4 ms·
> but it can't be anything else. It can be a deliberate effort by politicians to make it appear as if they are concerned about and actively combating the water
by baddox 12y ago
> but it can't be anything else.
It can be a deliberate effort by politicians to make it appear as if they are concerned about and actively combating the water shortage, when in fact they are not.
- mc32 12y agoI'm sorry that didn't come across very obviously, but yes, the symbolism is being used to pretend something useful is being done -- which in itself glasses of water amount to nothing, but it makes people think "save water". Funny thing is journalists reporting on this consistently say idiotic things such as "we should have started this years ago when the drought started" with the implied message that this "measure" is conservationally meaningful.
- SilasX 12y agoI don't get it: you cite journalists speaking as if this is meaningful for conservation, while also insisting that "everyone knows" it's not?
- mc32 12y agoWhoever are pushing this (pols, journos) likely believe there are believers and thus worth an effort at least for the sake of public opinion. It also superficially makes non believers to some extent feel they are passively involved in good, but really the impact is practically nil. Ffs, shutting the shower head off 15 seconds sooner would save as much.