3 ms·

One line I can't square with mandatory returns to office is that the same orgs and agencies requiring employees in office are also waving big flags about going

by j-bos 3y ago

One line I can't square with mandatory returns to office is that the same orgs and agencies requiring employees in office are also waving big flags about going green and fighting climate change. Has anyone seen a justification for the disconnect?

quacked 3y ago
Climate change is a luxury belief that people wave to get federal funding or social points. Living a true low-emissions lifestyle (not one where you consume exactly as much as you did before except EVs instead of gas cars) is a serious handicap in the modern economy.
delecti 3y ago
The simplest explanation is that they want the positive reputation from going green, but don't actually care about the effects.
Am4TIfIsER0ppos 3y ago
Easy. It is all about making your life poorer. The wealthy will continue to drive and fly but you and me will have to walk from the sleeping pod to the working pod. You don't see the WEF walking to Davos do you?
barbazoo 3y ago
> One line I can't square with mandatory returns to office is that the same orgs and agencies requiring employees in office are also waving big flags about going green and fighting climate change. Has anyone seen a justification for the disconnect? The type of argument > It's hypocritical that they [group A] are the ones doing [some thing] but at the same time also being the ones [group B] doing [another thing] with groups A and B being independent of each other often irks me. Who says they are actually the same people? What is this line of thought called, that must be a named fallacy of some kind.
- l33t233372 3y ago
  I don’t understand why you separate groups A and B. The comment said that it’s the same orgs and agencies doing both things.
  - barbazoo 3y ago
    But that's just an unfounded assumption, not universally true. Again, I just want to know what the fallacy is called. Edit: Perhaps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition?

by j-bos 3y ago

quacked 3y ago

Climate change is a luxury belief that people wave to get federal funding or social points. Living a true low-emissions lifestyle (not one where you consume exactly as much as you did before except EVs instead of gas cars) is a serious handicap in the modern economy.

delecti 3y ago

The simplest explanation is that they want the positive reputation from going green, but don't actually care about the effects.

Am4TIfIsER0ppos 3y ago

Easy. It is all about making your life poorer. The wealthy will continue to drive and fly but you and me will have to walk from the sleeping pod to the working pod. You don't see the WEF walking to Davos do you?

barbazoo 3y ago

> One line I can't square with mandatory returns to office is that the same orgs and agencies requiring employees in office are also waving big flags about going green and fighting climate change. Has anyone seen a justification for the disconnect? The type of argument > It's hypocritical that they [group A] are the ones doing [some thing] but at the same time also being the ones [group B] doing [another thing] with groups A and B being independent of each other often irks me. Who says they are actually the same people? What is this line of thought called, that must be a named fallacy of some kind.

l33t233372 3y ago
I don’t understand why you separate groups A and B. The comment said that it’s the same orgs and agencies doing both things.
- barbazoo 3y ago
  But that's just an unfounded assumption, not universally true. Again, I just want to know what the fallacy is called. Edit: Perhaps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition?