A dynamic that I don't entirely understand but think is interesting:
When group A (in this case, Democrats) gets in power they promote philosophy A (Climate Change) and it probably gets more general acceptance, but the on the fringe, it promotes a growing movement that goes against A (Climate Change Deniers), movement B.
And this benefits group B (in this case, Republicans) and over time that growing movement gets bigger and bigger.
And so, what's interesting, is group B when it gets in power could decide to not combat institutional control of A, because then the movement against A would keep growing, but they don't, they attack institutional Control of A, then institutionalize belief B, thus reversing the process, creating a movement against B / for A.
Would it be strategically more advantageous for group B to let idea A stay in the institutions, to keep the movement against A growing?
bediger4000•7mo ago
> Would it be strategically more advantageous for group B to let idea A stay in the institutions, to keep the movement against A growing?
I suspected that was what was going on with abortion for a long time, where "keeping the movement" against abortion growing was a fundraising gimmick. I'm not so sure now.
jschveibinz•7mo ago
We need group C, the group of people that all take *individual responsibility* for reducing consumption that produce greenhouse gases. And group C needs to be way bigger than both groups A and B combined.
299exp•7mo ago
Individual savings will always be gobbled up by people higher up, who have the power to do it. There's nothing that's being left on the table by regular people. They'll just end up making their lives more miserable while solving exactly nothing, just adding more anxiety about the whole thing.
How about we start taxing wars? Those surely are very carbon expensive. Nobody says anything about that, but everybody wants me to take shorter and shorter showers, like that solves anything.
techpineapple•7mo ago
When group A (in this case, Democrats) gets in power they promote philosophy A (Climate Change) and it probably gets more general acceptance, but the on the fringe, it promotes a growing movement that goes against A (Climate Change Deniers), movement B.
And this benefits group B (in this case, Republicans) and over time that growing movement gets bigger and bigger.
And so, what's interesting, is group B when it gets in power could decide to not combat institutional control of A, because then the movement against A would keep growing, but they don't, they attack institutional Control of A, then institutionalize belief B, thus reversing the process, creating a movement against B / for A.
Would it be strategically more advantageous for group B to let idea A stay in the institutions, to keep the movement against A growing?
bediger4000•7mo ago
I suspected that was what was going on with abortion for a long time, where "keeping the movement" against abortion growing was a fundraising gimmick. I'm not so sure now.
jschveibinz•7mo ago
299exp•7mo ago
How about we start taxing wars? Those surely are very carbon expensive. Nobody says anything about that, but everybody wants me to take shorter and shorter showers, like that solves anything.