this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2024
91 points (96.0% liked)
World News
32315 readers
870 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
if one or the other benefits the environment (i'm dubious), then doing either is good, and if you only do one that's still good. but one has nothing to do with the other.
“these two things share this similarity, but they have no similarities with one-another” ok
i am dubious that they do, in fact, have any similarities.
ok, which of these claims do you doubt?
both. it seems to me that being vegan has never stopped the animal agriculture industry from growing. similarly, not-using air conditioning has never reduced the amount of energy produced. i'm open to being wrong about these, but i haven't seen any compelling evidence.
if there is a train wreck and i go start pulling people out of the wreckage, i'm not doing something wrong by ignoring chemicals spilling out of the train.
you can’t stop a chemical spill and pull people out of a wreckage at the same time, so it’s not really a close comparison. it’s more like, if you loudly proclaim that anyone who’s not boycotting nestle is an asshole, but then you’re not also boycotting coca cola, people might point that out as a way to demonstrate that you can’t criticise others without expecting to receive criticism in return.
if both are good (and, again i am dubious either of them is), you don't need to do both to be doing a good thing, and doing one and not the other would still be good.
I tentatively agree with that - if we add on, “and a person who does not boycott either or both corporations isn’t doing anything wrong” then that’s basically my point. I’m highlighting hypocrisy.