3 ms·

At some point public interest turned against cigarettes too despite moneyed interests being in favor of poisoning millions of people forever to keep the money f

At some point public interest turned against cigarettes too despite moneyed interests being in favor of poisoning millions of people forever to keep the money flowing and it became desirable to be seen to sacrifice something while actually leaving society dealing with most of the costs of obtaining that profit. Climate change has become so overwhelmingly obvious that most people can't be persuaded that its not real so the moneyed interests are focusing on proclaiming that they are on the right side of history while trying to blunt any effective change that would hurt their pockets. That is why for example that its super important for you to recycle that coke bottle but not important for companies to stop poisoning the planet or paying for it to be poisoned elsewhere. Climate change is a real issue and the overwhelming fact is we have a huge hand in the multitude of maladies that plague our planet and if we don't do something beyond trivial tokens like recycling a coke bottle we are all fucked. Few with substantial wealth to be gained in the short term are considering the long term effects and they are funding both sides to keep those costs from hitting close to home. The difference to return to the first analogy is Democrats are trying to keep cigarette taxes low while Republicans are proudly proclaiming that manly men smoke and their grandad lived to 95 smoking on whiskey and bacon and 2 packs a day! Democrat inaction may rob us opportunities to preserve our health, wealth, prosperity, and lives but Republican lies stand to rob us of even the awareness of an actual problem that is a necessary precondition for any sort of action. Pretending these things are the same would be a mistake.

simorley 5y ago
> At some point public interest turned against cigarettes too despite moneyed interests being in favor of poisoning millions... Wrong again. The monied interests turned against smoking first and then the public followed with "ads". You seem to think a couple of relatively small tobacco companies is "monied interests". You ignore everyone else with lot more money. The elites stopped smoking cigarettes much sooner than the masses. It's why we have the trope of the execs of tobacco industry not smoking. The masses initially resisted bans on smoking/etc. It took years/decades of studies/ads/propaganda by "monied interests" to sway the mindset of a significant portion of the public. This is true of everything from civil rights to gay rights and in between. The monied interests decide on something and they chip away with propaganda and "studies" and whatever to get what they want. Your comments are so out of touch with reality it's hard to take you seriously. As I said, everyone from the world bank to goldman sachs to google to the UN to every major government ( US, China, Russia, EU, etc ) and every major financial institution ( IMF, FED, ECB, etc ) are backing climate change. Now obviously there are some faction monied interest against climate change, but they are miniscule compared to the monied interests that are pro-climate change. As I said, if you were right, google would be banning pro-climate change propaganda. Not anti-climate change propaganda. > Climate change is a real issue and the overwhelming fact is we have a huge hand in the multitude of maladies that plague our planet and if we don't do something beyond trivial tokens like recycling a coke bottle we are all fucked. Then stop using the internet. Stop consuming. Be the change you want to see in the world.
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  > As I said, if you were right, google would be banning pro-climate change propaganda. Not anti-climate change propaganda. You can't draw conclusions about the world especially conclusions that are trivially directly contradicted by directly examining reality by hypothesizing about how players motivations would be effected by a counterfactual. This isn't a useful strategy for examining the world. Instead I suggest you attend directly to what scientists have been saying for decades about what is actually going on with our planet. > Then stop using the internet. Stop consuming. Be the change you want to see in the world. 90% of the change that is needed is by commercial players. I could live in a yurt and eat nuts and berries and no notable effect would be achieved. Me using the internet has less than no effect. > Your comments are so out of touch with reality it's hard to take you seriously. Consider self reflection on this matter and once again attending to the science.
  - dang 5y ago
    Please don't perpetuate flamewars on HN. That's also in the site guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- dang 5y ago
  > Your comments are so out of touch with reality it's hard to take you seriously. You can't post swipes like that to HN and you've already posted so many flamewar comments with this account that I've banned it. (No, it's not because of your views.) If you don't want to be banned on HN, please follow the site guidelines, and please don't create accounts to break them with. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - ffdang 5y ago
    > You can't post swipes like that to HN "Swipes"? The guy was claiming that monied interests isn't pro-climate. That's as out of tourch with reality as a flat earther. > (No, it's not because of your views.) Oh STFU you worthless rat. Everyone knows it is. There is two sides to a "flamewar" and you only seem to ban one side. Not to mention you post a bunch of flamebait garbage yourself. > and please don't create accounts to break them with. What a miserable garbage you are. Make HN a private forum then. Imagine wasting your life as a moderator. Your parents must be proud.

simorley 5y ago

> At some point public interest turned against cigarettes too despite moneyed interests being in favor of poisoning millions... Wrong again. The monied interests turned against smoking first and then the public followed with "ads". You seem to think a couple of relatively small tobacco companies is "monied interests". You ignore everyone else with lot more money. The elites stopped smoking cigarettes much sooner than the masses. It's why we have the trope of the execs of tobacco industry not smoking. The masses initially resisted bans on smoking/etc. It took years/decades of studies/ads/propaganda by "monied interests" to sway the mindset of a significant portion of the public. This is true of everything from civil rights to gay rights and in between. The monied interests decide on something and they chip away with propaganda and "studies" and whatever to get what they want. Your comments are so out of touch with reality it's hard to take you seriously. As I said, everyone from the world bank to goldman sachs to google to the UN to every major government ( US, China, Russia, EU, etc ) and every major financial institution ( IMF, FED, ECB, etc ) are backing climate change. Now obviously there are some faction monied interest against climate change, but they are miniscule compared to the monied interests that are pro-climate change. As I said, if you were right, google would be banning pro-climate change propaganda. Not anti-climate change propaganda. > Climate change is a real issue and the overwhelming fact is we have a huge hand in the multitude of maladies that plague our planet and if we don't do something beyond trivial tokens like recycling a coke bottle we are all fucked. Then stop using the internet. Stop consuming. Be the change you want to see in the world.

michaelmrose 5y ago
> As I said, if you were right, google would be banning pro-climate change propaganda. Not anti-climate change propaganda. You can't draw conclusions about the world especially conclusions that are trivially directly contradicted by directly examining reality by hypothesizing about how players motivations would be effected by a counterfactual. This isn't a useful strategy for examining the world. Instead I suggest you attend directly to what scientists have been saying for decades about what is actually going on with our planet. > Then stop using the internet. Stop consuming. Be the change you want to see in the world. 90% of the change that is needed is by commercial players. I could live in a yurt and eat nuts and berries and no notable effect would be achieved. Me using the internet has less than no effect. > Your comments are so out of touch with reality it's hard to take you seriously. Consider self reflection on this matter and once again attending to the science.
- dang 5y ago
  Please don't perpetuate flamewars on HN. That's also in the site guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
dang 5y ago
> Your comments are so out of touch with reality it's hard to take you seriously. You can't post swipes like that to HN and you've already posted so many flamewar comments with this account that I've banned it. (No, it's not because of your views.) If you don't want to be banned on HN, please follow the site guidelines, and please don't create accounts to break them with. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- ffdang 5y ago
  > You can't post swipes like that to HN "Swipes"? The guy was claiming that monied interests isn't pro-climate. That's as out of tourch with reality as a flat earther. > (No, it's not because of your views.) Oh STFU you worthless rat. Everyone knows it is. There is two sides to a "flamewar" and you only seem to ban one side. Not to mention you post a bunch of flamebait garbage yourself. > and please don't create accounts to break them with. What a miserable garbage you are. Make HN a private forum then. Imagine wasting your life as a moderator. Your parents must be proud.