Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 729

moviefreakedmind said:

Even if they are more likely to behave in eco-friendly ways, it doesn’t matter. It’s like a business owner in the 1960s saying “I would never segregate my customers based on race, but I don’t believe we have a civil rights issue in this country and no action should be taken about it and I’ll vote for politicians that oppose civil rights legislation.” They’re still wrong.

It is wrong for someone to act like a racist in their own life, even more racist than those opposing policy actions, and yet clamor for change by society at large. That appears a pretty clear example of hypocrisy. Whether AGW is real, has all the characteristics you think it has, and requires the policy solutions you think it requires, is a separate and complex debate.

But NeverarGreat offers an interesting alternative explanation (although I don’t think it is about moral licensing). I think more study is needed to test that theory and the moral licensing idea. Another thing that struck me is that the skeptics reported taking public transportation more. In my experience, people take public transportation when it is (1) readily available, as in urban areas and (2) for economic reasons. At least for that issue, I think feelings of guilt would be attenuated. I take public transportation all the time and it has nothing to do with virtue. I hate the idea of sitting in traffic and paying for parking every day. The train is faster and cheaper. On the other hand I loathe buses but those who don’t own a car and need to get around to places where trains don’t run don’t have a choice. While views on the environment can have an impact, public transportation use is based heavily on these very different sets of factors. Being eco-friendly is costly and I wouldn’t be surprised to find a simple divide on that basis.

My theory is that a great many people who claim to believe in AGW, don’t really. They know it’s what one is supposed to believe and so they say so. I would liken it to those who claim to believe in a set of religious beliefs and yet that belief is superficial. Similarly I think there are those who sincerely and deeply believe in AGW lumped in with a great many people who merely pay it lip service.

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Even if they are more likely to behave in eco-friendly ways, it doesn’t matter. It’s like a business owner in the 1960s saying “I would never segregate my customers based on race, but I don’t believe we have a civil rights issue in this country and no action should be taken about it and I’ll vote for politicians that oppose civil rights legislation.” They’re still wrong.

It is wrong for someone to act like a racist in their own life, even more racist than those opposing policy actions, and yet clamor for change by society at large. That appears a pretty clear example of hypocrisy. Whether AGW is real, has all the characteristics you think it has, and requires the policy solutions you think it requires, is a separate and complex debate.

But NeverarGreat offers an interesting alternative explanation (although I don’t think it is about moral licensing). I think more study is needed to test that theory and the moral licensing idea. Another thing that struck me is that the skeptics reported taking public transportation more. In my experience, people take public transportation when it is (1) readily available, as in urban areas and (2) for economic reasons. At least for that issue, I think feelings of guilt would be attenuated. I take public transportation all the time and it has nothing to do with virtue. I hate the idea of sitting in traffic and paying for parking every day. The train is faster and cheaper. On the other hand I loathe buses but those who don’t own a car and need to get around to places where trains don’t run don’t have a choice. While views on the environment can have an impact, public transportation use is based heavily on these very different sets of factors. Being eco-friendly is costly and I wouldn’t be surprised to find a simple divide on that basis.

My theory is that a great many people who claim to believe in AGW, don’t really. They know it’s what one is supposed to believe and so they say so. I would liken it to those who claim to believe in a set of religious beliefs and yet that belief is superficial. Similarly I think there are those who sincerely and deeply believe in AGW lumped in with a great many people who merely pay it lip service.

I agree that public transportation would be based more on availability than Climate Change beliefs, which is why I suspect that there isn’t much difference in behavior between those believing in and those skeptical of Climate Change. I suspect that this study really just measures how people view the effectiveness of their behaviors.

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Even if they are more likely to behave in eco-friendly ways, it doesn’t matter. It’s like a business owner in the 1960s saying “I would never segregate my customers based on race, but I don’t believe we have a civil rights issue in this country and no action should be taken about it and I’ll vote for politicians that oppose civil rights legislation.” They’re still wrong.

It is wrong for someone to act like a racist in their own life, even more racist than those opposing policy actions, and yet clamor for change by society at large. That appears a pretty clear example of hypocrisy. Whether AGW is real, has all the characteristics you think it has, and requires the policy solutions you think it requires, is a separate and complex debate.

Honestly, as hypocritical as he may be, the hypothetical racist guy calling for civil rights legislation is better in the long run than the guy that may not be racist at all but opposes civil rights legislation.

DominicCobb said:

New study finds dip shits think they’re better people. Others have more measured opinions.

Therefore, climate change is a hoax.

Indeed, science is overrated.

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Even if they are more likely to behave in eco-friendly ways, it doesn’t matter. It’s like a business owner in the 1960s saying “I would never segregate my customers based on race, but I don’t believe we have a civil rights issue in this country and no action should be taken about it and I’ll vote for politicians that oppose civil rights legislation.” They’re still wrong.

It is wrong for someone to act like a racist in their own life, even more racist than those opposing policy actions, and yet clamor for change by society at large. That appears a pretty clear example of hypocrisy. Whether AGW is real, has all the characteristics you think it has, and requires the policy solutions you think it requires, is a separate and complex debate.

Honestly, as hypocritical as he may be, the hypothetical racist guy calling for civil rights legislation is better in the long run than the guy that may not be racist at all but opposes civil rights legislation.

I disagree. And that’s not to say I oppose civil rights legislation.

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Even if they are more likely to behave in eco-friendly ways, it doesn’t matter. It’s like a business owner in the 1960s saying “I would never segregate my customers based on race, but I don’t believe we have a civil rights issue in this country and no action should be taken about it and I’ll vote for politicians that oppose civil rights legislation.” They’re still wrong.

It is wrong for someone to act like a racist in their own life, even more racist than those opposing policy actions, and yet clamor for change by society at large. That appears a pretty clear example of hypocrisy. Whether AGW is real, has all the characteristics you think it has, and requires the policy solutions you think it requires, is a separate and complex debate.

Honestly, as hypocritical as he may be, the hypothetical racist guy calling for civil rights legislation is better in the long run than the guy that may not be racist at all but opposes civil rights legislation.

I disagree. And that’s not to say I oppose civil rights legislation.

I don’t see how you could disagree with that, especially seeing as how my example was focusing on civil rights in the 1960s, meaning the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. If a racist supports those, then he’s less damaging to our society in the long run then the kindhearted soul who opposes them.

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Even if they are more likely to behave in eco-friendly ways, it doesn’t matter. It’s like a business owner in the 1960s saying “I would never segregate my customers based on race, but I don’t believe we have a civil rights issue in this country and no action should be taken about it and I’ll vote for politicians that oppose civil rights legislation.” They’re still wrong.

It is wrong for someone to act like a racist in their own life, even more racist than those opposing policy actions, and yet clamor for change by society at large. That appears a pretty clear example of hypocrisy. Whether AGW is real, has all the characteristics you think it has, and requires the policy solutions you think it requires, is a separate and complex debate.

Honestly, as hypocritical as he may be, the hypothetical racist guy calling for civil rights legislation is better in the long run than the guy that may not be racist at all but opposes civil rights legislation.

mfm, racism doesn’t exist anymore (excepting statisticians). Haven’t you heard?

I haven’t heard that, but that’s probably because I tend to avoid exposing myself to the political musings of other people.

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

New study finds dip shits think they’re better people. Others have more measured opinions.

Therefore, climate change is a hoax.

Indeed, science is overrated.

True, if you believe in science you’re going to hell. Climate’s very warm there.

On the positive side I bet that warming is seen as human caused.

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Even if they are more likely to behave in eco-friendly ways, it doesn’t matter. It’s like a business owner in the 1960s saying “I would never segregate my customers based on race, but I don’t believe we have a civil rights issue in this country and no action should be taken about it and I’ll vote for politicians that oppose civil rights legislation.” They’re still wrong.

It is wrong for someone to act like a racist in their own life, even more racist than those opposing policy actions, and yet clamor for change by society at large. That appears a pretty clear example of hypocrisy. Whether AGW is real, has all the characteristics you think it has, and requires the policy solutions you think it requires, is a separate and complex debate.

Honestly, as hypocritical as he may be, the hypothetical racist guy calling for civil rights legislation is better in the long run than the guy that may not be racist at all but opposes civil rights legislation.

I disagree. And that’s not to say I oppose civil rights legislation.

I don’t see how you could disagree with that, especially seeing as how my example was focusing on civil rights in the 1960s, meaning the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. If a racist supports those, then he’s less damaging to our society in the long run then the kindhearted soul who opposes them.

There’s a lot to unpack. First, whether it is better for people to be virtuous in their own dealings or better to demand enforced virtue. I think the first so clearly better, especially in the long run.

I think the objection is that it isn’t realistic and that a great many people (too many people) aren’t going to be persuaded to act virtuously - except if threatened by legal repercussions. Lots to unpack here too about views of human nature and government.

A single kindhearted soul who opposes a law (presumably for a reason having nothing to do with liking racism, since he abhors it) won’t change the world anymore than a single racist who clamors for a law. A racist who clamors for an anti-racism law is better than a racist who doesn’t, but I do not think him better than the non-racist. People have an affect on the world through all their dealings, how they raise children and relate to others. I think a bunch of racists do more harm in the long run, whatever political positions they advocate.

Law has the power to persuade. And there you and I may find agreement. In the absence of many civil rights laws I think you’re right that racism would have persisted in many of its more virulent forms.

But I differentiate that from the idea that a racist who advocates political positions (any number of which may not be successful) is somehow better than a non-racist who fights racism in his daily life.

I don’t trust people’s ability to behave virtuously. And by the way, I explicitly stated that the hypothetical non-racist was no fighting racism, just that he wasn’t specifically racist.

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

New study finds dip shits think they’re better people. Others have more measured opinions.

Therefore, climate change is a hoax.

Indeed, science is overrated.

True, if you believe in science you’re going to hell. Climate’s very warm there.

On the positive side I bet that warming is seen as human caused.

I thought global warming was caused by not believing in Jesus?

If public policy on AGW could be fused with Christianity like that, maybe we’d stop the warming tomorrow.

moviefreakedmind said:

I don’t trust people’s ability to behave virtuously. And by the way, I explicitly stated that the hypothetical non-racist was no fighting racism, just that he wasn’t specifically racist.

True about your hypothetical, but I think a baseline of non-racism in one’s daily dealings with others has power, if not counting as “fighting.” And if you get a lot of people to not be racist in their personal dealings - say the same number of people who advocate for a given law - then that would be really powerful.

There’s no way I’m racist because I avoid interacting with all people regardless of color, but I do support civil rights. So I’m the best of both worlds.

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

New study finds dip shits think they’re better people. Others have more measured opinions.

Therefore, climate change is a hoax.

Indeed, science is overrated.

True, if you believe in science you’re going to hell. Climate’s very warm there.

On the positive side I bet that warming is seen as human caused.

I thought global warming was caused by not believing in Jesus?

Some congressman or senator appearing on CNN a week or so back said belief in climate change was a religion and made a kool-aid remark to boot.

moviefreakedmind said:

There’s no way I’m racist because I avoid interacting with all people regardless of color, but I do support civil rights. So I’m the best of both worlds.

Sincere question: What do you do to support civil rights?

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I don’t trust people’s ability to behave virtuously. And by the way, I explicitly stated that the hypothetical non-racist was no fighting racism, just that he wasn’t specifically racist.

The best way to end segregation is to hope that everyone becomes nice and not racist.

This is confusing to me though because I thought that the reason we knew racism was over is because there are laws that prove they are equal.

If people don’t become nice and not racist, which is unrealistic anyway, then I guess we just need more and more laws and anybody who objects is worse than a racist.