Not my OC but what I’ve believed for years: there’s no conflict between reducing your own environmental impact and holding corporations responsible. We hold corps responsible for the environment by creating a societal ethos of environmental responsibility that forces corporations to serve the people’s needs or go bankrupt or be outlawed. And anyone who feels that kind of ethos will reduce their own environmental impact because it’s the right thing to do.
Thoughts?
Aggregate personal decisions make up demand. Corporations produce goods to meet those demands. While we have to hold corporations responsible, since they’re absolutely the lions share of the problem, we also have to do what we’re capable of on our end by being responsible consumers.
It sure is working. You’re here advocating against me suggesting people put their money where their mouth is. You’re doing exactly what those corporations hope for by arguing against people who impact their bottom line.
This is exactly what I’m what I’m suggesting as well.
What a strange interpretation of my comment. You’re also advocating for a level of personal responsibility in your own comment.
You have it so frustratingly, exactly, totally, and entirely backwards that I am not sure I should even reply. You’re projecting onto me and that sucks for me.
I’m here advocating for change and reform in any way we can get it, but also reminding everyone that we need to focus on the actions that will ACTUALLY stand a chance of fixing problems: top-level reform through collective, political action.
You’re saying people who can’t “put their money where their mouth is” cannot be considered part of the movement even if they are advocating for change and reform outside of their personal lives. That will drive them away and make the top-level collective political action we need that much harder.
At this point it just seems you’re intentionally misrepresenting my position. I’m saying people who CAN put their money where their mouth is need to do so.
Not what you said. Flat out. What you said was:
Either this is a tautology – you define anyone who advocates for corporate responsibility as having some level of personal responsibility – or else it’s bullshit. If someone has a consumerist, wasteful lifestyle but also is a powerful advocate for change, then that is what they are. A powerful advocate for change, even knowing that change may one day force them to change their own lifestyle.
It’s like saying a smoker cannot campaign against cigarettes. It’s a load of crap. It comes from a place of wanting to place blame more than wanting to fix problems.
I mean verbatim my statement was probably a bit unclear because I didn’t want try to define some level that would make someone be a potential good advocate. If you really want to nitpick, it is a tautology as written. Everyone has some level of personal responsibility. I probably could have worded it better.
The point I was trying to convey was that the more personally responsible an advocate is, the better an advocate they can be.
Nonexistent? Show me some examples. All of the good advocates I’m aware of also make changes on a personal level that are in accordance with their views.
Every time there’s a giant environmental summit, the airways will get packed with stories about its carbon footprint. A bunch of smug fuckers on Fox News saying “oh ho ho all these people had to FLY there to talk about trying to save the planet they’re such hypocrites GOTCHA”.
That’s all I can really say to this. The idea that we should in any way dismiss or reject an advocate just because they aren’t personally holding up to whatever standard you want to hold them up to… I mean sure, I guess if I found out Bernie Sanders spends his weekends in his lifted truck rolling coal it would change my perspective of him, but most people are just living their lives and trying to avoid unnecessary friction. We aren’t going to solve problems by being super judgemental and telling them they suck as people, but we can probably persuade them to vote for the people and things that WILL solve problems so long as we meet them where they are.
I don’t know, I think to some degree I agree with their gotcha. Of course their alternative of “why even do anything?” is very different from mine: Why, in the age of the internet does this meeting even need to be in person? Host a virtual event. Now maybe it comes out that the logistics of that would be even worse, but it seems like a reasonable consideration.
In any case, if we do accept that it is in fact necessary, then that should be sufficient justification.
No, I’m suggesting that people need to be more willing to examine their own actions and do what they think they are capable of. I don’t know their circumstances, so only they can be a judge of what they are capable of. But to say that they don’t have to make any changes because they hypothetically support a policy that would restrict their own actions is disingenuous at best.