https://nitter.lucabased.xyz/ContraPoints/status/1808529692405662047#m

Any fucking questions

Show

  • plinky [he/him]
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    trucks and meat are especially interesting, as its not by "natural inborn consumer preference" (a story you seem to share) they were chosen, just as poisoned water is not chosen.

    i rather suspect if epa fined dupont/exxon to bankruptcy over their shit, they would get much more popular. small republicans popularly rebel against regulations not only because they annoy them, but they also perceive deep unfairness that giant corporation can poison half the earth and government will just eat shit over it, while their business become closed over something minor like improper engine oil runoff. And i'm not advocating exclusion of small business owners from it, rather large corporation death penalty over their shenanigans.

    Its a confused mess (as projected onto political parties) because messaging by large corporations intentionally obfuscates and emphasizes different stories to different groups. Republicans were mega angry about bank bailouts, for example, until kochs hijacked the tea party, the anger was there to make them democrat voters, while democrats at the time were whimpering about the sacred markets shrug-outta-hecks

    p.s. if you collapse into wild misanthropy, how can you be a communist/anarchist?

    • yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      The EPA can’t fine anyone precisely because Americans overwhelmingly support ecological depredation and overconsumption. Read the political data! Almost nobody wants the EPA to “fine Exxon into bankruptcy.” A lukewarm slap on the wrist is barely justifiable to most Americans, who demand cheap gas, are falling over themselves to sacrifice the future of their children for cheap gas. It’s a political demand yodeled from the mountaintops.

      And you want, what, the EPA — the EPA that belongs to these animals — to fine the large corporations that also belong to these same animals?

      That makes absolutely zero sense.

      Again, the government serves those who give it power. For years this has been the voters of this country, and they have made their wishes loud and clear, repeatedly.

      • plinky [he/him]
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        The demand for cheap gas is learned behavior, cause cheap gas leads to more disposable income. Do americans get mad at aluminum/wood prices oscillations? The car/homes still get more expensive with those, but you won’t lose election on it.

        Corporation construct reality where car is a means of survival, induce demand for gas and now people are bad for caring about this? Canadians or germans don’t get half as mad at gas prices as americans, do you guess why?

        The voters don’t make anything clear because they don’t vote on policy, they vote on a theater actor tone of voice when reading teleprompter. aside from 30 percent strongly party affiliated electorate, americans don’t give a shit (or see it they all the same cynicism).

        Again, say you describe pfas shenanigans to 10000 average americans, you honestly think 50 percent will say: that’s okay, dupont gives jobs?

        Inversely, say I want to execute oil executives, who do I vote for that my preference is seen via voting tallies?

        you decide to backproject politicians decisions (as signed off by the corporations) on the voters preferences? To get mega cynical about voters?

        • yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          Corporations are evil, of course. And no one is debating that evil entities seek to lie and cheat their way into power. But falling for self-serving lies makes you culpable.

          Are Israeli soldiers not guilty because they follow orders and believe propaganda? You think that’s an excuse?

          “Oh, someone told me to think and behave terribly, and I didn’t know any better.”

          That is not an excuse. Pollution is bad. Electing narcissists is bad. Denying science is bad. You could argue human nature is fundamentally twisted and selfish, but that would still make those who endorse cruel and stupid ideologies blameworthy.

          • plinky [he/him]
            ·
            22 hours ago

            There is self-indulgent bathing in propaganda of course. but israel soldier whose choice is sit in jail or become a murderer and amerikan chosing between "i can afford rent here, therefore i need a car (because there is no public transport) therefore gas prices are important to me" or dont have a job and become homeless/sick to death aren't exactly comparable. One is trading humanity for comfort, the other one pollution for much more obvious survival. People play hands they are dealt, not ones they could have been dealt (insert kamala-coconut-tree here).

            there is difference as well between endorsing and passively accepting, if we don't make it - germany should have been purified in nuclear fire 80 years ago. I mean the position of everyone should be exactly right on all issues is unproductive, and might lead you to passive contempt from which there is no escape