4 ms·

But is it really “alarmism” to yell at people inside a house on fire that they need to “get the hell out now!” even if some people in a separate part of the bui

But is it really “alarmism” to yell at people inside a house on fire that they need to “get the hell out now!” even if some people in a separate part of the building (not touched by the fire yet) insist that the growing heat is due to something else, God has it in control and would never set the fire, in fact the people yelling out the warnings are just being “alarmist”, it’s against their constitutional rights etc? We really don’t have time at the moment to resort to gentle persuasion techniques (on a group I might add who are ready to never become convinced because they dismiss every rational argument and all the data). It may not work in a country as politically divided as the US, but trying to convince (the right especially) will achieve nothing but waste time that could be better spent elsewhere. Those who are not persuaded at this point are not going to be just because we approach them with more gentleness or empathy or whatever.

true_religion 5y ago
It would be considered alarmist to yell fire to people who had no concept of fire, and if the actual flames were years or decades away. They won’t thank you until after they see someone being burned.
- amrangaye 5y ago
  But in this case wouldn’t it be more like they keep seeing people around them being burnt to death all the time, and you have a pretty solid theory of why this happens / how to predict the next burn victims, but they keep insisting it’s actually spontaneous combustion and you’re just being “alarmist” with your predictions of further (and even worse) burnings?
  - true_religion 5y ago
    Well the catastrophic ends of climate change are just that… ends. Right now we have had effects but it’s all akin to feeling heat, or coughing from smoke but not actually being burned. Also the heat and smoke randomly shifts to other people so it isn’t consistently hurting anyone. What’s worse is that we either all escape the building together or we all die together. No one can just choose to believe the theory of the unseen flame and get out alive on their own.
belorn 5y ago
Even if we could convince people that they must get moving and that the fire is real, people will be frozen in discussion over which path of escape is best. Maybe they should use the fire escape, or reach the roof, or take the window, or maybe that fire extinguishers but then the question if the kitchen or the basement is closer. Alternative they will argue that the best method might be to wait for a firefighter and do what they do. If we follow the analog further we would also have people arguing about which people is responsible to fight the fire, who deserve the take the blame, who should be faced with the consequence, whose parent designed the building, whose people is responsible for voting those who made the building regulations, who owns most properties, and finally who invaded whom a few hundred years ago. All while standing inside the ongoing fire. I honestly don't know what can be done.
AussieWog93 5y ago
>But is it really “alarmism” to yell at people inside a house on fire that they need to “get the hell out now!” OK, I did use the wrong word there (looking it up, "alarmism" carries different connotations to what I thought), but frankly that's beside the point. If you want to enact real change (getting people out of the building), and yelling at them about how they're going to die for 4 hours straight has been ineffective, perhaps it's time to try a different strategy.

true_religion 5y ago

It would be considered alarmist to yell fire to people who had no concept of fire, and if the actual flames were years or decades away. They won’t thank you until after they see someone being burned.

amrangaye 5y ago
But in this case wouldn’t it be more like they keep seeing people around them being burnt to death all the time, and you have a pretty solid theory of why this happens / how to predict the next burn victims, but they keep insisting it’s actually spontaneous combustion and you’re just being “alarmist” with your predictions of further (and even worse) burnings?
- true_religion 5y ago
  Well the catastrophic ends of climate change are just that… ends. Right now we have had effects but it’s all akin to feeling heat, or coughing from smoke but not actually being burned. Also the heat and smoke randomly shifts to other people so it isn’t consistently hurting anyone. What’s worse is that we either all escape the building together or we all die together. No one can just choose to believe the theory of the unseen flame and get out alive on their own.

belorn 5y ago

Even if we could convince people that they must get moving and that the fire is real, people will be frozen in discussion over which path of escape is best. Maybe they should use the fire escape, or reach the roof, or take the window, or maybe that fire extinguishers but then the question if the kitchen or the basement is closer. Alternative they will argue that the best method might be to wait for a firefighter and do what they do. If we follow the analog further we would also have people arguing about which people is responsible to fight the fire, who deserve the take the blame, who should be faced with the consequence, whose parent designed the building, whose people is responsible for voting those who made the building regulations, who owns most properties, and finally who invaded whom a few hundred years ago. All while standing inside the ongoing fire. I honestly don't know what can be done.

AussieWog93 5y ago

>But is it really “alarmism” to yell at people inside a house on fire that they need to “get the hell out now!” OK, I did use the wrong word there (looking it up, "alarmism" carries different connotations to what I thought), but frankly that's beside the point. If you want to enact real change (getting people out of the building), and yelling at them about how they're going to die for 4 hours straight has been ineffective, perhaps it's time to try a different strategy.