Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway76543 | Hacker News Reader

I don't think it's true that "everything helps." I think many of these grandstanding initiatives are received with open mockery and I think they serve to undermine the credibility of the larger environmental effort.

Recently we have had some rather large political shifts which move the needle considerably further away from our ecological goals. If you look at what people are saying within these political circles you will see derisive phrases like "virtue signaling," referring to exactly this sort of thing.

When you "send a message" you take work which might be perceived as mutually beneficial and you turn it into a fight. You should expect the response to be the inverse: People will begin to intentionally destroy the environment to send you a message in return. This has been part of Trump's schtick over the last year. This is why there is a culture around "rolling coal." This is actually happening.

This is extremely bad policy and it hurts the environment.

View on HN

It's actually worse than just "virtue signaling". It sends a political hat-trick of bad to the right side of the political spectrum: It curtails real freedom, lectures condescendingly, and proportionally doesn't actually help.

The "straw laws" are tailor made for a backlash.

It reminds me of some of the extreme positions the NRA has taken. Like talking about arming all teachers in response to school shootings. Nobody thinks that's a good idea, whatever you think about gun rights.

I'm realizing that positions like that, or this straw thing... the ideas are successful with groups because they're impractical and dumb. It's about exhibiting group fealty. I'm so devoted, I'll say things that any non-member thinks are ridiculous. It's like burning the boats behind you when you land on shore.

I don't think arming teachers is a good idea but I do know people that literally do. And Betsy DeVos has apparently been floating the idea of using federal funding to purchase those guns. [1]

On the flip side, I've seen an op-ed in NYT or Washington Post (I don't recall) calling for the repeal of the second amendment - and I can't imagine how incredibly stupid the person making that must be. It will never happen and yet it plays exactly into the "Obama wants to take our guns"-type arguments. Of course, that author isn't actually stupid, they just aren't motivated by gun control legislation but rather by getting themselves attention.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/22/us/politics/betsy-devos-g...

It was in the NYT and it was by Justice John Paul Stevens [1]. I don't think it's stupid and certainly doesn't seem like a ploy for attention.

Repealing the second amendment does not mean banning firearms altogether. Writing a new amendment with better scope might be an option, or relying on congress to enact sensible limits might also be an option. But I do agree with you that such an amendment would be received as "[the left] wants to take our guns." That's the challenge of politics: you have to meet that criticism head-on and be clear about what sort of policies would get changed. This is no different from debating critics of socialized medicine who quickly throw up their hands and say "Death Panels!"

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens...

You're probably right given who it was that it wasn't a call for attention. However, the more respectable, more established someone is, the worse it makes this. It's hard to brush off the claims that the left wants to take away their guns when it's not just a bizarre fringe. I do think this is qualitatively different from arguing for socialized medicine - in this analogy that would be equivalent to talking about increased mandatory background checks, increasing the ability of police to seize guns, etc. The analog of arguing for repealing the second amendment would be to actually propose making things called "death panels."

I know that the slightest thing gets misconstrued by the other side (regardless of what side) but you don't have to serve it to them on a silver platter!

CGP Grey has a shortish(7 min) video with some great insights into this phenomenon[1]. Highly recommended.

[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc

Slatestarcodex wrote a fantastic blog on exactly this subject: "The Toxoplasma of Rage" http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/

Thanks for that! "Plastics" as a media thing is like "Fake News" in how it works. It's a spectacle

Two things.

firstly this got me thinking of the interplay between MLK and Malcolm X.

Secondly, overton windows.

>> Nobody thinks that's a good idea, whatever you think about gun rights.

I am a gun rights supporter, very extreme one as I believe all gun laws on the books today are clearly violations of the pain reading of the 2nd amendment, any federal gun laws would require the passage of a constitutional amendment.

I also support the idea that any teacher that has the desire to be armed for their own defense and the defense of others should be allowed to be under the law. No teacher should be forced to carry as a condition of their job however no teacher should be prevented from it by law either.

That is the "extreme" NRA position you believe no one thinks is a good idea, but in fact is widely supported in libertarian circles, as well as actual gun rights circles.

If you believe "no one" supports it then I would question if you exist in a echo chamber

I don't want to debate the actual particulars here but it's peculiar that you use the word 'extreme' to describe your point of view and then suggest that the parent's use of the word 'extreme' is unfounded. Your post appears to contradict itself.

> I am a gun rights supporter, very extreme one ...

> That is the "extreme" NRA position you believe no one thinks is a good idea ...

You have to tailor the message to the audience. In my family/original community (before moving out west), I was considered 'moderate' at best on firearms. For this crowd and the West Coast in general, I (like GP) am considered 'extreme'. Case in point - I don't think it's a terrible idea to arm the teachers _who want to arm themselves_. Forcing teachers who don't want to carry to do so is incredibly short-sighted and dangerous. However, there's a non-trivial number of teachers (generally far away from the Left Coast political enclaves) that very much would like to carry, but are hamstrung by federal law. Those are the ones I believe we should allow to carry, IF the desire is there. Just my $0.02.

The NRA positions itself as a civil rights organization, but is really a trade group. The NRA has been pushing these extreme positions with their conservative politician pals because guns were an old man thing that was dying in the 90s. Now it’s one of the three legs of the conservative stool (taxes, abortion, guns)

If you read an old copy of the American Rifleman (nra magazine), it was a very different agenda, mostly focused on hunting and skills. Problem is that hunting is a dying sport... and the gun industry could not and cannot survive in its old form.

Enter the rise of fringe politics and talk radio, where 24/7 paranoia has convinced a generation that they need to stockpile guns. The fact that people who are otherwise intelligent are advocating arming teachers and pushing concealed carry shows how effective this type of marketing is.

People like me left the NRA because they focused too much on hunting.

We want them to focus less on hunting and more on civil rights, I am not a hunter. I do not own guns for hunting. I want an organization that will stand of for my right to own a gun, not to hunt

I respect where you’re coming from, but your position is sowing the seeds to destroy the rights that you care deeply about.

Eventually, some group of people will decide to take up armed insurrection, and that will be the (tragic) end to the issue. The urban population doesn’t get any of the culture around guns at all, and their vision of freedom and independence just doesn’t line up with yours.

Their vision of freedom and independence is not freedom or independence

"Urban" aka liberal culture openly advocates surrendering all liberties for security and safety. Surrendering all libertarians to achieve "social justice". etc

From free speech, to the ability to engage is commerce the "urban" culture believes everything should be regulated, controlled, and approved by a central authority

>>Eventually, some group of people will decide to take up armed insurrection,

Unlikely, the most likely scenario is that the "urban" culture will attempt to use people with guns they employ to violently seize the guns from people they do not employ.

I understand that my view on the constitution is extreme, I admit that, even in gun right circles my position on the constitutionality of gun laws are viewed as extreme as most gun rights advocates believe under the current legal foundation the government does have the authority to regulate things like Automatic weapons where I believe they lack this constitutional authority. That is the extreme position.

However The position the NRA has on teachers and self defense is not in fact an extreme one at all in gun rights circles

It feels like you’re strongly supporting his closing point: the ideas are successful with groups because they're impractical and dumb. It's about exhibiting group fealty. I'm so devoted, I'll say things that any non-member thinks are ridiculous. It's like burning the boats behind you when you land on shore.

For the 99.9% who don’t define themselves through group membership as whatever version of libertarian you are, and out ideology far above practicality it’s nuts. What you’re saying however does strongly proclaim your membership in that group, sort of like a communist carrying around a little red book. The fact that it turns off everyone else is a bonus proving your devotion.

>>What you’re saying however does strongly proclaim your membership in that group,

I did not really proclaim my membership in either group I mention, I stated what the opinions of people in those groups are

This was done not "define myself through group membership" but to refute the position that "no one" or very few people support such a position.

HN has a echo problem, most people on this site lean in a single political direction, and share a singular political view, that of the Silicon Valley left..

The point of my comment was that the entire nation does not in fact share they view and to believe "no one" shares the "extreme views" of the NRA highlights nicely that echo chamber

HN has a echo problem, most people on this site lean in a single political direction, and share a singular political view, that of the Silicon Valley left.

I’m neither in SV, nor am I enough of dove to be “Left” in any reasonable measure. I object to the American characterization of politics as a binary “L/R” formulation. I’m hawkish on defense, anti-communist, anti-fascist, pro-gun, pro gun control, pro universal healthcare, I’m for calling people whatever pronoun they prefer and against being told to stop using gendered pronouns in general. I’m pro-Israel, but I’m not Islamophobic. Im pro-immigration, but not for 100% freedom of movement, and honestly I don’t entirely know what the balance should be. I accept that there are a lot of problems I don’t have good answers to.

I’m not part of anyone’s echo chamber, because sooner or later one of my views sees me excommunicated from either of the rigid American political poles. You seem to be arguing that such poles don’t exist, America has two parties with any power and has for decades and decades. Both parties are to the Right of most of Europe, even today, and both parties are incredibly similar to an outside view unless you talk about guns or abortion.

In my limited experience here, the most dominant ideologies seem to be some bastardized version of libertarianism, and whatever you call the desire to get rich and retire early. Left and Right don’t seem to enter into it as much as the desire for personal advancement, and a general sense that people here are so smart that given the right conditions they can solve anything, even if they don’t understand the problem.

Creating their own straw men.

Sorry.

I find myself sort of in that camp. I think rolling coal is stupid, but when I saw people wanting to ban straws, I just had to roll my eyes. I think the larger goals of environmental protection lose some credibility when obviously inconsequential stuff like that becomes the message of the day.

To address your first point -- I am sure it is the case that idiot bubble people on the internet who don't believe in climate change will use phrases like "virtue signalling". What is not supported is the claim that they would otherwise go along with environmental initiatives, if only the right ones were chosen. It may simply be the case that the class of people you are talking about are always going to drag their heels and oppose everything, and they simply choose the manner of how they'll yell about it based on what they're responding to.

Coal rollers aren't people who are responding to "nonsense laws" (in this case, apparently, ten-year regulatory plans to marginally improve emissions standards and fuel efficiency) -- they're just people who have been convinced climate change is a liberal hoax to destroy their way of life, lashing out angrily. They get no benefit other than a performative one by "rolling coal". Burning costly fuel to trigger the libs is the very definition of virtue signalling, except somehow worse because the virtue being signalled is a cruel and evil one.

In general arguments like "virtue signalling" are a process argument. The words say "You can't possibly mean what you're saying", but the intent beneath them are "I don't agree with what you're saying, so you can't possibly mean what you're saying". They're not a reaction to the mode of argument being presented against them, they are the default mode of argument to show contempt.

Ditto for the exact same group of people bemoaning "identity politics" while having twitter bios that read "Conservatarian #TradLife Proud to be who I am #MAGA The only thing right of me is the wall" or whatever.

It may be the case that straw bans are, specifically, as a matter of policy, counterproductive. I don't think all laws which prescribe policy or all messages which lecture are, but it may be the case that straw bans are. I don't have a strong feeling either way. But when it comes to 4chan weirdos whose literal slogan is "Fuck their feelings", no, I'm not going to spend time making sure they don't feel as though I'm belittling them.

Just because someone has legitimate criticism on a small (and particularly stupid) portion of an environmental movement (who, let's face it, aren't known for their members' intelligence to begin with) does not mean they're extremists of the other camp.

I am sick and tired of this attitude that people keep having. There are a great many environmental standpoints, and there are idiotic morons on either side. But what sometimes looks like the entire environmental movement has adopted this "with us or with the devil" attitude. And of course, these organisations push things like travel, with their videos images and activities which are hugely damaging to the climate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7igAHbqEyQ

Note the shoes ... note the glasses ... note the cellphones ... the T-shirts that are obviously created just for that one event and will probably be thrown out immediately ... note the freaking beverages ... all damaging to the environment. If your criticism against others is that they're hypocrites, you might want to look in the mirror a bit.

In fact, let's just describe a bit of reality here. There are 1000 people worldwide who have any decent knowledge of climate models. 1000 (and even that seems pretty high). That means that on either side of the debate, all but 1000 of them are BULLSHITTING. Incidentally, statistically, that means that there are far more environmentalists who don't know anything about what they're saying than denialists. So if that's really going to be your standard for stupid and unfair ... well that's just not going to reflect well on your side.

> Burning costly fuel to trigger the libs is the very definition of virtue signalling, except somehow worse because the virtue being signalled is a cruel and evil one.

Maybe ... just maybe ... they're just doing the same as the people they're protesting. You know, as a protest.

Imagine that.

And ... "cruel and evil" ? Hardly.

You're no longer allowed to use the words "cruel" or "evil", they are value judgements and mostly reflect a clear lack of tolerance on your part.

>I'm not going to spend time making sure they don't feel as though I'm belittling them.

Not caring about your impact on voter's opinions, while caring about political issues seems counter productive. But whatever, you do you.

So basically your argument is "people will laugh if we try to increase awareness."

Who are the people laughing? Trolls. Now your argument becomes "trolls will laugh if we try to increase awareness."

Then you go on to claim it just invites bullying that will make things worse.

So now we have, "trolls will bully us" as your argument for not raising awareness.

That's just pathetic.

Do you think we can really avoid making the environment a moral issue? Science has never been enough to pursuade people. That approach is not working. It is political and moral in exactly the same way as other contentious issues and that means that people will argue about it. I want people to virtue signal about the environment. That is better than indifference.

> Do you think we can really avoid making the environment a moral issue?

No, and I don't see where the GP claims that. It's inherently moral.

We can avoid making the stability of our civilization a divisible issue. It takes some real work to push people against this, and stuff like forbidding people from using harmless stuff they are used to is part of that work.

Give people a soap box, and they'll stand over you and lecture you.

I've never heard of this phenomenon and find it interesting as someone who does advocate for such policies from time to time. I'd love to read some reasearch on the topic if you have any? (Genuinely interested not trolling).

Have you heard of "coal rolling"? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNiF1UEjrE0

For those who want to skip the Youtube video, it's troglodytes removing their diesel truck emissions controls in order to spout large amounts of particulates in order to appear as if their vehicle is coal fired.

This is so spot on that I'm leaving this comment saying it's spot on with no other additions to the conversation, down votes be damned.

People will begin to intentionally destroy the environment to send you a message in return. This has been part of Trump's schtick over the last year.

This was going on long before Trump. Even back into the 1960's and 70's when people made fun of the crying Indian TV commercials.

Focus on the actual problem. When you make it political, you immediately lose half of your audience. This is the trap most activism falls into.

I don't think the poster was claiming Trump invented this phenomenon, but it is undeniably more visible because of recent political events. Being pro-environment has been a political stance for decades, so there's no longer away of not making it political.

If what you’re saying is true, it will be obvious. I haven’t seen any backlash as you describe yet.

It also seems like a different problem than single use plastic regulation.

Never heard of rolling coal? It is exactly that, with the added bonus of horrendous fuel economies and potential fines.

And people still do it.

How many? How often? To what total effect?

This whole “this is how you get Trump” rhetorical maneuver deployed without a scintilla of evidence across a ton of issues is both lazy and tiresome.

Maybe you're not spending any time outside of San Francisco and the other major cities. There is a whole other half of America that feels very differently about all this. There's even many people in the big cities who feel this way, but they stay quiet out of fear.

I do agree. But my point is, concrete problems are much easier to tackle than hypothetical problems.

You can always just make up "the silent majority." Nobody believes it anymore.

Yep, "the silent majority" that created The Tea Party and lead to Trump in the White House?

I'm reminded of the "save the trees" campaign of my youth that lead to the removal of paper bags from supermarkets (with massive marketing to convince the public plastic was just as good as paper) and 20-some-odd years later created "the plastic bag crisis". Now local supermarkets are making a big thing out of getting rid of plastic in favor of paper or (preferably) reusable bags.

Yes, you can always invent self-serving narratives ("And that's why Trump was elected!") but that doesn't mean these self-serving narratives have any basis in reality. The right-wing reactionaries who get hopped up about California's straw bill are not actually reacting to anything. Anti-environmentalism is part of their core identity and if they weren't whining about one bill they'd be parroting conspiracy theories about Musk. The reactionary pose is just a pose, the sort of thing teenagers do -- it's not any kind of rational position supported by the facts or intelligent analysis.

> I'm reminded of the "save the trees" campaign of my youth that lead to the removal of paper bags from supermarkets (with massive marketing to convince the public plastic was just as good as paper)

You do understand that our understanding of the world evolves over time? That science progresses? Twenty years ago nobody really understood how dangerous plastics are and in the last twenty years plastic use has exploded. Now people are trying to do something about this. This is called progress. It's not an indication of some plot but rather the natural process of discovery and change that drives civilization forwards.

> Yes, you can always invent self-serving narratives...

Sure you can but that's not the argument posed -- saying "the silent majority" is a mere illusion totally discounts that most people aren't a member of radical {left,right} leaning groups who make a bunch of noise and get the headlines. This kind of reasoning is basically "you're either with us or against us" and serves no useful purpose in reasonable debates.

> Twenty years ago nobody really understood how dangerous plastics are...

They totally did.

All I’m saying is that there’s a lot of people who feel differently about this kind of stuff. And that you wouldn’t know it if your world is the major cities. I don’t understand your reaction here and elsewhere in this thread.

Nothing personal, but I find this kind of naive ideological sentiment to be one of the least endearing features of Hacker News. For whatever reason, a lot of technical people were sold on conservative ideas under the banner of libertarianism, and it permeates any sensible conversation you try to have.

The conservatives in the US are building concentration camps for children, yet people on this site want to lecture about how straw bans are "virtue signaling", or will cause toddlers to intentionally destroy things, or reduce freedom.

It's a straw. People are capable of getting over it. And to halt progress because some dude in a MAGA hat might make fun of straw bans or crying Indians is a terrible strategy.

Your liberty ends when your actions begin harming others. I'm not worried about a few trolls rolling coal. I'm worried about cynical libertarian rhetoric that gives political cover for destroying helpful regulations.

The people you describe are going to intentionally destroy the environment anyway. They aren't reachable by reason and we shouldn't factor them into any initiatives unless necessary and then we should simply assume they're part of the problem to be worked around or blocked.

Really? "Don't mess with Texas was not a Democratic slogan".

To be honest, there is a virtue signalling aspect to all this, it's pretty obvious that companies exploit this to increase sales. In my very honest opinion, does anybody with a bit of sense really think the boardroom at $corp care about Gay Pride in any real and considerable way - other than to exploit customer's desire to show their virtue about it with flashy rainbow mugs?

I would be careful, since you quite quickly shot towards being bias, by disregarding any merit to the side that you very obviously disagree with. Just like how you said they deride, you just did exactly the same. How is the problem of devisiveness and the environment going to be solved like that?

Progress never comes from deriding IMHO.

You're missing the forest for the trees, you've bought the latest excuse given to reject environmental measures. These are the same people who look at the scientific evidence for climate change and actively deny it, and you're taking their reasoning against environmental legislation as if its being made in good faith.

Virtue signalling didn't cause anyone to oppose climate change and environmental legislation, it's post hoc reasoning that blames others for their existing apathy towards the environment.

Environmental activism shouldn't be held hostage at the whims of people who will find any excuse, no matter how flimsy, to oppose it.

I drink out of the same cup every time without the use of a straw - imagine that. If they stopped selling straws tomorrow it could be years before I would notice.

However, I know people who prefer to drink fizzy sugar drinks that come in one-use containers. If there was some instant ban on plastic straws then these folk would not get as far as mid morning before wondering 'where have all the straws gone'.

It is through this latter group of people that my awareness of the plastic problem has been raised. I have even seen a friend buy glass straws (delivered in a huge box by Amazon) so the problem is being taken seriously by these sugary-beverage folk. The consumerist ethic isn't going to change for these folk, there is no question in their minds that straws are vital (think of the children), it is just a matter of recycling plastic straws responsibly rather than flushing them out to sea (as if they ever did, living 50 miles from the coast).

Really there should be prizes for the most futile campaigns that demand the smallest of lifestyle adjustments. However, sometimes, e.g. through the plastic straws conversation, you do get a wider discussion going.

I don't lecture my fish eating, fizzy beverage drinking friends on things, I would prefer to save my breath. They don't want to know how many decades it has been since I last used a plastic straw. I would be there all day if the full tirade on their consumerist life was given. Nothing would be achieved in doing so, nobody would change their lifestyle choices.

However, I have detected lifestyle choice changes and a lower propensity to use plastic amongst my consumerist friends in recent months so maybe we do actually need these low-lifestyle-change campaigns because they do lead people to ask the questions that can lead to modified behaviour.

You can also just make disposable straws out of wax-coated paper. Perfectly single-use, renewable, but biodegradable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com