Most of the time when people say they have an unpopular opinion, it turns out it’s actually pretty popular.
Do you have some that’s really unpopular and most likely will get you downvoted?
Most of the time when people say they have an unpopular opinion, it turns out it’s actually pretty popular.
Do you have some that’s really unpopular and most likely will get you downvoted?
The amount they can reduce it by is “all”. Claims of any less is simply making excuses for bad behavior.
???
How on earth do people go to work if they don’t drive
I walk from my bedroom to my office.
That’s cool and all but I’m an industrial electrician. I have to drive to the shop every day, and travel all over the country. Can’t exactly just walk over to a coal mine in bumfuck nowhere Kentucky
Just use the bus, duh.
Can’t tell if this is sarcasm but just to put my city’s transit into context, it’d be a 2 hour bus ride to get to the shop via bus from my house. And that’s:
12 minute walk -> ride a bus -> 6 minute walk -> transfer and take a different bus -> 14 minute walk
Or a 22 minute drive
It was sarcasm.
But you could ride a bike! Which is really fun! In the winter, when there is heavy snow, or even on rainy summer days.
I don’t get that some people just don’t understand that it’s sometimes just really inconvenient to not use a car, at least for some people. Please let them use cars without blaming them for doing so…? 🥺
Walk, bike, scooter, train, tram, metro, trolley, bus. Plenty of countries can swing public transportation and plenty of people don’t need to drive but still choose to.
Edit: It occurs to me now this person may have been sarcastic.
I drive among 12 different locations for work. Can’t really give up the car.
What shitty job requires that?!
It’s good. I drive from school to school seeing kids with disabilities.
It’s dishonest to pick the work that specifically requires driving to complain about driving.
So it’s their fault your argument didn’t work as expected because their job requires driving?
It’s not really that simple and a lot of these things are out of people’s control. People who eat more meat than they need to just because they can are the ones who should be changing their behaviour. Not the people who have a constrained diet due to circumstances like poverty or medical conditions. But even then we should be targeting large scale polluters rather than just focusing on individual behaviour change.
This 1000%. The campains to put the responsability of recycling and not polluting in the common citizen, given the immensely greater damage companies do, is just a trick to distract, create guilt and not work actively to visibilize the main culprits.
I think the taking point you’re sharing is actually the one pushed by corporations to curtail social movements that could end them.
I always hear people talk about how ten companies are responsible for 90% of plastic use, one of those is Coca-Cola who create billions of tons of plastic bottles which the CEO swims in like Scrooge McDuck… oh no, they put drinks in them and everyone that’s too lazy to carry a water bottle buys them, drinks the liquid then maybe puts the bottle in the trash, many just throw them on the ground.
You know what happened when we all stopped renting videos? Blockbuster died, also all those VHS cassette stopped being made… Try and imagine how it would look in the coke corporate office if everyone decided they weren’t going to buy drinks in plastic bottles. How long would it take for them to turn off the machines when all the outlets cancel their restock orders? How long could they sit paying rent on factories sitting idle and stacked with unsold product?
Of course we need policy and regulation but ignoring our responsibility to make personal choices only benefits the corrupt and damaging corporations, we could crush them so easily but instead of trying it’s now popular to pretend our choices don’t matter
We couldn’t make anything happen, because they bought the legislators and such necessary laws would never pass
Unless you think they could pass mandatory consumption laws, not eating meat would absolutely work. We’re at just 2% vegans, and we’ve got Beyond and a lot of vegan options in soo many places, compared to just 10 years ago. Imagine just 10% vegans.
So tomorrow all politicians decide to do the right thing. Meat (just as one example) suddenly costs 5 times as much, because environmental and animal welfare regulations (ones with teeth, this time). In what universe do you think the population would accept that???
ANY sustainable policy change absolutely REQUIRES the support of the voting population. And that’s a million times easier in a world with even just 10% vegans. Any collective action is comprised of INDIVIDUALS choosing to participate, and do their part.
I agree that not everyone can go 0%, but the vast, vast majority can. Especially if we’re talking about people with access and time to chat on some internet platform, aka everyone reading this.
Not every man can stand up for womens rights either. For example, his sexist boss might constantly make sexist jokes about his coworkers. He needs the job, though. He can’t afford to do the right thing. Do you think, therefore, it’s a good thing to ALWAYS BRING THIS HYPOTHETICAL UP, whenever the topic is that men should stop supporting the patriarchy, feminism is good, etc.? If non-feminists were the ones always bringing up the exceptions, would you believe they actually cared?