Topic: Study: Everyone hates environmentalists and feminists - page 38. (Read 80461 times)

That's neat. In the interim, remember this:

- You can remain ignorant and deferential
- You can get knowledgeable and stay deferential because it makes sense
- You can get knowledgeable and be rebellious with a point
- You cannot remain ignorant and be rebellious and have much of a point

So far, I see a lot of defense of remaining ignorant and being rebellious.

This article seems highly relevant to this. Seems I'm learning a bit through the course of the thread myself; after all, I'll be one of the first to sigh and admit that I just wish people were perfectly rational creatures....

The Backfire Effect shows why you can't use facts to win an argument

It's short enough that it's worth the read. Also, some of the comments are worth the read too:


The pic that followed:

It's the immediate and short-term harm done to others during this "protecting the environment" that pisses people off. It's one thing to try to treat the situation gently, and take that harm into consideration and minimize it (maybe even providing compensation.) It's when you dismiss all that and callously tell them "either take Environment 101 & 102 minimum, or shut up and let me dictate your life" that you're going to get backlash. And regardless of your goal, at that point, yeah, it IS about controlling people, even if not for a power trip. It's about controlling them "to save humanity/the planet."

And if the fallback goal (after "education" fails) is to try to control people for the good of the planet, that's a message that environmental activists really, really need to take seriously and try to sell better. Frankly, according to this study most of them should stop their continuing research into environmental issues and start taking lessons in public relations; the cost/benefit analysis for the latter is much more favorable for them at this point.



If it doesn't provide them or their descendants at least some benefit, long-term or otherwise, then why should they care?

Any proposal that won't ever provide them or their loved ones and descendants some benefit (even if it's just an objectively "better world") is a scam, an attempt to coerce them into doing something to their detriment just so some stranger you think is suitable can benefit. (EDIT: And again, because I suspect it needs to be said, we're not talking about polluting others' property, we're talking about what they do on *their own land*.)

If the proposal does provide some benefit, then you don't need to talk about "the benefit to society as a whole." Talk about the benefit to them. Suddenly, you're actually focusing on the individual people involved, and you might actually get some positive feedback and wind up motivating them.

The problem with this kind of thinking is it asserts that moral decisions are based on two factors.

Expressing this mathematically-

Decision = Constant_A (Environmental effects) + Constant_B (Cost and Price)

The problem with this kind of equation is that someone has to determine Constant_A.

And that ain't gonna be you.

You are welcome to determine Consant_A for one person.

Yourself.  Attempts to determine it for others is a defacto environmental power trip.

They don't care how it benefits society as a whole. That's like taxation. They want it to be explained to them how it would earn them individually more money next year. But it probably won't. That's why randomcloud's post gets a -2, not a +1.

You have to understand, environmental destruction is nothing but borrowing, and not paying back. That means it's going to come back and bite you later. To not engage in environmental destruction is to stop borrowing. When you don't borrow from your household, it fosters a better relationship and pays off later, but it doesn't put more money in your pocket right now. Again, that's why randomcloud's expectations are a little ridiculous.

+1 randomcloud

education is the only solution
teach us not to overfish, we could survive

You never respond to anyone else's comments, you just reply to what you WISH they said. Why should I acknowledge anything you say when you never give the same courtesy to anyone else? As far as the "paranoid delusions", your right, fascism never happened and if we pretend it can never happen again it will just go away. Just close your eyes and wish REAL HAAARD.

Actually, the goal is to protect the environment. It's not about controlling people to have a power trip. Address the actual comment I made in response to your previous post.

Oh, and seek help for your paranoid delusions.

He is perfectly happy arguing with himself and accomplishing nothing perpetually. Just look at his post history.
Additionally FirstAscent it is very clear you are the one here treating people as if they are stupid and ignorant and ASSUMING you have the best most correct position available. That is the height of hubris and arrogance, and exactly why you will be laughed at or best case ignored perpetually. You are little more than a muppet repeating the agenda of our fascist overlords wrapped in a nice fuzzy shell of humanitarianism and environmentalism.

Hitler was an environmentalist too. You know why? It was another mechanism for control and subjugation of the people. You can protect the environment and strip millions of people of their rights in one act, and you are just completely dismissing the high likely hood of corruption and abuse. Right along with the supremicist theme, you assume you know better than everyone else, and you will push your ideology no matter who it harms, because your ego has convinced you that you are the pinnacle of knowledge and understanding. In the end what you want is control over other people at their own expense, and everyone knows it. Good luck with your goose stepping.

I find the boldfaced line in your recent post as just strange. But actually, as you allude, people really are as stupid as you alluded them to be in that blodfaced line of yours. That's why in the end, it really is about that post I made about U and V. The solution in the end is to simply restrict them if they remain ignorant, as is their choice. You can't force knowledge on people.

Have fun never accomplishing anything of value, then. :/

Read my last post. And read the post which it discusses. And read the big post from me. You're the one not getting it.

You're missing the point. You and other environmentalists want to convince other people to do what you want them to do. But you can't do that unless you understand why it is that they think the way they do and base your arguments around those reasons. Persuasion is all about what THEY think, not about what *you* know or what you'd like them to know. Just demanding that they educate themselves won't change a thing, they have criticisms, complaints and questions that *you* need to openly acknowledge and respond to. And you will have to if you ever expect to get anywhere in the environmentalist debate.

Let me put it this way: Since so many people feel that the actions you want them to take would disrupt or destroy their livelihoods or lower their standard of living, why not just buy them off? Pay loggers to not be loggers anymore -- since all they care about is having enough money to live off of for the rest of their lives, buying them off would remove their incentive for opposing you and they wouldn't be a problem anymore. For the conservative suburbanite who doesn't want his/her cushy lifestyle to be disrupted, provide means to preserve their way of life that don't affect the environment -- promote biodiesel or electric cars or something, create solutions that don't require them to live differently than they already do, and most importantly explain to these people how doing what you want them to do will benefit them financially.

If you do not listen to me you will not succeed, guaranteed.

The simple facts of the matter have been laid out completely in my recent post about X and Y and U and V.

You don't think humans can be perfectly aware of something, and yet for any number of reasons, including spite, refuse to act on it (or worse, act in a detrimental fashion?)

You honestly think knowledge == incentive?

Two words: false prophets.

Of course it takes only a few minutes thought to realize that we are exactly our environment, and women are our mothers.  So disliking environmentalism or feminism simply means we hate ourselves.

Because these causes are so obviously good and supported by anyone not mentally ill, they are very often misrepresented by assholes who are really trying to steal from us and shoot themselves in the foot with the proceeds. 

Therefore, we have learned to mistrust people who claim to be for these obviously good causes..  and for good reason. 

I would think people would not act in a environmental way because it is a hassle or too expensive in their view, not because they hate environmentalists.

No clue on the feminist angle.

Caring about the environment by saying so isn't necessarily effective caring. If you don't know the importance of say, effect X or effect Y, then you won't care about it, and consequently might support action U and action V. Therefore, it's important to do one of two things:

1. Educate yourself about effects X and Y.
2. Or, don't be so certain in your support of action U and action V.

And so if you adamantly engage in U and V, yet wish to remain ignorant about X and Y, then maybe someone should tell you that you can't do U and V.

The ill-will might be a price to pay to allow for awareness.

We don't know how strong the ill-will is. Yet it's there, and is clearly having a notable impact.

Why wouldn't you want to reduce the ill-will (and the impact it has) if it took no effort to do so?