America Is Backsliding Toward Its Most Polluted Era(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
America Is Backsliding Toward Its Most Polluted Era
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2025/04/air-pollution-trump-administration/682361/
204 comments
I think everybody has this sort of cognitive dissonance, albeit perhaps in different amounts; we just allocate it differently. And I think society is set up to help that. For example, I like animals and I eat meat. Would I kill a cow? No, but I'm happy to eat a burger. I've worked to get relatively comfortable with unresolved cognitive dissonance, so I can at least recognize my hypocrisy here. But I think it's way easier for people to refuse to think about it.
As with distributed systems, coherence is hard and expensive. Being rational about something, as opposed to just rationalizing, is long, slow work. We don't live in an age of patience. But perhaps one will come again, and until then we can at least try to be exceptions.
As with distributed systems, coherence is hard and expensive. Being rational about something, as opposed to just rationalizing, is long, slow work. We don't live in an age of patience. But perhaps one will come again, and until then we can at least try to be exceptions.
I would guess if you were starving to death you wouldn’t think twice about killing a cow.
There’s nothing wrong with fundamentally valuing life but also consuming it for sustenance. I’m guessing you wouldn’t vote for a law to torture cows while also saying you value a cow’s life.
That is essentially what the outdoorsmen are doing when voting for a politician that’s trying to remove environmental protections.
There’s nothing wrong with fundamentally valuing life but also consuming it for sustenance. I’m guessing you wouldn’t vote for a law to torture cows while also saying you value a cow’s life.
That is essentially what the outdoorsmen are doing when voting for a politician that’s trying to remove environmental protections.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it. I'm saying there's a dissonance. And I'm saying it's important that we recognize that we all experience this dissonance, and that we should face it rather than just "get mad or change the subject".
> Would I kill a cow? No, but I'm happy to eat a burger.
You have to eat. If a burger is the best choice in front of you, it is reasonable to make that choice. Likewise, if a certain party is the best choice in front of you during an election, it is equally reasonable to choose it. Such decisions always require making tradeoffs.
However, the original comment seems to imply that it is not only a case of voting for a party, but also carrying out activism for that party. This is akin to you eating a burger while protesting with PETA proclaiming the evils of killing cattle. That may be still cognitive dissonance, but to a very different degree.
You have to eat. If a burger is the best choice in front of you, it is reasonable to make that choice. Likewise, if a certain party is the best choice in front of you during an election, it is equally reasonable to choose it. Such decisions always require making tradeoffs.
However, the original comment seems to imply that it is not only a case of voting for a party, but also carrying out activism for that party. This is akin to you eating a burger while protesting with PETA proclaiming the evils of killing cattle. That may be still cognitive dissonance, but to a very different degree.
Depends what you mean by, "Best choice in front of you"
Most people in developed countries are not in a situation where if they do not eat the food in front of them now, they will starve. Nearly every grocery store should have things like tofu, lentil, beans, etc easily available. It may be most convenient, or most delicious, or something like that but vegetarianism and plant based are both very viable options for most of the developed world at this point.
Voting for a candidate in a 2 party system is not comparable, as there is literally not another viable choice in most cases.
Most people in developed countries are not in a situation where if they do not eat the food in front of them now, they will starve. Nearly every grocery store should have things like tofu, lentil, beans, etc easily available. It may be most convenient, or most delicious, or something like that but vegetarianism and plant based are both very viable options for most of the developed world at this point.
Voting for a candidate in a 2 party system is not comparable, as there is literally not another viable choice in most cases.
> Depends what you mean by, "Best choice in front of you"
Meaning that after you've weighed all the tradeoffs, you determine one of the available choices is your best option. Making tradeoffs was already spoken to. I don't think that is a foreign concept to the HN crowd, is it? Engineering is all about managing tradeoffs.
> Nearly every grocery store should have things like tofu, lentil, beans, etc easily available.
None of them are perfectly equivalent to the burger, thus tradeoffs have to be made if you choose tofu over a burger. If satiation is your only goal, then it may not matter, but most people don't eat in that kind of vacuum. They will have a long list of properties they want to fulfill with their food, with no food item perfectly satisfying all of them, hence the need to determine what one is willing to give up.
> Voting for a candidate in a 2 party system is not comparable, as there is literally not another viable choice in most cases.
I guess I don't see how your math is mathing. In my world, 2 implies that you have at least two choices (you could argue that not voting, spoiling the ballot, etc. are also choices, but we can ignore them for now). That means one of the choices you can deem as the best choice.
Meaning that after you've weighed all the tradeoffs, you determine one of the available choices is your best option. Making tradeoffs was already spoken to. I don't think that is a foreign concept to the HN crowd, is it? Engineering is all about managing tradeoffs.
> Nearly every grocery store should have things like tofu, lentil, beans, etc easily available.
None of them are perfectly equivalent to the burger, thus tradeoffs have to be made if you choose tofu over a burger. If satiation is your only goal, then it may not matter, but most people don't eat in that kind of vacuum. They will have a long list of properties they want to fulfill with their food, with no food item perfectly satisfying all of them, hence the need to determine what one is willing to give up.
> Voting for a candidate in a 2 party system is not comparable, as there is literally not another viable choice in most cases.
I guess I don't see how your math is mathing. In my world, 2 implies that you have at least two choices (you could argue that not voting, spoiling the ballot, etc. are also choices, but we can ignore them for now). That means one of the choices you can deem as the best choice.
> You have to eat. If a burger is the best choice in front of you, it is reasonable to make that choice.
Ok. Now try that sentence with "leg of a dog". Does that still feel reasonable? I think the difference isn't that one is more moral, it's that one is more familiar.
I also don't think he was talking about activists. There are plenty of "hardcore MAGA" types who are pretty passive about it. And even there that doesn't necessarily involve cognitive dissonance. I know plenty of people who vote for Democrats that are able to oppose it on certain particulars while still deciding it's the best voting option. But I think MAGA in particular is a cult of personality, which is very hard to justify intellectually.
Ok. Now try that sentence with "leg of a dog". Does that still feel reasonable? I think the difference isn't that one is more moral, it's that one is more familiar.
I also don't think he was talking about activists. There are plenty of "hardcore MAGA" types who are pretty passive about it. And even there that doesn't necessarily involve cognitive dissonance. I know plenty of people who vote for Democrats that are able to oppose it on certain particulars while still deciding it's the best voting option. But I think MAGA in particular is a cult of personality, which is very hard to justify intellectually.
> Now try that sentence with "leg of a dog".
If that's the best choice in front of me, sure. I'm not going to starve to death just because it is dog. Are you?
> I also don't think he was talking about activists.
There was said to be support. That requires activism of some sort. You don't have to gather in the streets in mass promotion, wear certain colored hats, or fly party flags, but there has to be some kind of activity to suggest that the support is there. That isn't someone quietly eating a burger (or dog leg) in the corner.
If that's the best choice in front of me, sure. I'm not going to starve to death just because it is dog. Are you?
> I also don't think he was talking about activists.
There was said to be support. That requires activism of some sort. You don't have to gather in the streets in mass promotion, wear certain colored hats, or fly party flags, but there has to be some kind of activity to suggest that the support is there. That isn't someone quietly eating a burger (or dog leg) in the corner.
Sorry, but I don't think anybody in this discussion is starving to death. I am pretty clearly discussing one's normal dietary choices. What people do in extremes is an entirely different topic, one I'd be happy to discuss on some other day, but here I think it's a gross distraction from my point.
> Sorry, but I don't think anybody in this discussion is starving to death.
We were talking about making tradeoffs amid the choices available to you, where a burger was supposed, for the sake of discussion, to be the best choice available. I assume you haven't randomly changed the subject.
If you can choose between a hamburger and a dog leg, then, sure, a hamburger, at least to my taste, would be the better choice. I would choose it. But that doesn't mean I would never eat a dog leg. Where the dog leg is the best choice, why wouldn't you eat it?
We were talking about making tradeoffs amid the choices available to you, where a burger was supposed, for the sake of discussion, to be the best choice available. I assume you haven't randomly changed the subject.
If you can choose between a hamburger and a dog leg, then, sure, a hamburger, at least to my taste, would be the better choice. I would choose it. But that doesn't mean I would never eat a dog leg. Where the dog leg is the best choice, why wouldn't you eat it?
That's not what I was talking about.
My point is that everybody experiences cognitive dissonance. Eating meat is a convenient example, because almost nobody reading this has no other choice, and almost nobody here hates animals (or at least will admit to it).
I'm not interested in pursing weird desert-island hypotheticals where eating a dog is the "best choice". If you are, godspeed, but it's unrelated to the point I was making.
My point is that everybody experiences cognitive dissonance. Eating meat is a convenient example, because almost nobody reading this has no other choice, and almost nobody here hates animals (or at least will admit to it).
I'm not interested in pursing weird desert-island hypotheticals where eating a dog is the "best choice". If you are, godspeed, but it's unrelated to the point I was making.
> That's not what I was talking about.
That is what I was talking about. You replied to it. Why would you reply if you had nothing to add to it?
> My point is that everybody experiences cognitive dissonance.
That point was already made earlier in this thread. For what reason does it need to be pointed out again?
> I'm not interested in pursing weird desert-island hypotheticals where eating a dog is the "best choice".
You submitted the idea of the dog leg. Why would you introduce it if you don't want to talk about it?
That is what I was talking about. You replied to it. Why would you reply if you had nothing to add to it?
> My point is that everybody experiences cognitive dissonance.
That point was already made earlier in this thread. For what reason does it need to be pointed out again?
> I'm not interested in pursing weird desert-island hypotheticals where eating a dog is the "best choice".
You submitted the idea of the dog leg. Why would you introduce it if you don't want to talk about it?
> That is what I was talking about. You replied to it. Why would you reply if you had nothing to add to it?
Because you replied to me in a spirit of contradiction while apparently missing my point. I had some hope of clearing that up, but I see now that was a mistake.
Because you replied to me in a spirit of contradiction while apparently missing my point. I had some hope of clearing that up, but I see now that was a mistake.
Your point wasn't missed. But your point was made! Thus there was nothing else that could be done with it. Hence why we carried it forward into its natural progression.
For the sake of my understanding, are you trying to suggest that you didn't make a point by, counterintuitively and contradictorily, telling us that you made a point? Or what is it that you are trying to do here?
For the sake of my understanding, are you trying to suggest that you didn't make a point by, counterintuitively and contradictorily, telling us that you made a point? Or what is it that you are trying to do here?
> Ok. Now try that sentence with "leg of a dog". Does that still feel reasonable?
Yes. If dog legs are readily available in the store then sure.
Yes. If dog legs are readily available in the store then sure.
Turns out this varies widely by culture. In many places, it's taboo: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_meat
If you'd like a different example that gets the same feeling, try substituting something else considered treif in your culture, like "roasted eyeballs" or "a human hand". My point being that people who are used to eating some kinds of meat see it as perfectly reasonable, but that has a lot to do with what they've been socialized to. In contrast, raised in vegetarian cultures often find eating any meat equally horrific. Which is the position I find intellectually most rational.
If you'd like a different example that gets the same feeling, try substituting something else considered treif in your culture, like "roasted eyeballs" or "a human hand". My point being that people who are used to eating some kinds of meat see it as perfectly reasonable, but that has a lot to do with what they've been socialized to. In contrast, raised in vegetarian cultures often find eating any meat equally horrific. Which is the position I find intellectually most rational.
I don't understand what this has to do with what the original post was about. How is this relevant to someone enjoying the outdoors while simultaneously supporting people who are destroying the outdoors?
The original post was talking about cognitive dissonance in other people. My point was that we all experience things like this. Food is a convenient example, because the few people who aren't hypocritical about it in some way are very familiar with how other people are.
My goal is to get others to realize that cognitive dissonance is not an us vs them thing. I freely grant that MAGA followers, as part of a cult of personality, are notably worse. But it's a human problem.
Does that clear it up for you?
My goal is to get others to realize that cognitive dissonance is not an us vs them thing. I freely grant that MAGA followers, as part of a cult of personality, are notably worse. But it's a human problem.
Does that clear it up for you?
I guess I'm not understanding how food is a good example to illustrate your point. If one culture finds eating dog normal and another culture doesn't, I don't see either person in this situation as hypocritical.
The dissonance I'm pointing out is that killing and eating some otherwise-equivalent animals is either fine or horrific purely depending on what you're used to.
Just running with Americans here, because that's what I'm most familiar with, but Americans are happy to eat burgers and would be horrified to eat dog. They are also happy to eat burgers but would generally be horrified by the killing of the cow. This is not because there's any major difference between cattle and dogs; they're both cute, sociable mammals that raise adorable young. This isn't a rational position, and Americans who think at all about it experience cognitive dissonance.
Just running with Americans here, because that's what I'm most familiar with, but Americans are happy to eat burgers and would be horrified to eat dog. They are also happy to eat burgers but would generally be horrified by the killing of the cow. This is not because there's any major difference between cattle and dogs; they're both cute, sociable mammals that raise adorable young. This isn't a rational position, and Americans who think at all about it experience cognitive dissonance.
> This is not because there's any major difference between cattle and dogs
There is a major difference: Dogs have been deemed workers, thus eating them is seen as a threat to one's livelihood. Same reason Americans won't eat horses. You can't plow the fields tomorrow if you eat the horse tonight, so to speak. It has been an imperative that these animals be off limits for consumption. In other parts of the world where the working animals differ, they have no qualms about eating dogs and horses, but may not eat other animals.
There is a major difference: Dogs have been deemed workers, thus eating them is seen as a threat to one's livelihood. Same reason Americans won't eat horses. You can't plow the fields tomorrow if you eat the horse tonight, so to speak. It has been an imperative that these animals be off limits for consumption. In other parts of the world where the working animals differ, they have no qualms about eating dogs and horses, but may not eat other animals.
Sorry, but I think that's ridiculous. Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? What percentage of Americans have working dogs? Or working horses? For the vast majority of both, they are pets. Moreover, there are plenty of other animals Americans would flinch at eating that clearly aren't working animals.
Last week I met a guy who traveled to China cause he wanted to try dog.
It was kinda too weird to do it at home, but he was really curious.
It was kinda too weird to do it at home, but he was really curious.
If you won’t kill a cow but like eating burger that’s not cognitive dissonance.
I find it frustrating when somebody replies as if they've only read one sentence in a paragraph.
I also said, "I like animals and I eat meat." I thought that was pretty clear, but if you'd like me to beat the point to death, the cognitive dissonance is between my fondness for animals, cows included, who I would never personally hurt and don't want to see killed, and my fondness for a good cheeseburger.
Could I come up with some contrived rationalization which somehow includes both? Sure, I have in the past, and many meat-eaters do. But ultimately I saw through my own bullshit here. Cows aren't essentially different than horses or dogs, but I eat cow while I'd be horrified to eat horse or dog. This doesn't make any logical or moral sense; it's just what I grew up with and am used to. When I think about it, I experience cognitive dissonance. For some that dissonance resolves into becoming vegetarians; for others they just refuse to think about it, or become dickish anti-vegetarians. I'm only different in that I have worked to get more comfortable with that sort of dissonance, as it's important to me to see things as clearly as I can.
I also said, "I like animals and I eat meat." I thought that was pretty clear, but if you'd like me to beat the point to death, the cognitive dissonance is between my fondness for animals, cows included, who I would never personally hurt and don't want to see killed, and my fondness for a good cheeseburger.
Could I come up with some contrived rationalization which somehow includes both? Sure, I have in the past, and many meat-eaters do. But ultimately I saw through my own bullshit here. Cows aren't essentially different than horses or dogs, but I eat cow while I'd be horrified to eat horse or dog. This doesn't make any logical or moral sense; it's just what I grew up with and am used to. When I think about it, I experience cognitive dissonance. For some that dissonance resolves into becoming vegetarians; for others they just refuse to think about it, or become dickish anti-vegetarians. I'm only different in that I have worked to get more comfortable with that sort of dissonance, as it's important to me to see things as clearly as I can.
> I eat cow while I'd be horrified to eat horse or dog.
Horse is good, and while they are noble and majestic, so are cows (which are also cute to boot). I think the same of fish, and while less cuddly, I still feel a tiny bit conflicted about taking one's life just to eat when I do it.
Dogs are family for me. I'd probably be OK with wolf or coyote or similar.
I don't begrudge anyone how they want to align their morals with how and what they eat.
Horse is good, and while they are noble and majestic, so are cows (which are also cute to boot). I think the same of fish, and while less cuddly, I still feel a tiny bit conflicted about taking one's life just to eat when I do it.
Dogs are family for me. I'd probably be OK with wolf or coyote or similar.
I don't begrudge anyone how they want to align their morals with how and what they eat.
Sure. I don't begrudge them either. I'm just pointing out that feeling of conflict. I think how we respond to that is important. And bringing it back to the original post, I think his MAGA fisherman just getting mad or changing the topic is an example of a bad way to handle it.
In the instance of cow vs dog or horse, it’s only cognitively dissonant if you try to reduce it to a context-free universal truth.
With context, it’s simply “we should not eat animals we keep as pets”, where “we” needs to be contextualized to the person and culture. I keep dogs as pets, and therefore should not eat them. Other people don’t keep dogs as pets and are free to eat them.
More generally, we shouldn’t kill things we love. Pets are loved, and shouldn’t be killed for food. Farmed animals are a means to an end, not an object of affection.
Other contexts apply too, for the pedantic. Starvation is a context that would make eating pets okay, so on and so forth.
A lot of morality is contextual. If a good friend is going through a break up, I should care and be supportive. If a stranger like Taylor Swift is going through a break up, I have no moral obligation to care or be supportive (though it would be kind to do so anyways). Morality is contextualized by my relationship to that person.
With context, it’s simply “we should not eat animals we keep as pets”, where “we” needs to be contextualized to the person and culture. I keep dogs as pets, and therefore should not eat them. Other people don’t keep dogs as pets and are free to eat them.
More generally, we shouldn’t kill things we love. Pets are loved, and shouldn’t be killed for food. Farmed animals are a means to an end, not an object of affection.
Other contexts apply too, for the pedantic. Starvation is a context that would make eating pets okay, so on and so forth.
A lot of morality is contextual. If a good friend is going through a break up, I should care and be supportive. If a stranger like Taylor Swift is going through a break up, I have no moral obligation to care or be supportive (though it would be kind to do so anyways). Morality is contextualized by my relationship to that person.
> Farmed animals are a means to an end, not an object of affection.
I've read a few accounts of farmers who didn't feel that way and talked about how sad they were sending the animals for slaughter, but they still did it.
There was a TV show ages ago where this guy decided to film one cow for it's life and then cook the meat. They showed the film and then he was just crying and the chef was starting to cook and be sympathetic.
Or something like https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-50986683
I'm not a vegetation but I feel like I am really pushing something out of my mind to eat meat, so it is a cognitive dissonance.
I've read a few accounts of farmers who didn't feel that way and talked about how sad they were sending the animals for slaughter, but they still did it.
There was a TV show ages ago where this guy decided to film one cow for it's life and then cook the meat. They showed the film and then he was just crying and the chef was starting to cook and be sympathetic.
Or something like https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-50986683
I'm not a vegetation but I feel like I am really pushing something out of my mind to eat meat, so it is a cognitive dissonance.
> we shouldn’t kill things we love.
Why? I'm not advocating for killing humans but before the modern era it was common for people to own chicken which the kids would love as pets but you gotta eat, so the beloved chicken would get killed and eaten.
Sounds more like a modern luxury rather than a ground truth.
Why? I'm not advocating for killing humans but before the modern era it was common for people to own chicken which the kids would love as pets but you gotta eat, so the beloved chicken would get killed and eaten.
Sounds more like a modern luxury rather than a ground truth.
You're missing GP's point. They are very clearly, explicitly stating that they do not feel emotionally comfortable, nor morally justified, with killing animals for food. It does not have to be a "context-free universal truth," it's the truth for them.
If you think harming animals unnecessarily is wrong, but still eat meat, then yes thats cognitive dissonance. The meat industry is the single most prolific source of animal abuse in the world. Factory farms are basically auschwitz for animals. Buying meat and then getting upset at someone who kicked their dog etc. is a pretty clear cut example of dissonance because you are saying that animal abuse is wrong, but your actions indicate you have no problem with it.
I get what you’re saying but you’re kind of discounting how much proximity to an action matters. There’s a big difference in how a murder happening in front of me/somebody I know impacts me vs. knowing there was a murder of somebody I don’t know somewhere out there probably while I wrote this comment. both are equally tragic, both do not occupy my mental or emotional in space the same way
Comparing animal cruelty with what is pretty widely seen as one of the single most horrific things humans have ever done to each other serves to weaken your argument for people that don't already agree with you, not strengthen it.
I know comparisons are a tempting tool, since they're a very effective way of communicating a lot of information and, more importantly, an impression very economically. But part of what made the holocaust so horrible is that people were being treated like animals. It's like trying to argue that dogs should be kept inside by saying "What if you made your toddler sleep outside in a dog house?", it's a comparison that defeats itself.
If your goal is to feel righteous on the internet and demonstrate your strong love for animals, by all means proceed. If your goal is to change hearts and minds, reconsider your rhetoric; you'll have much more luck if you tune it to people that don't already agree with you,
I know comparisons are a tempting tool, since they're a very effective way of communicating a lot of information and, more importantly, an impression very economically. But part of what made the holocaust so horrible is that people were being treated like animals. It's like trying to argue that dogs should be kept inside by saying "What if you made your toddler sleep outside in a dog house?", it's a comparison that defeats itself.
If your goal is to feel righteous on the internet and demonstrate your strong love for animals, by all means proceed. If your goal is to change hearts and minds, reconsider your rhetoric; you'll have much more luck if you tune it to people that don't already agree with you,
There’s a reason why Isaac Bashevis Singer and Edgar Kupfer-Koberwitz have made the comparison of factory farming to the holocaust. Factory farming is arguably the single most horrific thing humanity has done period. Its scale is terrifying.
> part of what made the holocaust so horrible is that people were being treated like animals. It's like trying to argue that dogs should be kept inside by saying "What if you made your toddler sleep outside in a dog house?", it's a comparison that defeats itself.
"In relation to [animals], all people are Nazis; for the animals, it is an eternal Treblinka"
– Isaac Bashevis Singer
"I believe as long as man tortures and kills animals, he will torture and kill humans as well—and wars will be waged—for killing must be practiced and learned on a small scale".
– Edgar Kupfer-Koberwitz
> part of what made the holocaust so horrible is that people were being treated like animals. It's like trying to argue that dogs should be kept inside by saying "What if you made your toddler sleep outside in a dog house?", it's a comparison that defeats itself.
"In relation to [animals], all people are Nazis; for the animals, it is an eternal Treblinka"
– Isaac Bashevis Singer
"I believe as long as man tortures and kills animals, he will torture and kill humans as well—and wars will be waged—for killing must be practiced and learned on a small scale".
– Edgar Kupfer-Koberwitz
[deleted]
Sure it is.
I cannot kill a cow, but I’m happy there are people who can.
I also cannot build trains or houses, but I am an ardent supporter of a rain-proof roof.
I also cannot build trains or houses, but I am an ardent supporter of a rain-proof roof.
Those are two different uses of 'cannot'. I know how to kill a cow, but 'cannot' bring my self to do it. I 'cannot' build a train because I don't know how to, but if I did I would be happy to do so.
Do you know how to "kill" a cow in the sense of turning most of it into edible food rather than merely letting it go to waste? If not, then I'd call that a similar type of aversion.
I’m sure there are people who consume child pornography with the same stance.
One sentient being paying another stronger sentient being to exploit a weaker non consenting sentient being for “pleasure” the first sentient being with no concern for the experience of the exploited.
One sentient being paying another stronger sentient being to exploit a weaker non consenting sentient being for “pleasure” the first sentient being with no concern for the experience of the exploited.
I mean killing a cow is easy, but they weigh like 150kg and efficiently butchering the carcass is the hard part.
Maybe if you're principally opposed to killing cows for meat, yet still eat burgers, but not if you simply could not be bothered to actually kill the cow.
I do not want to kill a cow personally, but I am aware meat I eat comes from cows. I would be against law that would make cow killing illegal. Not wanting to do something personally and accepting it happens for food is not cognitive dissonance. In general, I am ok with killing animals for food. If you killed a cow just for fun or sport, you are an asshole and I am against it. I feel no cognitive dissonance here.
Likewise, I am pro cleaning shit out of places. I prefer when someone else does it.
Likewise, I am pro cleaning shit out of places. I prefer when someone else does it.
If you want to understand my point about dissonance, you might substitute "dog" for "cow".
Or you could look at why you wouldn't kill a cow. For me, I would feel pretty awful about it. I think, for example, about the time I had to take a dog in to be put down. It was necessary, and there was no other choice. But it was fucking awful to take that dog in and have it killed. Cows are lovely animals in person, and I would feel like I was betraying one to kill it.
So for me there would be a lot of cognitive dissonance generated by killing a cow to get food when I have plenty of less murdery ways to get food. I avoid a lot of that dissonance by outsourcing the job, but some of it's still there.
Or you could look at why you wouldn't kill a cow. For me, I would feel pretty awful about it. I think, for example, about the time I had to take a dog in to be put down. It was necessary, and there was no other choice. But it was fucking awful to take that dog in and have it killed. Cows are lovely animals in person, and I would feel like I was betraying one to kill it.
So for me there would be a lot of cognitive dissonance generated by killing a cow to get food when I have plenty of less murdery ways to get food. I avoid a lot of that dissonance by outsourcing the job, but some of it's still there.
I don't think it's cognitive dissonance if you recognize the issue. Also, you can both enjoy a good burger and be disgusted at the idea of killing a cow yourself. As you said, it's simply an hypocrisy (of which I am guilty too). From Wikipedia [1], (emphasis mine):
> In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is described as a mental phenomenon in which people unknowingly hold fundamentally conflicting cognitions.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
> In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is described as a mental phenomenon in which people unknowingly hold fundamentally conflicting cognitions.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
> I don't think it's cognitive dissonance if you recognize the issue.
Well I recognize the issue and still experience a feeling of dissonance. Indeed, I work to be able to be tolerant of that feeling, because I think it's important in pursuing deeper understanding.
If you have a better term I'm all for it. But I think the "unknowingly" there is meant more as the general case rather than an absolute limit on the term.
Well I recognize the issue and still experience a feeling of dissonance. Indeed, I work to be able to be tolerant of that feeling, because I think it's important in pursuing deeper understanding.
If you have a better term I'm all for it. But I think the "unknowingly" there is meant more as the general case rather than an absolute limit on the term.
Violating ethical beliefs when they are inconvenient is what I'd call "moral hypocrisy". Practically everyone is guilty of it to varying degrees.
Just a side note, but what happened to "hypocrisy"?
It used to mean having behavior that contradicts your stated beliefs.
Now it seems to mean an apparent contradiction between behavior and belief if you ignore real distinctions.
I don't like because it weakens the word and loses an important concept -- we don't have a good way to express real hypocrisy vs. fallaciously construed hypocrisy.
It used to mean having behavior that contradicts your stated beliefs.
Now it seems to mean an apparent contradiction between behavior and belief if you ignore real distinctions.
I don't like because it weakens the word and loses an important concept -- we don't have a good way to express real hypocrisy vs. fallaciously construed hypocrisy.
It's also an important word, albeit not a very useful one in this age:
For how can you compete,
Being honor bred, with one
Who were it proved he lies
Were neither shamed in his own
Nor in his neighbors' eyes;
-- W B Yeats, "To A Friend Whose Work Has Come to Nothing"I'd argue there is no "hypocrisy" her because it involves politics.
There isn't the option to micromanage gov policies, there are two options taken as package deals - red or blue.
MAGA react to questions like this as Dems react to questions like "what is a woman?".
EDIT: to be clear, they react as if the inconvenient question is in bad faith.
There isn't the option to micromanage gov policies, there are two options taken as package deals - red or blue.
MAGA react to questions like this as Dems react to questions like "what is a woman?".
EDIT: to be clear, they react as if the inconvenient question is in bad faith.
No, you can still find hypocrisy in politics.
A person can vote for a party while not agreeing with every one of their platform points. They can also vote for a party and then criticize it later for not following through. As long as they're honest about the divergence and can justify it as an overall better choice, it's not hypocrisy, just being an adult.
The hypocrisy comes in when somebody claims to hold beliefs, votes for a party, and then either ignores a contradiction or spouts the new party line.
A person can vote for a party while not agreeing with every one of their platform points. They can also vote for a party and then criticize it later for not following through. As long as they're honest about the divergence and can justify it as an overall better choice, it's not hypocrisy, just being an adult.
The hypocrisy comes in when somebody claims to hold beliefs, votes for a party, and then either ignores a contradiction or spouts the new party line.
I disagree, your publicly stated comments also have political value outside 'safe' discussion groups. There is pressure to maintain a "united front", and to not appear divided, this is a bipartisan strategy and appears at both the individual and group (e.g. international) level.
This has only increased as public discourse is replaced with unyielding rhetoric and asymmetric slogan-flinging.
This has only increased as public discourse is replaced with unyielding rhetoric and asymmetric slogan-flinging.
How is that in anyway a comparable example? Do Democrats hold policy positions that would be particularly flummoxed by trans people existing?
Yes, and the number of them treating the question as if it's a trick is proof of that. It's also not a question of "trans people existing", so that's a misdirection/straw-man.
Such as? You seem sure these exist, but are refusing to elaborate when the motivating example is quite clear ("I love nature and the outdoors and think protecting it is important... That's why I vote for the party who's platform is to remove those protections").
What exactly is meant to be a similar problem here that exists depending on the answer to that question?
What exactly is meant to be a similar problem here that exists depending on the answer to that question?
This is assuming that all regulations are the same though. The Richard Nixon administration made the environment a policy priority in 1969-1971 and created two new agencies, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and EPA. The Clean Air Act was a Republican bill, and was dealing with things like carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. It is the changing nature of the agency that made Republicans lose faith in it. Like how Republicans can like the idea of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, but after seeing scandal after scandal want the VA scaled back or their responsibilities shifted to other departments who still have their confidence.
> Such as? You seem sure these exist, but are refusing to elaborate
I don't know what you are asking here.
"What is a woman?" Should be a fair question if "trans women are women" is taken to be true.
> What exactly is meant to be a similar problem here that exists depending on the answer to that question?
The point is the when the question is asked, it isn't answered, and treated as being asked in bad faith.
The reason is any answer given is likely to be a problem (i.e. offend someone) so it's simply avoided.
It's maybe reasonable to avoid "gotcha" questions, but some questions (i.e. on the basic premise of your position) shouldn't be so.
I don't know what you are asking here.
"What is a woman?" Should be a fair question if "trans women are women" is taken to be true.
> What exactly is meant to be a similar problem here that exists depending on the answer to that question?
The point is the when the question is asked, it isn't answered, and treated as being asked in bad faith.
The reason is any answer given is likely to be a problem (i.e. offend someone) so it's simply avoided.
It's maybe reasonable to avoid "gotcha" questions, but some questions (i.e. on the basic premise of your position) shouldn't be so.
Again, what position? You keep saying "this question needs an answer"...in what context? For example, "we're building a bridge", "but sir, can you define 'what is a woman?'".
"I believe we should protect the environment" "But your supported political candidate wants to rollback legislation which would specifically protect the waterways and forests you claim are important from industrial dumping of toxic chemicals" is rather more relevant. Like that's a question which needs an answer, because the positions are mutually contradictory.
What contradictory position is being not answered by "what is a woman?"
"I believe we should protect the environment" "But your supported political candidate wants to rollback legislation which would specifically protect the waterways and forests you claim are important from industrial dumping of toxic chemicals" is rather more relevant. Like that's a question which needs an answer, because the positions are mutually contradictory.
What contradictory position is being not answered by "what is a woman?"
> ...in what context?
"What is a woman?" Should be a fair question if "trans women are women" is taken to be true.
> For example, "we're building a bridge"
This ("What is a woman?") is a famous question, so I thought the context was well known.
Sen. Blackburn asked it of a Supreme Court nominee, and there is a documentary of the same name and topic.
> Like that's a question which needs an answer, because the positions are mutually contradictory.
The positions yes, but to quote myself:
"there are two options taken as package deals - red or blue"
> What contradictory position is being not answered by "what is a woman?"
have you followed the context of why this is brought up?:
> MAGA react to questions like this as Dems react to questions like "what is a woman?".
> EDIT: to be clear, they react as if the inconvenient question is in bad faith.
In other words, they support whatever their candidate does, whether their positions actually agree with it or not.
"What is a woman?" Should be a fair question if "trans women are women" is taken to be true.
> For example, "we're building a bridge"
This ("What is a woman?") is a famous question, so I thought the context was well known.
Sen. Blackburn asked it of a Supreme Court nominee, and there is a documentary of the same name and topic.
> Like that's a question which needs an answer, because the positions are mutually contradictory.
The positions yes, but to quote myself:
"there are two options taken as package deals - red or blue"
> What contradictory position is being not answered by "what is a woman?"
have you followed the context of why this is brought up?:
> MAGA react to questions like this as Dems react to questions like "what is a woman?".
> EDIT: to be clear, they react as if the inconvenient question is in bad faith.
In other words, they support whatever their candidate does, whether their positions actually agree with it or not.
[deleted]
My brother wrote about this (and I won't pretend to understand the nuances).
This project explores the changing meaning of hunting in American political and cultural life from 1945 to the present by mapping the evolution of the ideas, vocabulary, and values legible on the pages of nationally circulated outdoor magazines. These sources suggest that huntingÆs public significance transformed in both character and intensity over the second half of the twentieth century. In the immediate postwar decades, the political culture forged and propagated in these magazines reflected a faith in government, in collective engagement, and in public life. However, in the 1970s, the ideas and principles articulated by many hunters and outdoor writers increasingly privileged individual rights, questioned the utility of state action, and defended private prerogatives. Concurrently, the degree to which hunting gave shape to the identity of American sportsmen heightened dramatically during this pivotal decade.
https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/4613/
This project explores the changing meaning of hunting in American political and cultural life from 1945 to the present by mapping the evolution of the ideas, vocabulary, and values legible on the pages of nationally circulated outdoor magazines. These sources suggest that huntingÆs public significance transformed in both character and intensity over the second half of the twentieth century. In the immediate postwar decades, the political culture forged and propagated in these magazines reflected a faith in government, in collective engagement, and in public life. However, in the 1970s, the ideas and principles articulated by many hunters and outdoor writers increasingly privileged individual rights, questioned the utility of state action, and defended private prerogatives. Concurrently, the degree to which hunting gave shape to the identity of American sportsmen heightened dramatically during this pivotal decade.
https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/4613/
I didn't read the paper, but this sounds very familiar and similar to the change in the NRA.
Pre 1970s the NRA was very much a hobby gun club meant mostly to keep american boys/men using guns for war readiness, along with promoting hunting/outdoor recreation. Then, in the 1970s, the NRA changed tune. After a big leadership shakeup the organization became very proactive in promoting anti-government, 2nd amendment, and "patriot" ideals. This likely stems from the Nixon impeachment, wherein republicans felt "wronged" and actively started seeking out revenge.
The federalist society was also born out of this same period and sentiment. The sentiment is that nixon's impeachment was a hit job. That's when we saw the advent of conservative media and the idea that "emotions are more important than fact" started to get some traction.
There's a great This American Life episode on the NRA's transformation from a hobby group to a lobbying group. I think this is it, https://radiolab.org/podcast/radiolab-presents-more-perfect-... . Great episode, highly recommend. It really puts the whole 2a movement into perspective.
Pre 1970s the NRA was very much a hobby gun club meant mostly to keep american boys/men using guns for war readiness, along with promoting hunting/outdoor recreation. Then, in the 1970s, the NRA changed tune. After a big leadership shakeup the organization became very proactive in promoting anti-government, 2nd amendment, and "patriot" ideals. This likely stems from the Nixon impeachment, wherein republicans felt "wronged" and actively started seeking out revenge.
The federalist society was also born out of this same period and sentiment. The sentiment is that nixon's impeachment was a hit job. That's when we saw the advent of conservative media and the idea that "emotions are more important than fact" started to get some traction.
There's a great This American Life episode on the NRA's transformation from a hobby group to a lobbying group. I think this is it, https://radiolab.org/podcast/radiolab-presents-more-perfect-... . Great episode, highly recommend. It really puts the whole 2a movement into perspective.
What all these analysis are missing is that the 1970s was a time of substantial government growth. These organizations all pivoted to pushing back against government because their customers (dues paying members) were deeply concerned about government. State governments were doing the same made possible by federal spending.
And today they are all for a strong government which includes them. Dd they change ideals, were their ideals dropped on the way, were they not really against government from the beginning?
They evolved over time to focus on the MVP of their original product - “winning” / making sure that no republican president is ever going to be impeached
Sort of like the people who were protesting the Iraq war, but had no problem with Obama intervening militarily in Libya in 2011. Did they change their ideals, were their ideals dropped, or did they just stop caring when the news stopped doing daily middle east body counts after January 20th 2009?
[deleted]
Randall Williams is your brother? He’s one of my favorites from the Meateater crew. Thanks for sharing his dissertation, I’ve been meaning to check it out at some point.
I've found so many of these contradictions in my own supporting of the household preferred political party that I've lost faith in parties altogether. They just lump too many issues together and expect you to accept them all.
At the risk of being dismissive of people's interests, I've increasingly come to view many hunters and fishers are largely driven by the ego. They don't care if they can hunt or fish in 20 years as long as they can brag to their friend group that they bagged the biggest fish or game. In fact, it'd be better if they no one could hunt/fish in the future because that means they'd hold the "record" indefinitely.
All those pesky rules and regulations are just getting in the way.
Go sit in a bar in hunting country during deer season. You won't hear people talking about how peaceful, relaxing, or enjoyable it was. You either hear (1) them bragging about how big of deer they got (2) how big the deer was that "got away".
All those pesky rules and regulations are just getting in the way.
Go sit in a bar in hunting country during deer season. You won't hear people talking about how peaceful, relaxing, or enjoyable it was. You either hear (1) them bragging about how big of deer they got (2) how big the deer was that "got away".
Bar talk vs actual experience is a matter of ritual. I picked up hunting late in life, and everyone privately says they love getting out, walking the land, relaxing, etc. But at the 6-8 "happy hours" each night, it's a bragfest. It's just culture.
I come from a family of hunters. We have those types, but we also have the types which just love the outdoors. Even the latter type has some manly-man schtick to their love of hunting, but it's partly about spending time with male friends and family. When someone ends up bagging a deer, the meat is shared around the family. Doesn't happen that often, but I look forward to it - I really love the gaminess of wild deer.
With fishing, I've observed a similar trend. There's plenty of people who just really love to geek out about fish (I am one of these), and keep detailed notes of the species they catch, where they caught them, the conditions, the baits/lures used, reading up on their ranges, behaviors, feeding habits, etc. There's other people who really love eating fresh fish, and they aren't into the process and community as much. There's a few ladies in my Chicago fishing group like this (one of whom is a high powered lawyer, as I understand it).
Some of the trophy fishermen want more rules and regulations, these tend to be the Musky fisherman who want their bodies of water to be mandated catch-and-release only.
The MAGA leaning fishermen seem like they can come in any of the above (and more) flavors. I'd be hard pressed to put a number on what % of fishermen I've run into are which types as well, regardless of their politics.
With fishing, I've observed a similar trend. There's plenty of people who just really love to geek out about fish (I am one of these), and keep detailed notes of the species they catch, where they caught them, the conditions, the baits/lures used, reading up on their ranges, behaviors, feeding habits, etc. There's other people who really love eating fresh fish, and they aren't into the process and community as much. There's a few ladies in my Chicago fishing group like this (one of whom is a high powered lawyer, as I understand it).
Some of the trophy fishermen want more rules and regulations, these tend to be the Musky fisherman who want their bodies of water to be mandated catch-and-release only.
The MAGA leaning fishermen seem like they can come in any of the above (and more) flavors. I'd be hard pressed to put a number on what % of fishermen I've run into are which types as well, regardless of their politics.
>Go sit in a bar in hunting country during deer season. You won't hear people talking about how peaceful, relaxing, or enjoyable it was. You either hear (1) them bragging about how big of deer they got (2) how big the deer was that "got away".
There is nothing wrong with this. Its isn't mutually exclusive with a love and appreciation and respect for nature.
Yes there is an ego component, and that is OK too. It is a challenge and people derive satisfaction from success and accomplishment. How is it different than people excited about how productive their garden is or how many sweaters they knit for family.
I caught a big fish last weekend. I put in time, thought, and effort and paid off. I was happy and my friends were excited for my success (and dinner).
That doesn't mean I'm some nature hating egomaniac.
There is nothing wrong with this. Its isn't mutually exclusive with a love and appreciation and respect for nature.
Yes there is an ego component, and that is OK too. It is a challenge and people derive satisfaction from success and accomplishment. How is it different than people excited about how productive their garden is or how many sweaters they knit for family.
I caught a big fish last weekend. I put in time, thought, and effort and paid off. I was happy and my friends were excited for my success (and dinner).
That doesn't mean I'm some nature hating egomaniac.
This is an incredibly bad take. I can't think of a single hunter I've ran across that didn't talk about how peaceful, relaxing and enjoyable hunting is. I don't personally hunt, but all the big hunter personalities such as Joe Rogan, the Meateater crew, etc. constantly harp on the peacefulness of spending time in nature while hunting. My coworkers that hunt rarely talk/brag about what they shoot. Maybe they brag between themselves because the peacefulness and relaxation aspects are givens, everyone in the group understands that.
I only know one active hunter and boy does he brag - if only given the occasion. So maybe the people you mention are just being afraid to be judged for their true ideas? Because either way, you can always go in the nature, and so many people go at least here in Switzerland, and just... go in the nature, spend time in that peaceful environment, period. You don't need a gun and a dead squirrel to be peaceful.
>So maybe the people you mention are just being afraid to be judged for their true ideas?
Not at all, the "hunter" types in the US typically are unfiltered and direct and don't hide their thoughts and beliefs.
>Because either way, you can always go in the nature, and so many people go at least here in Switzerland, and just... go in the nature, spend time in that peaceful environment, period.
The fishing/hunting types spend much more time in nature without a gun than with one from what I've been told and seen. There are only a few weeks/months where it is legal to hunt in the US.
Not at all, the "hunter" types in the US typically are unfiltered and direct and don't hide their thoughts and beliefs.
>Because either way, you can always go in the nature, and so many people go at least here in Switzerland, and just... go in the nature, spend time in that peaceful environment, period.
The fishing/hunting types spend much more time in nature without a gun than with one from what I've been told and seen. There are only a few weeks/months where it is legal to hunt in the US.
Some people brag. This is known. It might be about hunting or knitting or a car. Im not sure why that should have any bearing on the topic. Should everything that people brag about be banned?
I like to go into nature for all sorts of reasons, sometimes it is to enjoy peace, sometimes it is to enjoy peace with a gun and a dead squirrel. sometimes it is to enjoy a challenge with a gun and a dead squirrel, and I don't care about peace. These ideas aren't in competition, they are synergistic.
I like to go into nature for all sorts of reasons, sometimes it is to enjoy peace, sometimes it is to enjoy peace with a gun and a dead squirrel. sometimes it is to enjoy a challenge with a gun and a dead squirrel, and I don't care about peace. These ideas aren't in competition, they are synergistic.
There's a really interesting book that became about this because of an accident of timing and the author's research it's called Strangers in Their Own Land.
The author was writing about a specific region of louisiana that is all three of farther right than the norm even for a US rural area, more polluted than almost anywhere, and having a local culture that prizes connection to the land and natural systems present there.
It's very good! The author approaches these contradictions with more curiosity and care than you're going to find on HN even on its best days. https://thenewpress.com/books/strangers-their-own-land
The author was writing about a specific region of louisiana that is all three of farther right than the norm even for a US rural area, more polluted than almost anywhere, and having a local culture that prizes connection to the land and natural systems present there.
It's very good! The author approaches these contradictions with more curiosity and care than you're going to find on HN even on its best days. https://thenewpress.com/books/strangers-their-own-land
I think about this book a lot. The point that stuck in my mind was that many of the folks living there were devout Christians. When one family was asked why they vote for the party that pollutes their land and waters they said that it's also the pro-life party and essentially nothing else matters if they don't vote pro life since they'll go to hell in the end.
Yes though iirc the author probed at that a bit and while not directly contradicting them points to this being more a matter of social cohesion, justified by that one specific policy when pressed in this instance. But others gave more prosaic answers about industry and employment.
Re the christian thing though, it was unsettling to read about their understanding of right relationship between humans and creation being essentially (and uncharitably) "god put us in charge of it to do what we want with it." Which is maybe a natural extension of historical european/north american christian doctrine on the subject but that still I had never really heard a contemporary christian state clearly and proudly like that. I'm also christian and it's pretty foreign to my tradition.
Re the christian thing though, it was unsettling to read about their understanding of right relationship between humans and creation being essentially (and uncharitably) "god put us in charge of it to do what we want with it." Which is maybe a natural extension of historical european/north american christian doctrine on the subject but that still I had never really heard a contemporary christian state clearly and proudly like that. I'm also christian and it's pretty foreign to my tradition.
You could ask the same question to the people who think the environment is very important but don't seem to care about how their electric car or its Lithium ion batteries are mined or manufactured. So long as it's not in their back yard it is out of sight out of mind. And if they overload the regulations so that there is no local manufacturing and it's all imported from countries with poor environmental controls, they are effectively exporting all the pollution to poor people in China
I've been thinking about your comment for the past day and I just don't see how this would be an equivalent question to ask. Maybe you can elaborate?
Hunting and fishing are one of those hobbies that don't work anymore if everyone wants to do it. There's not enough room.
There's something in here about how low density people don't share values with high density people, because different situations cause problems.
There's something in here about how low density people don't share values with high density people, because different situations cause problems.
You're summing up most of the stuff rural americans get upset about.
Rural americans have insanely high pollution rates per capita because most of their lifestyle is really resource intensive, which just doesn't scale.
Not everyone can drive a ford f850 superduty deisel to go get groceries. Not everyone can eat beef 3x/day. Not everyone can live on a few acres. Not everyone can hunt. Not everyone can have livestock. Not everyone can have 5 kids. Etc, etc.
A lot of rural americans just don't understand this, or don't care. To them it's "out of sight, out of mind". Then, once it comes to their back yard they lose their minds reacting to it because it finally affects them. When it happens to other people, those people can pull themselves up by their bootstraps. When it happens to them, then it's a national emergency.
I grew up in a rural area, hometown of 500 people. I grew up thinking this way. It's a pretty big mind shift.
Rural americans have insanely high pollution rates per capita because most of their lifestyle is really resource intensive, which just doesn't scale.
Not everyone can drive a ford f850 superduty deisel to go get groceries. Not everyone can eat beef 3x/day. Not everyone can live on a few acres. Not everyone can hunt. Not everyone can have livestock. Not everyone can have 5 kids. Etc, etc.
A lot of rural americans just don't understand this, or don't care. To them it's "out of sight, out of mind". Then, once it comes to their back yard they lose their minds reacting to it because it finally affects them. When it happens to other people, those people can pull themselves up by their bootstraps. When it happens to them, then it's a national emergency.
I grew up in a rural area, hometown of 500 people. I grew up thinking this way. It's a pretty big mind shift.
Most people are too lazy / busy to hunt or fish, so this will only become a problem if food becomes unaffordable compared to spending a weekend trying to track a wild boar or going fishing as a necessity.
I've always considered that it would make sense for there to be a "green right".
When conservative and rural and rejecting (some) modernity, I would expect one to appreciate and want to conserve nature as well as a lifestyle close to nature. Also, from an economic point of view, the conversion to sustainability is massive employment opportunity.
But no, the exact opposite is true.
When conservative and rural and rejecting (some) modernity, I would expect one to appreciate and want to conserve nature as well as a lifestyle close to nature. Also, from an economic point of view, the conversion to sustainability is massive employment opportunity.
But no, the exact opposite is true.
It's because they're too indoctrinated by modern culture to say "when it actually comes down to it I'd rather live in a prosperous but polluted society, at the end of the day like the necessity of making ends mmeet more than the luxury of bass fishing" which is basically what they're getting at with the sum of their beliefs but is an opinion that is fairly taboo to voice without a ton of beating around the bush.
Republicans have gone full doublethink. Remember when egg prices was the single most important issue of the election? Now when you ask those same people about rising inflation and the catastrophic economy they'll tell you to "get over it" or "stop being so materialist".
The same people that described themselves as "hard-core free speech absolutists" are perfectly fine with innocent men getting deported to El Salvador with no due process, or foreign scientists getting detained at the border for having criticized the president on social media.
This country is fucked, half of its inhabitants now live with Fox News induced cognitive dissonance and are literally "ride or die" with the GOP. There's nothing Trump or his administration could do that would make them reconsider their support.
The same people that described themselves as "hard-core free speech absolutists" are perfectly fine with innocent men getting deported to El Salvador with no due process, or foreign scientists getting detained at the border for having criticized the president on social media.
This country is fucked, half of its inhabitants now live with Fox News induced cognitive dissonance and are literally "ride or die" with the GOP. There's nothing Trump or his administration could do that would make them reconsider their support.
> half of its inhabitants now live with Fox News induced cognitive dissonance and are literally "ride or die" with the GOP.
This is a bit of an overstatement. In 2024, Trump received 49.8% of the vote on 64.1% turnout, which is only 31.9% of eligible voters and of course doesn't include millions of people who are ineligible to vote, mostly due to age. And some of Trump's total, relatively small yet crucial, consisted of nonpartisan "swing" voters who are not loyal to Trump or the GOP. The way our electoral system works, small differences are greatly magnified.
This is a bit of an overstatement. In 2024, Trump received 49.8% of the vote on 64.1% turnout, which is only 31.9% of eligible voters and of course doesn't include millions of people who are ineligible to vote, mostly due to age. And some of Trump's total, relatively small yet crucial, consisted of nonpartisan "swing" voters who are not loyal to Trump or the GOP. The way our electoral system works, small differences are greatly magnified.
rayiner(1)
The problem is we have a strongly factional two party system where the most productive strategy is to reap hatred between the factions. This is mostly a consequence of our plurality voting system.
We also have a political environment that tries to gloss over the ways the two parties are similarly problematic and damaging while championing the idea that "we're the party of all things good and right and the other people are responsible for all bad positions".
Dems and Republicans alike support carbon emitting methods of power generating that result in over a million deaths a year worldwide. Voting for Trmp vs Bden probably doesn't have any real appreciable effect on worldwide pollution levels.
Dems and Republicans alike support carbon emitting methods of power generating that result in over a million deaths a year worldwide. Voting for Trmp vs Bden probably doesn't have any real appreciable effect on worldwide pollution levels.
I think some of this is down to the inability of some folk (that to be clear, I think is stoked by the parties for marketing purposes) to differentiate between the beliefs of their party and their own personal beliefs. In this way, parties are not a matter of beliefs really as much as they're a matter of identity. I've witnessed this with my own family: my parents are and have always been Republican, and even though they hate Trump and virtually every policy he stands for, they still voted for him. When questioned why, you get various somewhat incoherent notions of hating Democrats. And... fair, as a Leftist, I also hate Democrats, haha. But I still voted Harris because as distasteful as I find the Dem establishment, they're closer to anything I want to see in the world than anything on offer on the other side.
This is basically it. When you define your identity by what you're against rather than what you're for then your own principles and beliefs are easily compromised. Partisans are blinded to inconsistency and corruption in their own party because the focus is always on "the other side", who are always considered worse, and thus anything is justified to fight the other side.
Take a step back and look at the information flows of democracy. One or two ballots per year, with a handful of questions on them. For the national races, that is maybe 3 bits/year on average? Compare with the constant stream of ads, speeches, news articles, etc. Then at the higher level it's not like adding repeated answers to the same question preserves much information (cf Central Limit Theorem). So really the information flows to the voters are the more significant part of this setup, with the act of choosing serving as a commitment to make you think you wanted everything you voted for.
As an outdoorsman, fisher, and hunter, I view the other party as at war my hobbies.
California banned the diesel engines being used by the fishing boat I went out on. Without 300k to retrofit, the charter went out of business and everyone lost their jobs.
California banned the diesel engines being used by the fishing boat I went out on. Without 300k to retrofit, the charter went out of business and everyone lost their jobs.
> I view the other party as at war my hobbies.
And they think you put your hobby above other people's lungs. shrugs
I'm sorry about the charter going out of business. A better bill would've made provisions to help businesses with upgrade costs.
Think of everyone's point of view. Not just "my hobby" and "they're doing stuff to me". If you don't care about others they won't care about you. That's what society is.
And they think you put your hobby above other people's lungs. shrugs
I'm sorry about the charter going out of business. A better bill would've made provisions to help businesses with upgrade costs.
Think of everyone's point of view. Not just "my hobby" and "they're doing stuff to me". If you don't care about others they won't care about you. That's what society is.
Yeah, I guess that is the problem.
I do care about other people, I just dont think that some exhaust discharged into the water from a fishing boat on the ocean is really harming people's lungs.
My understanding is the issue was NOx emissions as they relate to climate, but I think there is a lot more meaningful and low hanging fruit than banning a few dozen vessels.
> If you don't care about others they won't care about you. That's what society is.
Society is others not caring about you, no matter what you do. Society doesn't tailor its treatment to individuals based on their thoughts or actions. They are invisible.
I do care about other people, I just dont think that some exhaust discharged into the water from a fishing boat on the ocean is really harming people's lungs.
My understanding is the issue was NOx emissions as they relate to climate, but I think there is a lot more meaningful and low hanging fruit than banning a few dozen vessels.
> If you don't care about others they won't care about you. That's what society is.
Society is others not caring about you, no matter what you do. Society doesn't tailor its treatment to individuals based on their thoughts or actions. They are invisible.
> some exhaust discharged into the water from a fishing boat on the ocean
The concern is more about particulate pollution when the boats are in dock.
> I think there is a lot more meaningful and low hanging fruit than banning a few dozen vessels
Quite possibly. I don't know the issue as well as you.
> Society is others not caring about you, no matter what you do
Not sure where you got that idea...
> Society doesn't tailor its treatment to individuals based on their thoughts or actions
What on earth are you talking about?
The concern is more about particulate pollution when the boats are in dock.
> I think there is a lot more meaningful and low hanging fruit than banning a few dozen vessels
Quite possibly. I don't know the issue as well as you.
> Society is others not caring about you, no matter what you do
Not sure where you got that idea...
> Society doesn't tailor its treatment to individuals based on their thoughts or actions
What on earth are you talking about?
I get that idea because society does not care about extremely localized costs if there is a diffuse benefit, or even a good feeling. You said society is being kind to others and it will be kind to you.
My impression is the exact opposite. Society doesn't care if you're the best person in the world if you're in the way of something it wants.
It is happy to put a freeway through your house to save a few bucks or minutes, even if it ruins your life.
Regulation is an even more attractive way to do this because society doesn't have to pay some low ball eminent domain.
Nobody cares if someone has spent their life building a fishing business and 300K loan on boat, the social consensus is haha, sucks to suck loser.
My impression is the exact opposite. Society doesn't care if you're the best person in the world if you're in the way of something it wants.
It is happy to put a freeway through your house to save a few bucks or minutes, even if it ruins your life.
Regulation is an even more attractive way to do this because society doesn't have to pay some low ball eminent domain.
Nobody cares if someone has spent their life building a fishing business and 300K loan on boat, the social consensus is haha, sucks to suck loser.
Ah kk I see what you're saying. Western society at least is based on norms like the golden rule, which I was driving at.
I guess there's a ton of overlap between "society" as an abstract idea and "the state" when it comes to regulations.
Opposing environmental regulations by saying "this is bad for my hobby" won't gain much sympathy, golden-rule-wise.
> Nobody cares if someone has spent their life building a fishing business and 300K loan on boat, the social consensus is haha, sucks to suck loser.
Hard to say what happened in this case. But usually business interests tend to win out over environmental concerns.
I guess there's a ton of overlap between "society" as an abstract idea and "the state" when it comes to regulations.
Opposing environmental regulations by saying "this is bad for my hobby" won't gain much sympathy, golden-rule-wise.
> Nobody cares if someone has spent their life building a fishing business and 300K loan on boat, the social consensus is haha, sucks to suck loser.
Hard to say what happened in this case. But usually business interests tend to win out over environmental concerns.
And I'm saying the golden rule is certainly not applied in social politics. 90% of people are happy to ban pollution from a small groups, while exempting themselves and all their own hobbies. The smaller the group, the more punitive the majority is willing to be. Fishermen might not get much sympathy, but prohibition on dog ownership or international vacations is unthinkable.
In my experience, small businesses, farmers, and sole proprietors almost never win out over environmental concerns. Big business gets a pass.
I think hunters and outdoorspeople are often positioned to see the hypocrisy of all this. They see a few tiny fishing boats being banned from California harbors, while massive container ships chug through the bay endlessly full of single use garbage.
They see fishing restrictions while entire municipalities discharge wastewater into the rivers and factory ships dragnet the ocean to sell at Safeway.
In my experience, small businesses, farmers, and sole proprietors almost never win out over environmental concerns. Big business gets a pass.
I think hunters and outdoorspeople are often positioned to see the hypocrisy of all this. They see a few tiny fishing boats being banned from California harbors, while massive container ships chug through the bay endlessly full of single use garbage.
They see fishing restrictions while entire municipalities discharge wastewater into the rivers and factory ships dragnet the ocean to sell at Safeway.
All fair points. Cheers.
Would you rather there be no outdoors for your grandchildren to hunt in? The “other party” isn’t at war with hunting, they just want a planet that’s livable for future generations.
They don't care - you can see it clearly in the person you're responding to that they're just thinking about their own personal wants. It's pure selfishness.
Why are people moving away from places like California with heavy environmental regulations? It seems like those states aren't livable for the current generations
https://www.resiclubanalytics.com/p/net-domestic-migration-w...
These 5 states saw the biggest net domestic migration INCREASE between July 2023 and July 2024:
Texas —> +85,267
North Carolina —> +82,288
South Carolina —> +68,043
Florida —> +64,017
Tennessee —> +48,476
These 5 states saw the biggest net domestic migration DECREASE between July 2023 and July 2024:
California —> -239,575
New York —> -120,917
Illinois —> -56,235
New Jersey —> -35,554
Massachusetts —> -27,480
Texas —> +85,267
North Carolina —> +82,288
South Carolina —> +68,043
Florida —> +64,017
Tennessee —> +48,476
These 5 states saw the biggest net domestic migration DECREASE between July 2023 and July 2024:
California —> -239,575
New York —> -120,917
Illinois —> -56,235
New Jersey —> -35,554
Massachusetts —> -27,480
>Would you rather there be no outdoors for your grandchildren to hunt in?
Of course not. Thats the kind of lack of nuance that I object to.
I support high reward changes that protect or revitalize the environment. Banning several diesel boats instead of phasing them out at the end life/next upgrade isn't going to save the planet. It just makes the outdoors and environment inaccessible.
There are so many thoughtless and net negative policies.
Of course not. Thats the kind of lack of nuance that I object to.
I support high reward changes that protect or revitalize the environment. Banning several diesel boats instead of phasing them out at the end life/next upgrade isn't going to save the planet. It just makes the outdoors and environment inaccessible.
There are so many thoughtless and net negative policies.
You view them as negative because you're only thinking about how it affects you.
There are clear benefits to banning diesel engines in freshwater. That's why so many places are doing it. Lots of people support these measures because it's a very clear benefit.
If a business can't afford to operate without being subsidized by the environment, they shouldn't be allowed to operate. When you use those diesel engines, you're taking out a loan using the environment. That loan needs to be repaid, and it gets repaid in the from of destruction rebuild costs. So when you complain about how "it would cost blah blah to do this safely", what you're really saying is "I want to destroy the environment for some cheap fun" which is deeply, deeply selfish. When you hear the total cost of disasters, think about it in the form of debt being repaid. That $1 billion because of so and so fire, that's the environment coming to collect the debt we racked up because we wanted cheap stuff and recreation.
Remember, your freedom ends where mine begins.
There are clear benefits to banning diesel engines in freshwater. That's why so many places are doing it. Lots of people support these measures because it's a very clear benefit.
If a business can't afford to operate without being subsidized by the environment, they shouldn't be allowed to operate. When you use those diesel engines, you're taking out a loan using the environment. That loan needs to be repaid, and it gets repaid in the from of destruction rebuild costs. So when you complain about how "it would cost blah blah to do this safely", what you're really saying is "I want to destroy the environment for some cheap fun" which is deeply, deeply selfish. When you hear the total cost of disasters, think about it in the form of debt being repaid. That $1 billion because of so and so fire, that's the environment coming to collect the debt we racked up because we wanted cheap stuff and recreation.
Remember, your freedom ends where mine begins.
I'm talking about salt water diesel engine regulations that had essentially no lead in.
The benefits may be clear, but that still side steps the question of to whom the cost and benefits accrue.
>Remember, your freedom ends where mine begins.
Yes, and this boundary is perpetually in dispute. The question is always who draws the line and how change is managed.
The benefits may be clear, but that still side steps the question of to whom the cost and benefits accrue.
>Remember, your freedom ends where mine begins.
Yes, and this boundary is perpetually in dispute. The question is always who draws the line and how change is managed.
We don't have time to wait for a bunch of diesel engines to die of old age - as you know, they're quite long lived. And how long do you think is reasonable for diesel to be "phased out"? DEF became mandatory in the mid-2000s. It's been long enough.
At some point you have to draw a line and say, we're not going to allow something that spits out this much pollution just to make catching fish as cheap as it used to be.
At some point you have to draw a line and say, we're not going to allow something that spits out this much pollution just to make catching fish as cheap as it used to be.
Yea, see, I always thought that "conservative" meant people wanted to keep things the same and that included natural resources, like wilderness.
But instead, they want the '50's back. The 1850's. I'll leave it at that.
But instead, they want the '50's back. The 1850's. I'll leave it at that.
https://www.independent.org/article/2021/11/22/the-new-blue-...
You would find this article from Victor Davis Hanson interesting
Perhaps. It's an interesting (if very libertarian) perspective. It's somewhat factual but also blowing things out of proportion, exaggerating and with typical right wing "pearl-clutching" while being couched in academic language.
The plastic lady on TV told them Obama was gonna raise egg prices more.
Midwesterner here. Past generations of conservatives were also very conservation minded. They understood the lasting value of preserving our natural resources. Hell back in the 80s and 90s it was normal for Reagan Republicans to also be in the Sierra Club. That very reasonable centrist organization is now chastized as "radical left," that's how far down the slippery slope we are. They are due for a very rude awakening, but by the time they realize it, it will all be ruined. They don't care about anything if it doesn't affect them directly, the polar opposite of the story of the ancient middle eastern rabbi they name check as their god and savior.
It's not just that people care about many things at once, but they have different assumptions about how much real-world output will result from a particular political input.
For example, this article is about air pollution. Trump rolled back a number of Obama-era air pollution rules in 2017: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/04/trump-em.... But there was no corresponding increase in air pollution in the subsequent six years: https://epa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=c2....
So your friends simply don't believe that rolling back particular environmental regulations will meaningfully reduce the quality of the environment. It's similar to how liberals downplay how much reshoring of industry will result from the Trump administration's tariffs.
For example, this article is about air pollution. Trump rolled back a number of Obama-era air pollution rules in 2017: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/04/trump-em.... But there was no corresponding increase in air pollution in the subsequent six years: https://epa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=c2....
So your friends simply don't believe that rolling back particular environmental regulations will meaningfully reduce the quality of the environment. It's similar to how liberals downplay how much reshoring of industry will result from the Trump administration's tariffs.
==It's similar to how liberals downplay how much reshoring of industry will result from the Trump administration's tariffs.==
I haven't seen a coherent explanation or estimate of impact made by the administration. If a strategy that estimates the amount of reshoring exists, I'd love to see it. The constant back-and-forth on tariffs makes it seems more like the whims of one individual rather than a coherent plan for "reshoring of industry."
In your comments, you seem to continually give one side the benefit of the doubt, but use a completely different set of rules when discussing the other side.
It even seems to come out in your analysis as your source shows that 2023 saw the most days of unhealthy PM2.5 levels since 2012. It went from 724 in 2017, to 822 in 2023. That is a 13.5% increase. It appears you might be falling into the same trap you warn everyone else about.
Edited to add: On tariffs, Republican Senator Ron Johnson admits, “I still don’t know exactly what his total strategy is.” [0] Yet, you expect everyday liberals to have some nuanced view of the policy.
[0] https://x.com/mkraju/status/1910078814975050012
I haven't seen a coherent explanation or estimate of impact made by the administration. If a strategy that estimates the amount of reshoring exists, I'd love to see it. The constant back-and-forth on tariffs makes it seems more like the whims of one individual rather than a coherent plan for "reshoring of industry."
In your comments, you seem to continually give one side the benefit of the doubt, but use a completely different set of rules when discussing the other side.
It even seems to come out in your analysis as your source shows that 2023 saw the most days of unhealthy PM2.5 levels since 2012. It went from 724 in 2017, to 822 in 2023. That is a 13.5% increase. It appears you might be falling into the same trap you warn everyone else about.
Edited to add: On tariffs, Republican Senator Ron Johnson admits, “I still don’t know exactly what his total strategy is.” [0] Yet, you expect everyday liberals to have some nuanced view of the policy.
[0] https://x.com/mkraju/status/1910078814975050012
I mean there is a LOT more to life then fishing and hunting that people might care about? And even if we want to restrict ourselves to fishing and hunting there are more issues then just polution that may sway peoples minds. Gun control? Most of the anti hunting groups and extreme environmental groups that want to shutdown any form of hunting are often composed of far left leaning people. But the biggest reason is probably these people tend to live in more republican leaning areas and care about the same issues their friends and neighbors do.
The same exact cognitive dissonance dynamic applies to "gun control". The murder of Breonna Taylor was a straightforward transgression of the 2nd amendment - direct summary execution by government agents for defending your family in your home at night (one of the exact touchstone scenarios for the "self defense" line of arguments). Yet "the right" fell in line behind the government authoritarian jackboots because their political machine told them to.
I’ve observed that generalizations are usually wrong. There are plenty of MAGA people who care about the environment, and there are indeed MAGA people who couldn’t care less too.
It’s also strange to single out MAGA on cognitive dissonance- everyone, regardless of political affiliation has it.
At the end of the day blame the two party system. There are hundreds of thousands of people who voted for Obama and Trump, Biden and then Trump again. Let that sink in.
It’s also strange to single out MAGA on cognitive dissonance- everyone, regardless of political affiliation has it.
At the end of the day blame the two party system. There are hundreds of thousands of people who voted for Obama and Trump, Biden and then Trump again. Let that sink in.
MAGA is level 10 on it. They went from the hardcore Christian party to supporting the biggest crook American politics has ever seen, that isn't even capable of basic kindness. Same with veterans. A draft dodger, that has called our fallen soldiers losers, and skipped out on ceremonies honoring them, that presidents traditionally attend. MAGA jumped from deficit hawks, to supporting huge tax cuts that will explode the deficit. It's not even close who is worse here.
I think we’d agree that trump is maga, but is every voter for trump?
While everyone has the ability to have cognitive dissonance, please don't ignore the reality that MAGA is a bunch of weirdo cultist fuckos brainwashed by extremist propaganda media.
It's not much of a generalization if I'm talking about the people in my community. YMMV.
[deleted]
It’s still generalization even if it’s about people in your community…
If I talk about people in Brooklyn broadly is it not a generalization because it’s my community? lol
No wonder political discourse is completely broken.
If I talk about people in Brooklyn broadly is it not a generalization because it’s my community? lol
No wonder political discourse is completely broken.
I'm not talking about my city - I'm talking about the people on my fishing forums, or who I meet down by the river.
The talking point about Brooklyn is about as dumb a "Gotcha" as you'd expect in:
> political discourse is completely broken.
The talking point about Brooklyn is about as dumb a "Gotcha" as you'd expect in:
> political discourse is completely broken.
The majority of MAGA don't care about the environment (especially wrt climate change), and in fact probably no longer believe that pollution is harmful.
I would not be surprised if smoking also makes a comeback as MAGA types continue down the anti-science crusade and pour scorn on the link between smoking and lung cancer and other types of health outcomes.
I would not be surprised if smoking also makes a comeback as MAGA types continue down the anti-science crusade and pour scorn on the link between smoking and lung cancer and other types of health outcomes.
I mean, I don't understand how you could care about the environment and vote for Trump.
He's actively unwinding decades of environmental policy and protections, destaffing and defunding national parks, and opening up logging 100MM acres which will be gone in no time at all.
He's the kind of guy that says "we are going to have the cleanest air and water" and then literally does the opposite policy wise.
He's actively unwinding decades of environmental policy and protections, destaffing and defunding national parks, and opening up logging 100MM acres which will be gone in no time at all.
He's the kind of guy that says "we are going to have the cleanest air and water" and then literally does the opposite policy wise.
Trees are a renewable resource. It won't be gone at all. Not only that, but the US is actually logging at a slower rate than trees are growing. We are currently gaining over 2000 square miles of forest every year.
This is because we import most of our lumber, which is not going to happen any more.
We can wipe all of that out and then wait 20 years.
We can wipe all of that out and then wait 20 years.
It's almost like people are complicated and when you are forced to choose between two parties you almost always go for the stronger male person
> It's almost like people are complicated and when you are forced to choose between two parties you almost always go for the stronger male person
That seems like an unfair conclusion not rooted in empirical evidence. How do you explain the numerous democratically elected female heads of state? What does "strong" mean here? Do you think that current US leadership is "strong" or merely "loud"?
That seems like an unfair conclusion not rooted in empirical evidence. How do you explain the numerous democratically elected female heads of state? What does "strong" mean here? Do you think that current US leadership is "strong" or merely "loud"?
People are complicated and their behavior can be predicted by a single variable?
I thought the GP comment was interesting. The hypothesis that if the decision becomes too complicated you just give up and fallback to the strong male.
Like the reptile brain gets enabled if you loose the overview.
Like the reptile brain gets enabled if you loose the overview.
This is what I meant. Thanks for clarifying.
Behaviour in a closed system choosing between the alpha, sound familiar to any animal behaviour? Oh, but we are so much more than that. We aren't animals, we are developed people. Fascinating behaviour isn't it, Muppet.
That does not explain vote for Trump who is basically anti-masculine. He is basically walking stereotype of hysterical mind changing woman ... except in male shape.
No, it still explains it. Society does not treat men and women doing or saying the same things the same way. Men are “assertive”, women are “bossy”.
People are complicated.....they vote for the strongman.
You realize how those two things you said are diametrically opposed????
Stupid.
I'm not sure that observations match this hypothesis, actually. But this
> the stronger male person
raises an interesting point (ignoring the "male" part) -- there isn't any real consensus on what attributes indicate "strength" (for instance, there are a lot of people who consider Trump strong, and a lot of people who equally consider him weak).
So the hypothesis could be true, but not terribly enlightening.
> the stronger male person
raises an interesting point (ignoring the "male" part) -- there isn't any real consensus on what attributes indicate "strength" (for instance, there are a lot of people who consider Trump strong, and a lot of people who equally consider him weak).
So the hypothesis could be true, but not terribly enlightening.
Speaking for yourself buddy.
Why would it “give them pause”?
Your question (as phrased here) is clearly provocative rather than curious and represents your biases (eg, “openly wants to mess up your pastime”). You don’t consider the two obvious answers, in that they see it differently or they have higher priorities, and are using extreme language.
Are you really surprised people are annoyed by that behavior?
Your question (as phrased here) is clearly provocative rather than curious and represents your biases (eg, “openly wants to mess up your pastime”). You don’t consider the two obvious answers, in that they see it differently or they have higher priorities, and are using extreme language.
Are you really surprised people are annoyed by that behavior?
It didn’t come across as provocative to me. It would be a snowflake reaction to get indignant at such a small amount of “provocative” language.
The essence of the question is why do people who love the outdoors vote for politicians who want to repeal laws to protect the outdoors?
I presume that a reasonable person can easily answer this question and defend their position. I can think of several reasonable explanations and I’m opposed to hunting and am in favor of strong environmental regulations.
The essence of the question is why do people who love the outdoors vote for politicians who want to repeal laws to protect the outdoors?
I presume that a reasonable person can easily answer this question and defend their position. I can think of several reasonable explanations and I’m opposed to hunting and am in favor of strong environmental regulations.
> The essence of the question is why do people who love the outdoors vote for politicians who want to repeal laws to protect the outdoors?
Because they don't believe that most of those laws are having meaningful benefits. The law of diminishing returns applies to everything, including ever-increasing regulations.
Because they don't believe that most of those laws are having meaningful benefits. The law of diminishing returns applies to everything, including ever-increasing regulations.
As I stated I know some reasonable answers to the question. The point made was not about answering the question or doubting that there were plausible answers. Clearly the point was that the original phrasing ought not cause someone to think of it as provocative.
I would actually wager that benefits dont matter to them anymore. If it's government, it's bad. Full stop. Conservatives don't really have any real stances. They are obstructionists at this point. They anti-. That's it. If someone proposes something they will obstruct and disagree because they didn't come up with it.
There are clear benefits. They just refuse to see them. You can show a mountain of evidence based on peer reviewed research and they'll hand waive it away and say "Private enterprise could do it better" or some nonsense.
There are clear benefits. They just refuse to see them. You can show a mountain of evidence based on peer reviewed research and they'll hand waive it away and say "Private enterprise could do it better" or some nonsense.
> I would actually wager that benefits dont matter to them anymore. If it's government, it's bad. Full stop. Conservatives don't really have any real stances. They are obstructionists at this point. They anti-. That's it. If someone proposes something they will obstruct and disagree because they didn't come up with it.
The Trump GOP has no reflexive opposition to government. Trump won the nomination in 2016 because he abandoned the GOP orthodoxy on free markets and declared there would be no cuts to Medicare or Social Security benefits. https://www.vox.com/2015/8/15/9159117/donald-trump-moderate
Tariffs are government. Border security is government. Police are government. The Trump GOP supports all those things.
On the environment, Trump is an incrementalist. He’s not proposing on repealing the Clean Air Act or Clean Water Act. But in the 50-60 years since those laws, we have adopted numerous rules and regulations that don’t provide the same level of benefit. In his first term, he was focused on rolling back those regulations.
The Trump GOP has no reflexive opposition to government. Trump won the nomination in 2016 because he abandoned the GOP orthodoxy on free markets and declared there would be no cuts to Medicare or Social Security benefits. https://www.vox.com/2015/8/15/9159117/donald-trump-moderate
Tariffs are government. Border security is government. Police are government. The Trump GOP supports all those things.
On the environment, Trump is an incrementalist. He’s not proposing on repealing the Clean Air Act or Clean Water Act. But in the 50-60 years since those laws, we have adopted numerous rules and regulations that don’t provide the same level of benefit. In his first term, he was focused on rolling back those regulations.
He doesn't need to repeal the Clean Air Act when his EPA conveniently changes how they interpret it. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/epa-clean-air-policy-trump-admi...
Sure he does. You can only tweak around the edges of a law by changing interpretations like that, especially after Loper Bright. That is all he’s trying to do on the environmental front, mostly repealing g regulations the Obama administration adopted in its last year.
This is not a president that’s afraid of blowing things up. If he wanted to defund the EPA he would.
This is not a president that’s afraid of blowing things up. If he wanted to defund the EPA he would.
Just like Obama didn't need to add to the Clean Water Act, just conveniently change how they interpreted "Navigable Waters"
You don’t understand why people changed the subject rather than address an incurious question — and immediately resort to calling them “snowflakes” for doing so?
I think you’re answering your own question about why people don’t engage in discussions with you.
I think you’re answering your own question about why people don’t engage in discussions with you.
But I’m not the one who posed the question originally so your observation about me being unworthy of discussing things with isn’t pertinent. It’s easy to miss that I’m not the OP so if you did think I was OP then I understand your point.
Also I didn’t call anyone a snowflake. I said the response was a snowflake reaction. I used that term deliberately since it was in fashion for some time for conservatives to use it.
Lastly, it’s a bad look for you to engage with me while pointing out why people don’t engage with me. I think it would be better to just move on and ignore what I said.
Also I didn’t call anyone a snowflake. I said the response was a snowflake reaction. I used that term deliberately since it was in fashion for some time for conservatives to use it.
Lastly, it’s a bad look for you to engage with me while pointing out why people don’t engage with me. I think it would be better to just move on and ignore what I said.
My language was anything but extreme. I would make the case based on your response that you would jump to some assumptions:
> You don’t consider the two obvious answers, in that they see it differently or they have higher priorities, and are using extreme language.
Rather than asking the question. It's deeply curious how making assumptions instead of asking questions is called out as incurious. If you were motivated to inquire, how would you approach it?
> You don’t consider the two obvious answers, in that they see it differently or they have higher priorities, and are using extreme language.
Rather than asking the question. It's deeply curious how making assumptions instead of asking questions is called out as incurious. If you were motivated to inquire, how would you approach it?
Maybe it's because you're not really asking a question but making an insulting statement intended to ellict exactly this reaction. Even if this sort of "question" was genuine it's predicated on a huge set of assumptions and systems interactions that makes it worthless as a question, but great as a campaign gotcha!
Also, fishing is most definitely not a "sport".
Also, fishing is most definitely not a "sport".
Fishing for non-commercial/sustenance purposes is quite literally referred to as "sport fishing." Perhaps you should save the condescending tone for topics you're more familiar with.
Welcome to the fishing forum flame wars.
Many divisive topics, such as catch and release or eating young fish ("bucket heads"), barbless hooks, etc. Hell, even fly fishermen get into internet slap fights over certain kinds of flies.
Many divisive topics, such as catch and release or eating young fish ("bucket heads"), barbless hooks, etc. Hell, even fly fishermen get into internet slap fights over certain kinds of flies.
One argument which I find profoundly stupid is the "well it doesn't matter what we do, look at China". In reality doing things more cleanly can make a huge difference to your local environment. Do you want to live right next to a coal-fired power plant just because that's what they do in China? Do you want to walk past roads clogged with dirty, polluting cars?
China has outlined plans to reduce their environmental impact in their 5-year plan. One can say "wow do you really trust the CCP?" but at least they have a publicly available plan.
https://en.ndrc.gov.cn/policies/202303/P02023042539857072035...
https://en.ndrc.gov.cn/policies/202303/P02023042539857072035...
That's lying with statistics. They arrived at their conclusion and then cherry picked a metric that supports it.
Per-capita emissions is the only metric that has any meaning, since it isn't altered by historical happenstance as to whether a country is large or was split into multiple countries due to historical events.
If China split into two countries tomorrow, suddenly they would be doing better on this deceitful metric but the ground truth has not changed one bit.
Per-capita emissions is the only metric that has any meaning, since it isn't altered by historical happenstance as to whether a country is large or was split into multiple countries due to historical events.
If China split into two countries tomorrow, suddenly they would be doing better on this deceitful metric but the ground truth has not changed one bit.
Per capita emissions is effected by population, and historical events that influence that capita being measured, like the Covid 19 outbreak.
If you have 100,000 people living in a town emitting 100,000 tons of emissions and 10% of the population died due to happenstance, epidemiological or otherwise so you now have 90,000 people emitting 100,000 tons of emissions and the per capita rate went up despite no change in their production method or the amount of emissions they are producing.
> One argument which I find profoundly stupid is the "well it doesn't matter what we do, look at China".
1. Implement a mechanism domestically to reduce pollution. [1][2]
2. Then implement a "carbon/pollution tariff" on any imports[3] so that foreigners are hit the same way domestics folks are (perhaps with allowances for developing companies that are too poor for advanced pollution control).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economists%27_Statement_on_Car...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.–Canada_Air_Quality_Agreem...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_Carbon_Border_Adjustment_Me...
1. Implement a mechanism domestically to reduce pollution. [1][2]
2. Then implement a "carbon/pollution tariff" on any imports[3] so that foreigners are hit the same way domestics folks are (perhaps with allowances for developing companies that are too poor for advanced pollution control).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economists%27_Statement_on_Car...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.–Canada_Air_Quality_Agreem...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_Carbon_Border_Adjustment_Me...
Trump started calling coal "beautiful clean coal". At this point I think he could convince his followers that the sky is red and no one would bat an eye.
It's really wild. I'm not sure if people have just reached a level of fatigue with the lies -- they say after so many lies peoples brains just shut down discernment of truth.. He leverages this very well.
In absence of truth, its just trolling and abuse. I think for some of the followers, this is what they really want. They have lives devoid of meaning and subjectivity as they are long numb, and so watching someone troll / hurt others (including them at times) helps them feel anything.
In absence of truth, its just trolling and abuse. I think for some of the followers, this is what they really want. They have lives devoid of meaning and subjectivity as they are long numb, and so watching someone troll / hurt others (including them at times) helps them feel anything.
That's my biggest peave wrt climate change...
Why do they keep trying the doomsday messaging?
Its too far into the future, hence irrelevant for most current consumers. And even if they thought it relevant, if you take it at face value: whatever you're doing won't solve the issue anyway, because it's a global issue.
The messaging has to go back to local effects. Literally everything you should do for the climate has a lot of positive effects short term... I e. don't try to outlaw ICE vehicles in cities because of climate... Massively tax them because the they reduce the air quality and cause noise pollution
Why do they keep trying the doomsday messaging?
Its too far into the future, hence irrelevant for most current consumers. And even if they thought it relevant, if you take it at face value: whatever you're doing won't solve the issue anyway, because it's a global issue.
The messaging has to go back to local effects. Literally everything you should do for the climate has a lot of positive effects short term... I e. don't try to outlaw ICE vehicles in cities because of climate... Massively tax them because the they reduce the air quality and cause noise pollution
There are people who would answer yes to both of those questions and then proceed to spout all manner of bullshit about it being harmless.
> projected would, in that year alone, prevent up to 4,500 premature deaths and 800,000 cases of asthma, reaping up to $46 billion in health benefits.
That's the even crazier part - the savings in health benefits. Not sure what it takes to motivate even the most selfish out there.
That's the even crazier part - the savings in health benefits. Not sure what it takes to motivate even the most selfish out there.
I think the crazy part is that the math of 46 billion divided by 804,500 is almost 60k/case.
Maybe this is also highlighting a different problem.
Maybe this is also highlighting a different problem.
Take away the welfare and stop paying taxes. Then there’s no health benefits to spend on.
Pretty sure this is why they are dismantling Medicaid and Medicare now.
It’s all aligned to put us back into 1890s when billionaires ran everything and people lived in tenement housing.
Pretty sure this is why they are dismantling Medicaid and Medicare now.
It’s all aligned to put us back into 1890s when billionaires ran everything and people lived in tenement housing.
The same people that are pushing for increased pollution broadly support banning abortions, cutting down Usaid, and want to ban vaccines.
The evidence points to saving lives is not a priority, or they're just clueless.
The evidence points to saving lives is not a priority, or they're just clueless.
I clicked through to this article about the chairman of the EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee:
https://revealnews.org/article/trumps-air-pollution-adviser-...
Making a career out of making the case for air pollution. I hope the money is worth it. This guy should have to live and raise his kids next to a coal plant.
https://revealnews.org/article/trumps-air-pollution-adviser-...
Making a career out of making the case for air pollution. I hope the money is worth it. This guy should have to live and raise his kids next to a coal plant.
One side effect of the tariffs will be that oil and gas will be more attractive to developers relative to renewables. Oil down in price due to recession, and solar and storage up in price due to tariffs, and added political risks and harder permitting on federal lands.
Last year, the US nearly stopped installing fossil fuels on a net basis thanks to Wright's Law price declines and federal incentives (IRA).
Last year, the US nearly stopped installing fossil fuels on a net basis thanks to Wright's Law price declines and federal incentives (IRA).
This is false. The cost of building is going up because of tariffs. It isn't going to be profitable to build new wells. Wells, right now, are about 30% more expensive to build vs pre-tariffs, but this is likely to keep changing.
Add in that oil is dropping in price to the point where many wells are going to be shut down because it isn't profitable to operate them, and this is going to have the opposite effect. ~$60/barrel seems to be that point right now. We're trading at/around $60 right now.
Oil and Gas are going to become less attractive to investors because of this. Solar and wind are already dirt cheap, tariffs aren't really going to change that THAT much. They'll still be cheaper and a better investment than Oil/Coal/Gas.
Add in that oil is dropping in price to the point where many wells are going to be shut down because it isn't profitable to operate them, and this is going to have the opposite effect. ~$60/barrel seems to be that point right now. We're trading at/around $60 right now.
Oil and Gas are going to become less attractive to investors because of this. Solar and wind are already dirt cheap, tariffs aren't really going to change that THAT much. They'll still be cheaper and a better investment than Oil/Coal/Gas.
I'm not excited for more szewage in the water
https://www.jw.com/news/insights-epa-wastewater-permitting-a...
> “The EPA told businesses last month that they can simply email the agency if they want an exemption from certain pollution regulations…”
I’d like to see the FOIA request results listing those businesses.
I’d like to see the FOIA request results listing those businesses.
what I don't understand is why post-globalization has been equated with deglobalization
Possibly because of the Cold War experience. Also because globalisation is slowing down and we see some reshoreing already.
Can you articulate the difference? This is the first I've heard the term "post-globalization."
Post-globalisation is whatever comes after the globalisation period. It's a chapter of the history books still being written and as such can still take many forms, of which scaling back on globalisation is one.
And what are some of the others that are "moving away from globalization but not scaling back on it?"
Moving past, not moving away. Hyper-globalisation could be an example of post-globalisation as well.
Air quality improvements seem to have leveled off in the second Obama administration, and stayed more or less the same through the first Trump and the Biden administration: https://epa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=c2...
News media ran this exact story back in 2019. E.g. https://abcnews.go.com/US/us-air-quality-declines-years-impr.... This particular article is a gem, because it portrayed a 5.5% increase from 2016-2018 is a regression. There was no follow-up article when air pollution decreased more than 40% the next year. Nor was there an article when pollution spiked 76% from the Trump-administration low during the Biden administration.
News media ran this exact story back in 2019. E.g. https://abcnews.go.com/US/us-air-quality-declines-years-impr.... This particular article is a gem, because it portrayed a 5.5% increase from 2016-2018 is a regression. There was no follow-up article when air pollution decreased more than 40% the next year. Nor was there an article when pollution spiked 76% from the Trump-administration low during the Biden administration.
Air pollution decreased the following year because of COVID and the fact that people were in lockdown and couldn't go anywhere. No one was driving and the number of flights were reduced. There were plenty of stories about how COVID was helping reduce pollution. Here's one as an example: https://www.businessinsider.com/before-after-photos-show-les....
This was huge news in the environmental world. Unfortunately, it wound up being really depressing.
We showed that we could substantially reduce emissions with behavior changes. Then we went right back to business as usual and actually increased emissions.
So, can we do it? Absolutely. Are we going to? Absolutely not.
We showed that we could substantially reduce emissions with behavior changes. Then we went right back to business as usual and actually increased emissions.
So, can we do it? Absolutely. Are we going to? Absolutely not.
No, the following year was 2019. The covid shutdowns were the year after that. Air pollution actually increases from 2019 to 2020.
> This particular article is a gem, because it portrayed a 5.5% increase from 2016-2018 is a regression.
Did you read the article? It prefaces with Trump's false claim and provides proof of his lying.
> There was no follow-up article when air pollution decreased more than 40% the next year.
Perhaps Trump did not repeat that specific lie next year?
> Nor was there an article when pollution spiked 76% from the Trump-administration low during the Biden administration.
I've seen plenty of articles about how air pollution was at record lows during COVID.
Did you read the article? It prefaces with Trump's false claim and provides proof of his lying.
> There was no follow-up article when air pollution decreased more than 40% the next year.
Perhaps Trump did not repeat that specific lie next year?
> Nor was there an article when pollution spiked 76% from the Trump-administration low during the Biden administration.
I've seen plenty of articles about how air pollution was at record lows during COVID.
Imagine being so bad at your job that you write articles about air pollution in reaction to Trump’s statements rather than the actual pollution trends.
And please look carefully at the chart I linked. Air pollution was not at record lows during COVID. The spike happened in 2023, while the economy reopened in 2021.
And please look carefully at the chart I linked. Air pollution was not at record lows during COVID. The spike happened in 2023, while the economy reopened in 2021.
You guys are all talking about a national average number of unhealthy fine particulate pollution days like it's a) the only metric of pollution and b) driven directly and deterministically by just US federal policy. You're also all acting like COVID was just a giant switch that turned on and then off again.
None of this is valid analysis. None of this is meaningful -- this is just a pile of snide bullshitting on the back of a random article.
What about forest fires in the years measured? Hurricane activity? Humidity and wind patterns? What was the data like in Chicago vs Seattle vs Houston, what were the state and municipal policies?
You're just posturing for your team here.
None of this is valid analysis. None of this is meaningful -- this is just a pile of snide bullshitting on the back of a random article.
What about forest fires in the years measured? Hurricane activity? Humidity and wind patterns? What was the data like in Chicago vs Seattle vs Houston, what were the state and municipal policies?
You're just posturing for your team here.
> What about forest fires in the years measured? Hurricane activity? Humidity and wind patterns? What was the data like in Chicago vs Seattle vs Houston, what were the state and municipal policies?
Yeah, exactly! I’m not saying Biden caused air quality to get worse in 2023. That was probably the Canadian forest fires that year. My point is that the reporting on this is bullshit. Lots of outlets ran stories about the 5% increase from 2016 to 2018 in this air quality metric. But then they ignored the much bigger fluctuations that came after.
I’m not saying the opposite happened, my point is that you cant trust the media any farther than you can throw it.
Yeah, exactly! I’m not saying Biden caused air quality to get worse in 2023. That was probably the Canadian forest fires that year. My point is that the reporting on this is bullshit. Lots of outlets ran stories about the 5% increase from 2016 to 2018 in this air quality metric. But then they ignored the much bigger fluctuations that came after.
I’m not saying the opposite happened, my point is that you cant trust the media any farther than you can throw it.
Perhaps somewhat related: in the Canada we have/had a price on carbon to help meet our goals per the Paris Agreement. The goals were negotiated by the Conservative government of PM Stephen Harper, and accepted by a new Liberal government under Trudeau.
A national price on carbon was introduced (money was collected, but then refunded to individual annually/quarterly), but provinces could implement something different if it met the same goals (Quebec and (at first) Ontario went with cap-and-trade). The federal Liberals were attacked for a tax grab (even though monies were refunded, and the SCOC ruled it was not a tax):
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_pricing_in_Canada
Those that attacked the federal Liberals were generally [Cc]onservatives… never mind that folks like Milton Friedman thought putting a price/tax on pollution was a good 'market based' mechanism:
> In 1979, Friedman expressed support for environmental taxes in general in an interview on The Phil Donahue Show, saying "the best way to [deal with pollution] is to impose a tax on the cost of the pollutants emitted by a car and make an incentive for car manufacturers and for consumers to keep down the amount of pollution."[157] In Free to Choose, Friedman reiterated his support for environmental taxes as compared with increased environmental regulation, stating "The preservation of the environment and the avoidance of undue pollution are real problems and they are problems concerning which the government has an important role to play. ... Most economists agree that a far better way to control pollution than the present method of specific regulation and supervision is to introduce market discipline by imposing effluent charges."[158][159]
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman#Governmental_i...
And folks like Alan Greenspan and Paul Volcker recommended something similar for the US:
* https://clcouncil.org/economists-statement/
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economists%27_Statement_on_Car...
Some provincial leaders looked at other options to carbon pricing and found the alternatives would cost more:
* https://nationalpost.com/news/scott-moe-says-saskatchewan-co...
A national price on carbon was introduced (money was collected, but then refunded to individual annually/quarterly), but provinces could implement something different if it met the same goals (Quebec and (at first) Ontario went with cap-and-trade). The federal Liberals were attacked for a tax grab (even though monies were refunded, and the SCOC ruled it was not a tax):
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_pricing_in_Canada
Those that attacked the federal Liberals were generally [Cc]onservatives… never mind that folks like Milton Friedman thought putting a price/tax on pollution was a good 'market based' mechanism:
> In 1979, Friedman expressed support for environmental taxes in general in an interview on The Phil Donahue Show, saying "the best way to [deal with pollution] is to impose a tax on the cost of the pollutants emitted by a car and make an incentive for car manufacturers and for consumers to keep down the amount of pollution."[157] In Free to Choose, Friedman reiterated his support for environmental taxes as compared with increased environmental regulation, stating "The preservation of the environment and the avoidance of undue pollution are real problems and they are problems concerning which the government has an important role to play. ... Most economists agree that a far better way to control pollution than the present method of specific regulation and supervision is to introduce market discipline by imposing effluent charges."[158][159]
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman#Governmental_i...
And folks like Alan Greenspan and Paul Volcker recommended something similar for the US:
* https://clcouncil.org/economists-statement/
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economists%27_Statement_on_Car...
Some provincial leaders looked at other options to carbon pricing and found the alternatives would cost more:
* https://nationalpost.com/news/scott-moe-says-saskatchewan-co...
There are some US States that participate in solar credit markets. Basically, utilities are required to purchase some number of solar production credits. Solar energy producers can sell their credits to these utilities.
https://www.srectrade.com/markets/rps/srec/
https://www.srectrade.com/markets/rps/srec/
They tend to be a pretty hardcore MAGA bunch, but also don't like pollution because it messes up their sport. When you ask them about stuff like this (how can you support someone who pretty openly wants to mess up your pastime?), they get mad or change the subject.
I get it - people are complicated and can care about many things at once. Nobody likes it when someone is seemingly poking at their belief systems. Still - you'd think it'd give them some kind of pause.