I've said this before but it's worth repeating. When you portray something that can never be real outside of a massive nuclear weapons event (in other words mankind ruining the planet) there will always be those of us that immediately file your cause under "insane" and you under "lunatic". This is the first area where the "green" movement in general has failed to broaden its appeal outside of the left fringe. Had they approached it from a conservation or clean-air perspective, in other words made it a human-centric and not planet-centric issue, they would have had a broader appeal. I care that my daughter has clean air and places to play. I could care less if there's a pile of garbage floating in the Pacific Ocean. Make it personal and believable and they'd have my attention, otherwise it's pie-in-the-sky nonsense to most people.
The second place the "green" movement has failed to broaden it's appeal is in politics. I understand where anything that requires dealing with government requires moving in political circles, but the wholesale embrace by the "green" movement of Socialism worldwide and the far-left of the Democrat Party at home ruins any chance they could have broad appeal across party lines. There are lots of Conservationists out there that will not embrace the "green" movement because of their anti-American philosophy of collectivism and their complete selling out to the Democrat Party.
The third and final area where the "green" movement has lost it's chance to broaden its appeal is related to the second. They have become Socialists in Conservationists clothing. In other words they have sold themselves out to one side of the political spectrum in order to maintain a "place at the table" and simply been co-opted into become a wing of a political movement, and not a conservation movement. It's plain to most that the so-called "green" movement in America (and most other western nations too) is now nothing more than a wing of the Democrat Party where they park their loonies that hug trees (lots of other organizations on both sides fit this description as well). The only time any lasting change has ever occurred is when something has broad bi-partisan appeal. If cleaning up the planet was the "green" movement's goal, they'll never get there as political servant of the Left.
(This post was last modified: 05-17-2018 11:30 AM by 49RFootballNow.)
(05-17-2018 11:24 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote: I've said this before but it's worth repeating. When you portray something that can never be real outside of a massive nuclear weapons event (in other words mankind ruining the planet) there will always be those of us that immediately file your cause under "insane" and you under "lunatic". This is the first area where the "green" movement in general has failed to broaden its appeal outside of the left fringe. Had they approached it from a conservation or clean-air perspective, in other words made it a human-centric and not planet-centric issue, they would have had a broader appeal. I care that my daughter has clean air and places to play. I could care less if there's a pile of garbage floating in the Pacific Ocean. Make it personal and believable and they'd have my attention, otherwise it's pie-in-the-sky nonsense to most people.
The second place the "green" movement has failed to broaden it's appeal is in politics. I understand where anything that requires dealing with government requires moving in political circles, but the wholesale embrace by the "green" movement of Socialism worldwide and the far-left of the Democrat Party at home ruins any chance they could have broad appeal across party lines. There are lots of Conservationists out there that will not embrace the "green" movement because of their anti-American philosophy of collectivism and their complete selling out to the Democrat Party.
The third and final area where the "green" movement has lost it's chance to broaden its appeal is related to the second. They have become Socialists in Conservationists clothing. In other words they have sold themselves out to one side of the political spectrum in order to maintain a "place at the table" and simply been co-opted into become a wing of a political movement, and not a conservation movement. It's plain to most that the so-called "green" movement in America (and most other western nations too) is now nothing more than a wing of the Democrat Party where they park their loonies that hug trees (lots of other organizations on both sides fit this description as well). The only time any lasting change has ever occurred is when something has broad bi-partisan appeal. If cleaning up the planet was the "green" movement's goal, they'll never get there as political servant of the Left.
And they will never get that. It has to do with an article on the lefts abusing of women. They are stunned because they equated political philosophy with morality. So the Greens view themselves as morally superior and unquestionably right. They look down on the rest.
(05-17-2018 11:24 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote: I've said this before but it's worth repeating. When you portray something that can never be real outside of a massive nuclear weapons event (in other words mankind ruining the planet) there will always be those of us that immediately file your cause under "insane" and you under "lunatic". This is the first area where the "green" movement in general has failed to broaden its appeal outside of the left fringe. Had they approached it from a conservation or clean-air perspective, in other words made it a human-centric and not planet-centric issue, they would have had a broader appeal. I care that my daughter has clean air and places to play. I could care less if there's a pile of garbage floating in the Pacific Ocean. Make it personal and believable and they'd have my attention, otherwise it's pie-in-the-sky nonsense to most people.
The second place the "green" movement has failed to broaden its appeal is in politics. I understand where anything that requires dealing with government requires moving in political circles, but the wholesale embrace by the "green" movement of Socialism worldwide and the far-left of the Democrat Party at home ruins any chance they could have broad appeal across party lines. There are lots of Conservationists out there that will not embrace the "green" movement because of their anti-American philosophy of collectivism and their complete selling out to the Democrat Party.
The third and final area where the "green" movement has lost its chance to broaden its appeal is related to the second. They have become Socialists in Conservationists clothing. In other words they have sold themselves out to one side of the political spectrum in order to maintain a "place at the table" and simply been co-opted into become a wing of a political movement, and not a conservation movement. It's plain to most that the so-called "green" movement in America (and most other western nations too) is now nothing more than a wing of the Democrat Party where they park their loonies that hug trees (lots of other organizations on both sides fit this description as well). The only time any lasting change has ever occurred is when something has broad bi-partisan appeal. If cleaning up the planet was the "green" movement's goal, they'll never get there as political servant of the Left.
I care about that pile of garbage in the Pacific, but otherwise we agree.
But I think it's kind of a two-way street. Conservatives have been too quick to dismiss legitimate green concerns rater than approaching things from the conservation and people-centered perspective that you suggest. I think the right could break into the left's stranglehold on the environmental movement by offering free-market conservation solutions, of which there are many. After all if it is not conservative to conserve, then the English language may need some adjusting.
Couple of examples come to mind. Texas is hardly a bastion of tree-huggers. Yet one, we get up to 1/3 of our electricity from wind on a windy day in west Texas (which as more than a few). Why? Because we deregulated electricity which removed many of the economic disincentives for green energy that are inherent in the traditional cost-plus-return-on-investment regulatory pricing model. And two, one of the greatest success stories to date in restoring an endangered species is the whooping cranes at Aransas. And those are environmental success stories without EPA involvement.
(This post was last modified: 05-17-2018 01:20 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
(05-17-2018 11:24 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote: I've said this before but it's worth repeating. When you portray something that can never be real outside of a massive nuclear weapons event (in other words mankind ruining the planet) there will always be those of us that immediately file your cause under "insane" and you under "lunatic". This is the first area where the "green" movement in general has failed to broaden its appeal outside of the left fringe. Had they approached it from a conservation or clean-air perspective, in other words made it a human-centric and not planet-centric issue, they would have had a broader appeal. I care that my daughter has clean air and places to play. I could care less if there's a pile of garbage floating in the Pacific Ocean. Make it personal and believable and they'd have my attention, otherwise it's pie-in-the-sky nonsense to most people.
The second place the "green" movement has failed to broaden its appeal is in politics. I understand where anything that requires dealing with government requires moving in political circles, but the wholesale embrace by the "green" movement of Socialism worldwide and the far-left of the Democrat Party at home ruins any chance they could have broad appeal across party lines. There are lots of Conservationists out there that will not embrace the "green" movement because of their anti-American philosophy of collectivism and their complete selling out to the Democrat Party.
The third and final area where the "green" movement has lost its chance to broaden its appeal is related to the second. They have become Socialists in Conservationists clothing. In other words they have sold themselves out to one side of the political spectrum in order to maintain a "place at the table" and simply been co-opted into become a wing of a political movement, and not a conservation movement. It's plain to most that the so-called "green" movement in America (and most other western nations too) is now nothing more than a wing of the Democrat Party where they park their loonies that hug trees (lots of other organizations on both sides fit this description as well). The only time any lasting change has ever occurred is when something has broad bi-partisan appeal. If cleaning up the planet was the "green" movement's goal, they'll never get there as political servant of the Left.
I care about that pile of garbage in the Pacific, but otherwise we agree.
But I think it's kind of a two-way street. Conservatives have been too quick to dismiss legitimate green concerns rater than approaching things from the conservation and people-centered perspective that you suggest. I think the right could break into the left's stranglehold on the environmental movement by offering free-market conservation solutions, of which there are many. After all if it is not conservative to conserve, then the English language may need some adjusting.
Couple of examples come to mind. Texas is hardly a bastion of tree-huggers. Yet one, we get up to 1/3 of our electricity from wind on a windy day in west Texas (which as more than a few). Why? Because we deregulated electricity which removed many of the economic disincentives for green energy that are inherent in the traditional cost-plus-return-on-investment regulatory pricing model. And two, one of the greatest success stories to date in restoring an endangered species is the whooping cranes at Aransas. And those are environmental success stories without EPA involvement.
I get what you are saying about trying to appeal to environmentalists, however, that is such a small community that trying to appeal to them to switch sides, which would be a massive undertaking considering it's a parking area for radical leftists and not really an environmental movement, would be a waste of effort for conservatives.
Instead, conservatives should just support capitalist based solutions to environmental issues as you suggest and let the results speak for themselves. I don't think this will bring any card-carrying "greenies" to the GOP, but it would undercut them and their Democrat masters on the issue.
(05-17-2018 01:27 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote: I get what you are saying about trying to appeal to environmentalists, however, that is such a small community that trying to appeal to them to switch sides, which would be a massive undertaking considering it's a parking area for radical leftists and not really an environmental movement, would be a waste of effort for conservatives.
Instead, conservatives should just support capitalist based solutions to environmental issues as you suggest and let the results speak for themselves. I don't think this will bring any card-carrying "greenies" to the GOP, but it would undercut them and their Democrat masters on the issue.
Undercutting them and their democrat masters on the issue would be a valuable political achievement. More importantly, replacing bureaucratic command-and-control directives that don't work with free-market incentives that do work would do invaluable good for our people, our economy, and our planet.
One of the more effective tools for revitalizing endangered species lies in finding ways to capitalize them. These hunting ranches that breed endangered species and permit limited hunting have produced some significant increase in numbers while becoming commercially viable. I think that model could work in a lot of places.
I'm fvcking tired of the imperial outrage from our self-described moral superiors. They continue to complain that the proles keep using plastic bags like they’ve been told not to, that we don't take the trains to a non-profit jobs fighting racism, that we live in the sprawling suburbs instead of city crack stacks, that we don't bicycle in the middle of winter, that we enjoy a McDonalds here and there, that we are white, that we own guns, that we this, that we that, that we this that we that...... “Why, how DARE those nobodies move out of our centrally-planned rabbit-hutch of a city! Don’t they know it’s simply better to live in high-density urban environments and use cloth bags to shop for organic foods at the farmer's market that support marginalized minority farmers?"
Screw you.
I just want to know one thing: if you (whomever you are) are so concerned about plastic, so concerned about the planet, so concerned about global warming just what, specifically, are you doing to alleviate the concern?
Because a new edition of a paper based magazine or posting on a message board from a plastics based computer powered by most likely a non-renewable energy source is not a good first step. It's so damn maddening to be harped at incessantly by the very people who are part of the problem as well, and often bigger part of the problem than I ever would be in 1,000 lifetimes. Nat Geo pollutes a million times more than I do a year.
Nat Geo, stop printing magazines - they are wasteful and litter landfills. Go online only, go 100% carbon neutral, and move away from all non-renewable sources of reporting, editing and administration. Nat Geo, be the change you want to see.
Be the change you demand of others.
Stop posting.
No more magazines.
Start doing.
(05-17-2018 06:32 AM)stinkfist Wrote: jfc, here we go again....
disclaimer: I hardly condone littering....
the planet will be just fine regardless how humans treat it....
it's the humans that need to worry about long term survival....
That's exactly what he's talking about. The earth will most certainly purge the offending species and exist for billions and billions of years after we're gone.
(05-17-2018 06:32 AM)stinkfist Wrote: jfc, here we go again....
disclaimer: I hardly condone littering....
the planet will be just fine regardless how humans treat it....
it's the humans that need to worry about long term survival....
That's exactly what he's talking about. The earth will most certainly purge the offending species and exist for billions and billions of years after we're gone.
Get back to me on that when there's 100 billion of us. We are no where near "critical mass".
(05-17-2018 06:32 AM)stinkfist Wrote: jfc, here we go again....
disclaimer: I hardly condone littering....
the planet will be just fine regardless how humans treat it....
it's the humans that need to worry about long term survival....
That's exactly what he's talking about. The earth will most certainly purge the offending species and exist for billions and billions of years after we're gone.
Get back to me on that when there's 100 billion of us. We are no where near "critical mass".
NASA's new administrator (Jim Bridenstine) is now a believer apparently. Earlier today, he told NASA workers the following.
"I don’t deny the consensus, I believe fully in climate change and that we human beings are contributing to it in a major way.” He said that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and “we are putting it into the atmosphere in volumes we haven’t seen before. We are responsible for it.”
I don't get the anger. It's a pretty clever cover, and pretty much everyone here does agree the oceans are a mess. And by the way, National Geographic's magazines are like 1/2 the size they used to be (and while I haven't checked their circulation numbers, I suspect their subscriber amounts is maybe 1/10 of what it used to be?)
(05-17-2018 05:28 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: NASA's new administrator (Jim Bridenstine) is now a believer apparently. Earlier today, he told NASA workers the following.
Quote:means nothing
"I don’t deny the consensus, I believe fully in climate change and that we human beings are contributing to it in a major way.” He said that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and “we are putting it into the atmosphere in volumes we haven’t seen before. We are responsible for it.”
Quote:rah rah rah bs
I don't get the anger. It's a pretty clever cover, and pretty much everyone here does agree the oceans are a mess.
Quote:who's angry??? do you have a solution that's fiscally and fundamentally relevant??? maybe start a gofundme via a think tank festival if it's that disconcerting??? tell me how it matters to the masses.....I'm all ears....most people don't even give a thought to the issue.....good luck changing "most people"
and by the way, National Geographic's magazines are like 1/2 the size they used to be (and while I haven't checked their circulation numbers, I suspect their subscriber amounts is maybe 1/10 of what it used to be?)
Quote:why is that??? hmmmmmmmmmmm......maybe b/c most people don't buy mags anymore......same thing has happened to all printed publications....by the time it's published, it's old hat
edit: I screwed up the line item responses.....fixed
(This post was last modified: 05-17-2018 09:25 PM by stinkfist.)
(05-17-2018 02:45 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote: I'm fvcking tired of the imperial outrage from our self-described moral superiors. They continue to complain that the proles keep using plastic bags like they’ve been told not to, that we don't take the trains to a non-profit jobs fighting racism, that we live in the sprawling suburbs instead of city crack stacks, that we don't bicycle in the middle of winter, that we enjoy a McDonalds here and there, that we are white, that we own guns, that we this, that we that, that we this that we that...... “Why, how DARE those nobodies move out of our centrally-planned rabbit-hutch of a city! Don’t they know it’s simply better to live in high-density urban environments and use cloth bags to shop for organic foods at the farmer's market that support marginalized minority farmers?"
Screw you.
I just want to know one thing: if you (whomever you are) are so concerned about plastic, so concerned about the planet, so concerned about global warming just what, specifically, are you doing to alleviate the concern?
Because a new edition of a paper based magazine or posting on a message board from a plastics based computer powered by most likely a non-renewable energy source is not a good first step. It's so damn maddening to be harped at incessantly by the very people who are part of the problem as well, and often bigger part of the problem than I ever would be in 1,000 lifetimes. Nat Geo pollutes a million times more than I do a year.
Nat Geo, stop printing magazines - they are wasteful and litter landfills. Go online only, go 100% carbon neutral, and move away from all non-renewable sources of reporting, editing and administration. Nat Geo, be the change you want to see.
Be the change you demand of others.
Stop posting.
No more magazines.
Start doing.
They sit there telling you that on their plastic smart phone in their nylon jogging suit after getting out of their Tesla made of plastic and powered by electricity from coal or natural gas.
(05-17-2018 02:45 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote: I'm fvcking tired of the imperial outrage from our self-described moral superiors. They continue to complain that the proles keep using plastic bags like they’ve been told not to, that we don't take the trains to a non-profit jobs fighting racism, that we live in the sprawling suburbs instead of city crack stacks, that we don't bicycle in the middle of winter, that we enjoy a McDonalds here and there, that we are white, that we own guns, that we this, that we that, that we this that we that...... “Why, how DARE those nobodies move out of our centrally-planned rabbit-hutch of a city! Don’t they know it’s simply better to live in high-density urban environments and use cloth bags to shop for organic foods at the farmer's market that support marginalized minority farmers?"
Screw you.
I just want to know one thing: if you (whomever you are) are so concerned about plastic, so concerned about the planet, so concerned about global warming just what, specifically, are you doing to alleviate the concern?
Because a new edition of a paper based magazine or posting on a message board from a plastics based computer powered by most likely a non-renewable energy source is not a good first step. It's so damn maddening to be harped at incessantly by the very people who are part of the problem as well, and often bigger part of the problem than I ever would be in 1,000 lifetimes. Nat Geo pollutes a million times more than I do a year.
Nat Geo, stop printing magazines - they are wasteful and litter landfills. Go online only, go 100% carbon neutral, and move away from all non-renewable sources of reporting, editing and administration. Nat Geo, be the change you want to see.
Be the change you demand of others.
Stop posting.
No more magazines.
Start doing.
They sit there telling you that on their plastic smart phone in their nylon jogging suit after getting out of their Tesla made of plastic and powered by electricity from coal or natural gas.
Word to ya' momma.
(wanted the whole episode, but short clips will have to suffice)
![[Image: 8GNJQzqz_npA60r5UjprWgWgXC_UyWOtOgUG1qb2...c34dd0be54]](https://i.redditmedia.com/8GNJQzqz_npA60r5UjprWgWgXC_UyWOtOgUG1qb2rl8.jpg?s=e0064880e405194d91b137c34dd0be54)
