Political Memes

5602 readers

272 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civil

Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformation

Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memes

Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotion

Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

334

shockedpikachu.jpg (mander.xyz)

submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

26 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That's just not what they are incentivized to do on their own. Consumers can sometimes influence those incentives, but there is not always enough market choice to put that kind of pressure on corporate behavior.

So why doesn't the same apply to governments? If the alternatives aren't there we can't vote for them.

If everyone refused to pay their gas bill. BP would collapse in a week. But of course there'd never be such action because people don't care it's all just virtue signalling.

Apparently we're supposed to be in a 'climate emergency' that represents an 'existential threat' to humanity, and the best humanity can muster as a response is a very strong leafleting campaign.

If it's really an actual threat to the survival of humanity then just storm BP headquarters and threaten to burn the place down if they don't stop funding new oil. No one will, might break a nail.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Partly because half of the people don't believe it's an existential that needs addressed and most of the other half are either morally opposed to such political action or feel like it can be managed without resorting to it just yet.

But really, ultimately, it's not the fossil fuels companies creating the demand, it's the lack of alternatives. So burning those companies to the ground doesn't do anything to the demand for their product except skyrocket it. Viable alternatives need to be created, which is slower, more boring, and vitally important work, as are the majority of the most important functions of society. Monetarily incentivizing their creation is our primary need, if it is to be done by a private enterprise.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago

half of the people don't believe it's an existential that needs addressed and most of the other half are either morally opposed to such political action or feel like it can be managed without resorting to it just yet.

Yeah, pretty much my point. Hardly an 'existential crisis'. Screaming about the end of civilisation and then starting a leafleting campaign to prevent it is pretty much textbook virtue signalling - the 'signal' is out of proportion to the act.

burning those companies to the ground doesn't do anything to the demand for their product

I can guarantee it would cause more discussion in the (ashes of the) boardroom than a strongly worded letter to The Times. And we don't have to worry about demand. Just refuse to pay them for it until they provide a better alternative.

Monetarily incentivizing their creation is our primary need

Why 'monetary'?. Why not violence? Civil disobedience? Strike action? Rude gestures? Not inviting them to your dinner party?

Why does the incentive have to be money? Isn't that pretty much what got us into this mess?