3 ms·

What does this accomplish? Calling people hypocrites for "crying" about climate change just makes them deny that their lifestyle is a problem in the first place

What does this accomplish? Calling people hypocrites for "crying" about climate change just makes them deny that their lifestyle is a problem in the first place. That is strictly worse than "hypocrisy": It reduces the prominence of climate change in public discourse and moves public opinion even further away from "let's not destroy our livelihoods" to "muh jobs". In addition, someone who does take their carbon footprint into account but is a flawed human being rather than Jesus still has a lower footprint than someone who ignores it to avoid being a hypocrite.

m0zg 7y ago
But they are in denial already. Calling them hypocrites is just stating the obvious. Hopefully it'll make them think, even if for a fleeting minute, and not buy that third Hawaiian vacation this year.
- anoncake 7y ago
  No, someone who denies the importance of protecting the climate by definition cannot be hypocritical for not protecting the climate. Also, making hypocrites think is pointless because their thoughts aren't the problem to begin with, their actions are. They say you cannot make someone believe something when their salary depends on not believing it. Of course you can't if society deems it more important that your thoughts match your actions than that they match reality.
smsm42 7y ago
Avoiding being a hypocrite is not ignoring anything. It's if you think carbon emissions are bad, maybe you shouldn't hop on a private plane every week to tell people about it on another continent. Maybe you could do it using such modern marvels as video and internet, or at least use commercial air travel which would spend almost the same amount of energy to carry 300 people as was previously spent carrying just you and your personal chef (you can't propose one could travel without personal chef, right?!). I get when some TV talking head is worried about environment. Good for them. But before lecturing my on my carbon footprint, maybe they could take at least some effort to deal with theirs, which is probably like 100x bigger than mine, and unlike me giving up my car (which would make me almost unemployable and unable to get food or basic goods in many places in US) reducing it to 50x would not cost them anything but a slight inconvenience. After they do that, maybe I will believe they are serious and not just fashionably posturing.

m0zg 7y ago

But they are in denial already. Calling them hypocrites is just stating the obvious. Hopefully it'll make them think, even if for a fleeting minute, and not buy that third Hawaiian vacation this year.

anoncake 7y ago
No, someone who denies the importance of protecting the climate by definition cannot be hypocritical for not protecting the climate. Also, making hypocrites think is pointless because their thoughts aren't the problem to begin with, their actions are. They say you cannot make someone believe something when their salary depends on not believing it. Of course you can't if society deems it more important that your thoughts match your actions than that they match reality.

smsm42 7y ago

Avoiding being a hypocrite is not ignoring anything. It's if you think carbon emissions are bad, maybe you shouldn't hop on a private plane every week to tell people about it on another continent. Maybe you could do it using such modern marvels as video and internet, or at least use commercial air travel which would spend almost the same amount of energy to carry 300 people as was previously spent carrying just you and your personal chef (you can't propose one could travel without personal chef, right?!). I get when some TV talking head is worried about environment. Good for them. But before lecturing my on my carbon footprint, maybe they could take at least some effort to deal with theirs, which is probably like 100x bigger than mine, and unlike me giving up my car (which would make me almost unemployable and unable to get food or basic goods in many places in US) reducing it to 50x would not cost them anything but a slight inconvenience. After they do that, maybe I will believe they are serious and not just fashionably posturing.