3 ms·

We drove through the black forest once, and we stopped off to take a picture. We walked a few feet in and that's when we saw it was all fields beyond maybe 100

We drove through the black forest once, and we stopped off to take a picture. We walked a few feet in and that's when we saw it was all fields beyond maybe 100 feet-- the forest exists by the freeway, where we were, but it was just for show, and our imagination of this big forest beyond was just that, imagination. I'm not a environmentalist by any stretch of the imagination (for example, I think the straw law is stupid for a variety of reasons and I believe that most recycling in the US is waste, per the excellent Penn and Teller episode about it) but even I don't get or like clearcutting.

abugheratwork 8y ago
I think you might be an environmentalist. My understanding is that if you think the environment is something we should take care of, that's basically it. I guess you're probably just saying you don't identify or maybe agree with some other environmentalists, which also makes sense. The straw ban is a great example. Sometimes you can agree on what's important but disagree about what to do about it. I think this is the same complex process the word "feminism" gets put through. It's hard to find people who will outright say, "I think women should still have to ask permission from their husbands to seek work," for example. It's easy to find people who are quick to add, "... not that I'm a feminist or anything." I don't know. Words are funny. At the end of the day it probably doesn't matter whether you qualify as some kind of *-ist, but those words are one way we get convinced that other groups of people are opponents, instead of peers. (... one way that unscrupulous people intentionally convince us, depending on your level of cynicism.)
- heyyyouu 8y ago
  Great perspective. Yes, maybe you're right. I hate the -ist (and I'm not sure why, so you're on to something there), but I do like the causes (when they make sense).
- whatshisface 8y ago
  People avoid calling themselves -ist-s because when you identify yourself with a group you're bringing on to yourself a series of judgments spanning the other person's entire experience with that group. To abuse the saying, "you don't know where that's been."
  - Retra 8y ago
    Personally, I'd rather be bold and let people associate me with the title they don't like. At least then they may have an opportunity to question their assumptions.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
      I'd rather expect that they will question you long before their own assumptions.
    - whatshisface 8y ago
      If the last neo-vefaminist they met was a great person, you'd be free-riding on a reputation that you hadn't earned yet. If the last neo-vefaminist they met was a terrible person (potentially someone who was free-riding on the name), and if you call yourself a neo-vefaminist, you're communicating to them that you're a terrible person which would be incorrect because you aren't.
  - cuboidGoat 8y ago
    I do not like defining myself with '-ists'. Instead I will generally refer to the '-ism' and point out where I agree and where I differ. I have found this position has the side-effect of being an easy way to spot who is just playing team sports with philosophies. They are the folk who get really angry with people who agree with them on specifics, purely for not using a subject label self-referentially.
icc97 8y ago
You do realise that the Black Forest spans an area of 6,000km^2 that varies from 70-90% forest? [0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Forest#Work_of_the_Institute_of_Applied_Geography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Forest#Work_of_the_Insti...

abugheratwork 8y ago

I think you might be an environmentalist. My understanding is that if you think the environment is something we should take care of, that's basically it. I guess you're probably just saying you don't identify or maybe agree with some other environmentalists, which also makes sense. The straw ban is a great example. Sometimes you can agree on what's important but disagree about what to do about it. I think this is the same complex process the word "feminism" gets put through. It's hard to find people who will outright say, "I think women should still have to ask permission from their husbands to seek work," for example. It's easy to find people who are quick to add, "... not that I'm a feminist or anything." I don't know. Words are funny. At the end of the day it probably doesn't matter whether you qualify as some kind of *-ist, but those words are one way we get convinced that other groups of people are opponents, instead of peers. (... one way that unscrupulous people intentionally convince us, depending on your level of cynicism.)

heyyyouu 8y ago
Great perspective. Yes, maybe you're right. I hate the -ist (and I'm not sure why, so you're on to something there), but I do like the causes (when they make sense).
whatshisface 8y ago
People avoid calling themselves -ist-s because when you identify yourself with a group you're bringing on to yourself a series of judgments spanning the other person's entire experience with that group. To abuse the saying, "you don't know where that's been."
- Retra 8y ago
  Personally, I'd rather be bold and let people associate me with the title they don't like. At least then they may have an opportunity to question their assumptions.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
    I'd rather expect that they will question you long before their own assumptions.
  - whatshisface 8y ago
    If the last neo-vefaminist they met was a great person, you'd be free-riding on a reputation that you hadn't earned yet. If the last neo-vefaminist they met was a terrible person (potentially someone who was free-riding on the name), and if you call yourself a neo-vefaminist, you're communicating to them that you're a terrible person which would be incorrect because you aren't.
- cuboidGoat 8y ago
  I do not like defining myself with '-ists'. Instead I will generally refer to the '-ism' and point out where I agree and where I differ. I have found this position has the side-effect of being an easy way to spot who is just playing team sports with philosophies. They are the folk who get really angry with people who agree with them on specifics, purely for not using a subject label self-referentially.

icc97 8y ago

You do realise that the Black Forest spans an area of 6,000km^2 that varies from 70-90% forest? [0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Forest#Work_of_the_Institute_of_Applied_Geography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Forest#Work_of_the_Insti...