blady_blah @ blady_blah @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

269

Joined

2 yr. ago

It's not that this is an unpopular opinion, but rather that it's a dumb opinion. You're defining things one way and someone else can define them a different way. You can both define what an environmentalist is differently and that will affect the result of your question. If you're insisting that you own the definition of an "environmentalist" then you're being dumb.

In fact, I agree with the unstated premise of your statement. I think the risks of nuclear waste and a nuclear meltdown are much less than the risks of global warming and therefore nuclear power is good for the environment. However it is also a perfectly valid opinion that we should just reduce our energy usage and reduce global warming in that manner. I think it's unrealistic, but it's possible if we had the desire to do that as a collective. It is a valid opinion to be on that side of the fence. I think it's the less pragmatic approach, but I've known many people who are hippy environmentalists and it's still a valid position.

The reality is that even if they're pretty in shape, they wear enough gear and body armor that running in that stuff is going to be quite a workout. If you and the cop are equal runners with no gear, you're going to beat him by a mile when he has his gear on.

The hardest jobs I've ever worked were the ones that paid the worst. As I've gone through my career, I keep getting paid more and the work gets easier. Now "easier" is really "easier for me" because I have the skill and experience I didn't have in the past, but there is no real correlation between getting paid the most and working the hardest across job functions. That's a nice lie so people making less money can explain why those other people are making sooo much more than they are, and those that are making more money can feel good about themselves.

I guess I've been lucky enough to work at companies where the CEO worked hard and provided significant benefit to the company. Of course, working hard for a CEO is different than for people lower. Going to dinner with customers, schmoozing with other CEOs, and getting updates from managers, etc. are all important CEO tasks. In every company I've worked at in the past 25 years, the CEO puts in more than 40 hours a week, but that 40 hours may be travel or going to nice dinners, etc. I've also seen them provide good leadership, good direction, and have been relatively good people. "Relatively good". Maybe I've just been lucky.

So you only heard about climate change when celebs like Taylor Swift started promoting it? The writing has been on the wall for decades (from scientists) and we've been hearing about it for that amount of time. If you think that the only reason you know about it is from celebs then apparently they were needed in order to reach you.

More people than billionaires are telling you there's a climate issue. Scientists are, normal people are, etc. It's the biggest environmental issue of our lifetimes. And there are some celebrities that are also trying to use their popularity to promote the message to get the government to create a set of rules that will actually impact out much CO2 we're putting into our atmosphere. The right-wing talking heads have found that it's really effective to point at them and say "LOOK! They have big houses! They fly around in private jets! They use more resources that 100 of you normal folks, therefore we shouldn't do anything."

The reality is that they're using more resources than 100 of us normal folks, but there are 100k of us normal folks to each of them so we make a much more significant impact on the climate than they do. And yes, lets make the laws affect them also. But the "they're flying around in jets" talking point is lame. They're going to be flying around in jets no matter what. They're going to have big houses no matter what. So lets make them have lots of solar panels on their big houses or make flying around in private jets more expensive. That's just a reason to make the laws affect them also, it's NOT a reason to do nothing and let the world burn.

The thing is billionaires will always use more resources than you. They will have more stuff. It'll have more houses. They will have boats, private planes, huge mansions, and more money than they know what to do with. They will always use more resources than you. If your whole statement is we shouldn't try to solve global warming because some people are rich, and we're doomed to all die. And by the way, The billionaires will have a nice air-conditioned bunker while the rest of us die.

I'm all for trying to solve wealth inequality, but it shouldn't get in the way of solving a major environmental disaster.

The idea that if you're still living at home that your parents are still taking care of you. That they still make your food, do you laundry, pay your bills, etc. there is also a stereotype that you're emotionally stunted since you haven't moved out and had to take care of yourself. This is often summarized in the neck beard living in his parents basement meme.

I'm not saying this is true, but that's the idea.

I don't want Texas to secede, they would be a shitty ass neighbor.

Spoken like someone who doesn't understand tax brackets or math.

This only matters if you're making more than your peers. Most of my friends had engineering degrees coming out of college so we weren't massively different in compensation. I'm pretty open amongst them, but I wouldn't tell anyone how much I make it i thought it was more than 10-20% different than them.

Your comment makes no sense. Try replying to what I wrote please.

I don't think it's good to have such wealth inequality, but I do this general investment into the stock market should be encouraged.

401ks are so much better than pensions as a retirement vehicle. Better return on investment and more financial separation from the company I work for. I never worry about someone raiding the pension fund or a company going bankrupt, and I've received much better return on investments than the numbers you hear from pension funds! That's not even considering 401k matching......

I get what you're saying, but imagine for a second that Trump managed to convince two states legislators to send in R electoral college votes and throw out the democratic election. Imagine how pissed you'd be. It's not that hard to imagine liberals storming the capital because of a stolen election.

I don't find the reverse scenario to be that far fetched. I get their misplaced anger. They were sold lies and those lies are enraging if you believe them. I don't think it's that hard to see the other side's viewpoint.

0. Going to collage and experiencing the wide gamut of experiences there.
1. Meeting my wife and her saying yes to going on a date with me my last year of college.
2. Living in a foreign country (Japan) for 3 years for work with my wife and having 2 kids while I was there.
3. Having kids (3 in total)
4. Designing and building our own house.

The US only has a positive birth rate because of immigration. It probably won't be that long before we in the US follow Japan's example and offer incentives for people to be parents. After all, if the R's are feeling more that the "immigration is poisoning the blood of our nation and D's are in favor of helping young people have kids, everything is in alignment for that to work.

But you don't understand. Billionaires earn their money. They're superior to us. They make that much because they're just much better people than the rest of us. If you stood next to Musk you would notice the heat radiating from his head as his massive Iron-Man like intellect dwarfs your puny brain. You should be in awe of his superiority and beg to have his children (even if you're a guy). Clearly they should be rewarded for all their helping society and their taxes should be LOWERED, not increased.

The REAL billionaire problem is that we don't have enough of them!

Yeah, I call bullshit on this. Not washing under your foreskin is how you get an infection, not washing there too much.

"I disagree with the idea that workers should have a voice about working conditions or a share of the earnings. Tesla is mine and I can treat the employees like shit if I want to!"

It stokes his ego. People have to listen to him and he can promote his own voice far beyond what it's worth.

Why do you think he regrets buying Twitter? He thinks he's saving the world from leftist propaganda. He will never be poor. It would hurt to lose 40B, but not that much. Only his ego would feel it.