bibo
@biboofficial
am i going to get yelled at
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E5vr5-WVgAM6Ih6?format=jpg&name=large
https://twitter.com/biboofficial/status/1412982293963018247
Western leftists: eat less meat, that is individual choice and it matters greatly!
Global south: burn less carbon, pls, the ocean is drowning us
Western leftists: :pit: :pit: :pit:
If it's on Twitter and getting literally millions of engagements (like this one) then the consequence of that is that a section of the masses reading it are taking it on board as an argument for personal responsibility.
The MASSIVE support this tweet has received will convince some people that it should be the individual's responsibility. This is harmful.
The point is morally correct. But what I am saying here is that making the point at all is strategically wrong whether or not it is morally correct. It is consequentially harmful. The only point that should be made, and hammered, over and over and over and over, is that we NEED the legislator to MAKE individuals reduce their usage of carbon and consumption levels, as well as needing the legislator to do the same to a whole bunch of companies and industries. It must be hammered. It must be hammered home that NO AMOUNT OF INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY WILL SOLVE THIS. We need the state to enforce rules or it will not happen.
Would this be true if the tweet was about meat consumption rather than carbon emissions?
I don't think so. The meat consumption issue requires on-boarding more people to the position that there is a problem with meat consumption.
People are already on-board with the fact that there is a climate problem. What people are not on board with is the solution to it. There is only ONE solution to it, and support for the opposite solution literally means the problem does not get solved. Legislation vs personal responsibility.
The meat consumption issue isn't at the stage where you can argue about personal responsibility or legislation to solve it yet because not everybody is on board with it even being an issue in the first place. You're in the climate-change denial stage still and must advance past that before any arguments about how to solve it can even be considered strategic.
This is giving me something to think about. Thanks for the engagement!
Always think in terms of pre-requisites that you need to achieve a goal, then break down those pre-requisites into the pre-requisites to achieve those pre-requisites.
If your goal is, for example, animal liberation. What do you need for that? Presumably legislation. Ok, so what pre-requisites are needed before we can get legislation? Well you need everyone to agree on what the solution is. Ok, so what pre-requisites are there to people agreeing that a solution is needed? Well you need everyone to agree that a problem exists. Ok, so what pre-requisites are there to everyone agreeing that a problem exists? Cultural awareness maybe(I'm not sure). Ok what pre-requisites are needed for cultural awareness? Organisations to lobby people and build that awareness. Etc etc etc.
Eventually you break it down to a strategic action that should be taken NOW and followed through.
Other future actions are fine to discuss, but they're just theoretical when you're in the wrong stage of the movement. The strategic actions to take currently comes from knowing where in the current movement you are. I believe that for the people wanting to pursue changes in meat eating and animal rights in the world to achieve their goals they probably need to work from organisations dedicated to that goal in the first place and build a cultural revolution around it.