3 ms·

I read the article, what I'm saying is that it's a go-to argument for these companies because there's truth to it, and when taken at face-value it's really not

I read the article, what I'm saying is that it's a go-to argument for these companies because there's truth to it, and when taken at face-value it's really not that audacious to say, "people ought to recycle the containers they buy". Is that sentiment exploited by Coca-Cola and others in a way that makes it encompass more than it really does? Of course. But if it was an all-around flimsy argument then it wouldn't be "ol' faithful", they'd just find a different argument to use instead.

dredmorbius 6y ago
Re-read the passage I quote: the tactic reverses culpability, distracts, projects blame, and results in toxic and divisive holier-than-thou purity tests among and against those advocating for change. At the same time greater effectiveness or the sham appearance of same of recycling or reduction decreases pressures on the packaging industry and those selling goods utilising them, but actually makes the practice more attractive vs. sustainable or less polluting alternatives. And the message resonates through simplicity and guilt, and advertising budgets. Just because a model is simple and transmits readily does not mean it is correct.