Not my OC but what I’ve believed for years: there’s no conflict between reducing your own environmental impact and holding corporations responsible. We hold corps responsible for the environment by creating a societal ethos of environmental responsibility that forces corporations to serve the people’s needs or go bankrupt or be outlawed. And anyone who feels that kind of ethos will reduce their own environmental impact because it’s the right thing to do.

Thoughts?

  • Solar Bear@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    That is a terrible ethos and one that I struggle to imagine being truly compatible with any form of leftism. Yes, unethical behavior typically grants a personal advantage over ethical, but society suffers as a whole because of it; that’s ultimately the core criticism of capitalist society that all leftist ideology centers on. I would find it hard to trust anybody who lives their life that way. I would have constant doubts that they would have my back during tough times. After all, it may be disadvantagous to them, and they don’t want to feel disadvantaged.

    • admiralteal@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      And here’s the leftist purity tests coming out. Nothing hurts these causes worse than attitudes like this.

      The idea that someone might advocate for a society that makes it easier for everyone (themselves included) to make the right choices is not some absurd, extreme, selfish position. It’s a totally normal, mundane perspective. And here you are rejecting anyone who doesn’t maintain your highest standard of moral virtue from your cause.

      • Solar Bear@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The attitude of “please try to do the best you can, even when it’s hard” is an example of unreasonable purity testing? I don’t think we’re having the same conversation.