I genuinely do not know what this means. It was posted by a girl I know who has posted pretty chudish stuff in the past. Now she posts this and I feel like I'm reading another language. Can anyone help me out?
Deforestation is good bc wildfires are gonna burn them down anyway?
Oh we had something similar. The fires are the greenies fault because they're prohibiting reducing fuel load.
Never mind that back burning requires safer conditions to conduct than were seen the year before, never mind the volunteer firies (or Florida with their prison slaves) being paid peanuts, never mind that farmed logging forests are ostensibly made to be cut down whereas forests you know, aren't.
You're absolutely correct to be confused cos it doesn't make sense.
Should mention this girl has had the weirdest life trajectory. We grew up in the same metro area, she went to a super toxic private school, we went to college together where she basically acted like the villain in 'nice guy' fantasies , she dropped out to move to Alaska to become a marine biologist, then quit that and became a housewife in rural Idaho.
During all of this she would post genuinely the strangest takes/conspiracy theories I have ever heard.
yeah I knew a guy who lost his shit. He used to do massage therapy and we would watch movies/smoke weed. then his wife divorced him and he stopped being chill, converted to Greek Orthodox (he ain't Greek) and became the biggest conspiracy chud asshole in the universe.
now he spends all of his time spouting provocative chud garbage online, promoting conspiracies, and picking very personal fights with marginalized people that still try to be friends with him.
I blocked him on everything somewhere in there, because I became too old to knowingly and deliberately bring pain into my life.
the strangest takes/conspiracy theories I have ever heard.
The foreskin isn't being excised--it never even existed in the first place
Can't blame you for being defensive, but it is factually false. The forest acreage that is more likely to burn and that burns more intensely is the acreage that's been clear-cut in the last half-century. The more recently, the higher the likelihood and intensity. This is because undergrowth can grow rampant in a forest with no canopy, and there's no profit to be had in extracting that undergrowth.
The largest fires in the west every year are in the forests that are most aggressively "managed". E.g. the land protected the least against logging for conservation efforts.
I think it's saying "who cares about the environmental effects of logging when the trees are just going to burn anyway?"
I've seen a bumper sticker that says "Strip Mining Prevents Forest Fires," I suspect this is a similar sentiment
Chuds align with extraction industries for a variety of reasons. They have a simplistic and false talking point that increased forest fires are simply a consequence of conservation and generally not curating forests a la Trump's talking about sweeping. This meme says that you could supposedly fix the problem by doing more logging.
Overzealously putting out some forest fires has contributed to much larger ones happening later, but that's about as deep as this talking point can get in terms of solving anything and logging doesn't fix it. These ecosystems have evolved on the context of (1) long-developed old-growth forests, (2) native plants, and (3) regular fires. For point (1), logging exacerbates the problem because they usually want to log the oldest, largest trees. For point (2), invasives often dry out more quickly, displace native plants that resist and come back from fire more robustly, and they displace native plants. For point (3), there are even tree species that only properly release their seeds after a fire. In addition, logging requires building temporary roads that split up ecosystems for decades.
There's also ignoring the elephant in the room of long-term drought conditions happening for longer periods each year and in more areas, which is largely due to climate change. Chuds don't want to deal with that reality. It goes against their corporate authorities' interests.
