLSHITTING. Incidentally, statistically, that means that there are far more environmentalists who don't know anything about what they're saying than denialists. So if that's really going to be your standard for stupid and unfair ... well that's just not going to reflect well on your side. > Burning costly fuel to trigger the libs is the very definition of virtue signalling, except somehow worse because the virtue being signalled is a cruel and evil one. Maybe ... just maybe ... they're just doing the same as the people they're protesting. You know, as a protest. Imagine that. And ... "cruel and evil" ? Hardly. You're no longer allowed to use the words "cruel" or "evil", they are value judgements and mostly reflect a clear lack of tolerance on your part.