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?

  • Solar Bear
    link
    fedilink
    English
    31 year ago

    You absolutely, 100% can be an a good advocate for corporate and collective responsibility without having good personal behaviors and we NEED the people who behave exactly like this if we want the planet to have a future.

    If they can’t handle it now at least in some degree, then I don’t see how they’ll be able to handle it in a much worse degree after we make these large reforms and changes. My fear is that these people will turn away from us as soon as things get too hard and run into the arms of the first strongman who tells them they’ll make it all better.

    I also do not see it as gatekeeping to ask people to do better. Nobody is saying they can’t vote with us. We’re just asking them to not wait until forced to make at least some changes.

    • Spzi
      link
      fedilink
      11 year ago

      I heard the position many times: Some people would like to use better options, but won’t, as long as it’s just more expensive and less convenient for them. If it was the general rule, they’d be fine with it. They don’t want to feel disadvantaged.

      • Solar Bear
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 year ago

        That is a terrible ethos and one that I struggle to imagine being truly compatible with any form of leftism. Yes, unethical behavior typically grants a personal advantage over ethical, but society suffers as a whole because of it; that’s ultimately the core criticism of capitalist society that all leftist ideology centers on. I would find it hard to trust anybody who lives their life that way. I would have constant doubts that they would have my back during tough times. After all, it may be disadvantagous to them, and they don’t want to feel disadvantaged.

        • admiralteal
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          And here’s the leftist purity tests coming out. Nothing hurts these causes worse than attitudes like this.

          The idea that someone might advocate for a society that makes it easier for everyone (themselves included) to make the right choices is not some absurd, extreme, selfish position. It’s a totally normal, mundane perspective. And here you are rejecting anyone who doesn’t maintain your highest standard of moral virtue from your cause.

          • Solar Bear
            link
            fedilink
            English
            21 year ago

            The attitude of “please try to do the best you can, even when it’s hard” is an example of unreasonable purity testing? I don’t think we’re having the same conversation.