3 ms·

You can comment “We must stop doing X and Y bad thing!” as many times as you like, but you’re either preaching to the choir, or pulling people into your “we” th

You can comment “We must stop doing X and Y bad thing!” as many times as you like, but you’re either preaching to the choir, or pulling people into your “we” that don’t consider you part of theirs. I see people use this “we” a lot. It’s the same kind of “we” that people use in the sense “why haven’t we gotten jet packs yet?” Well, because there is no we. Some people have jet packs, and it could be said that humanity “has” jetpacks, but that’s not really a useful assertion. Why not say “I wish there were jetpacks I could buy at reasonable prices”? Why bring all of humanity into it?

haswell 3y ago
> or pulling people into your “we” that don’t consider you part of theirs I think you've missed the point here. My point is that it doesn't matter who you consider to be part of your "we". They are part of your we whether or not you acknowledge it. Most people never stop to consider the hundreds of thousands of people that impact their lives on a daily basis. Not stopping to think about this or choosing to ignore this doesn't change the reality of what is. > It’s the same kind of “we” that people use in the sense “why haven’t we gotten jet packs yet?” Sure, it's a similar kind of "we", but the impact of these we statements cannot be considered equivalent. Jetpacks and the future of earth are not in the same category. If jetpacks happen, cool! Their existence doesn't have much existential impact on me or you. "We must stop doing a bad thing" in the context of environmental issues eventually becomes an existential statement whether you like it or not. Pondering the non-existence of jetpacks and pondering the collapse of the ecosystem that supports life cannot be lumped into the came category. > Why bring all of humanity into it? Because the survival of humanity depends on it, unlike the creation of jetpacks.

haswell 3y ago

> or pulling people into your “we” that don’t consider you part of theirs I think you've missed the point here. My point is that it doesn't matter who you consider to be part of your "we". They are part of your we whether or not you acknowledge it. Most people never stop to consider the hundreds of thousands of people that impact their lives on a daily basis. Not stopping to think about this or choosing to ignore this doesn't change the reality of what is. > It’s the same kind of “we” that people use in the sense “why haven’t we gotten jet packs yet?” Sure, it's a similar kind of "we", but the impact of these we statements cannot be considered equivalent. Jetpacks and the future of earth are not in the same category. If jetpacks happen, cool! Their existence doesn't have much existential impact on me or you. "We must stop doing a bad thing" in the context of environmental issues eventually becomes an existential statement whether you like it or not. Pondering the non-existence of jetpacks and pondering the collapse of the ecosystem that supports life cannot be lumped into the came category. > Why bring all of humanity into it? Because the survival of humanity depends on it, unlike the creation of jetpacks.