When it comes to political opinions, in the modern world it's not easy to be a moderate centrist. You will be attacked by both extremes, and accused of being a member of the opposite extreme.
Almost hilariously, I was accused of both being a regressive leftist social justice warrior, and a right-wing nutjob, in the comment section of the same YouTube video, on different comment threads. The video in question was a news piece about gang violence by recent immigrants in certain parts of Australia. Rooting for stronger enforcement of immigration laws and deportation of criminal non-citizens, while at the same time opposing the idea that guns are the magical solution to all problems, will get you labeled as both extreme left and extreme right, by the opposite extreme. You can't win.
I feel that the question of the problem of climate change is another similar situation: Being a moderate rational centrist will get you labeled as an extremist by the opposite extreme.
My position is that anthropogenic climate change is completely real, and an actual serious problem that would need some solution or else we will be completely fucked in the next 50 to 100 years or so. However, these solutions should be practical and effective, not mass hysteria and panic, and solutions done merely as gestures of virtue signaling, that will only make things worse. Two major solutions that would actually work is investing in more nuclear energy (replacing all forms of energy that are based on burning stuff, such as biomass, natural gas and oil), and pressuring China and India, and to some extent the United States, into drastically decreasing their pollution (which is possible if they invest in more environmentally friendly energy production and distribution), as a good start.
Conservatives will stop listening at "climate change is real" and accuse me of being a regressive leftists. Regressive leftists themselves will stop listening at "invest in nuclear energy".
It's impossible to change either mind.
Almost hilariously, I was accused of both being a regressive leftist social justice warrior, and a right-wing nutjob, in the comment section of the same YouTube video, on different comment threads. The video in question was a news piece about gang violence by recent immigrants in certain parts of Australia. Rooting for stronger enforcement of immigration laws and deportation of criminal non-citizens, while at the same time opposing the idea that guns are the magical solution to all problems, will get you labeled as both extreme left and extreme right, by the opposite extreme. You can't win.
I feel that the question of the problem of climate change is another similar situation: Being a moderate rational centrist will get you labeled as an extremist by the opposite extreme.
My position is that anthropogenic climate change is completely real, and an actual serious problem that would need some solution or else we will be completely fucked in the next 50 to 100 years or so. However, these solutions should be practical and effective, not mass hysteria and panic, and solutions done merely as gestures of virtue signaling, that will only make things worse. Two major solutions that would actually work is investing in more nuclear energy (replacing all forms of energy that are based on burning stuff, such as biomass, natural gas and oil), and pressuring China and India, and to some extent the United States, into drastically decreasing their pollution (which is possible if they invest in more environmentally friendly energy production and distribution), as a good start.
Conservatives will stop listening at "climate change is real" and accuse me of being a regressive leftists. Regressive leftists themselves will stop listening at "invest in nuclear energy".
It's impossible to change either mind.
At least the ones you've encountered are just dismissive. There are some who think you're morally suspect for not taking a side.
ReplyDelete