When the topic comes up that “We all have to change” to “save” all sorts of things that are important to Progressives, it really IS about them and not the rest of us.
SAVE THE WHALES! SAVE THE PLANET! SAVE DEMOCRACY (which really is save the Democrat majority)!
SAVE THE CHILDREN (by immersing them in Government indoctrination centers formerly known as schools)!
STOP CO2 EMISSIONS (and kill off all plant life at the same time?)!
The truer phrase is “You HAVE to change according to US.”
Yeah, lead balloon and all that. And they really are all that snotty and condescending about it. After all, they hold the Superior Moral High Ground (at least in their minds) and have no governors on their minds/mouths that would keep from rhetorical danger.
Like Erica here, at Lloyd’s “This is a Test: What Matters More, Personal Responsibility or Collective Action?” that poses what seems the eternal question for them of what is better for the planet – relying on personal action or Collective action? And to the latter, it isn’t like the Conservative version of the action which is seeing a problem, voluntarily banding together to solve the problem, and then disband.
No, the Eco-Socialists are ALL about running to Government to use its Force in mandating how EVERYONE will act the same because of the good intentions of solving the problem. That said, we on the Right generally know that Govt is a bungling entity when it comes to this “problem solving” bit, it lasts forever (even if the problem has been solved), and the good intentions are never really put under the microscope to see if the “good intentions” actually resulted in the results desired (yeah, sure thing, Skip, about those “results”).
Erica’s proclamation (emphasis mine):
I agree – there is no dividing line. Either you get the seriousness of the problem or you don’t and if you do, being an activist politically and living more sanely is the natural outgrowth. The current American lifestyle is totally absurd on so many levels. It is unrewarding and crass. If it made sense sense then rich people who consume like there is no tomorrow would be joyfully happy, euphoric compared to the rest of us. As a 27 year climate activist, I find incredible joy in living as sustainably as possible and serving as a model for the relative ease it can be done. No hubris – reducing consumption just makes sense for so many reasons that people of all political viewpoints can find motivation and satisfaction.
So:
- She hates the rest of us and hates our lifestyles with nary the thought that HER Pursuit of Happiness is on track but no leeway for the rest of us to find our own and practice our own Pursuit of Happiness – it’s always the one-size-fits-all
- Anything that isn’t “her” is to be berated and tossed aside – she’s got a very narrow shoe size but demands that everyone should get stuffed into it – and LIKE IT!
- Such a stereotype Progressive – how COULD others possibly be happy with their lives?
I guess she doesn’t get out much. Being the Freedom and Liberty kind of guy, I pushed back:
It is unrewarding and crass
Pretty broad strokes there, ma’am. I would disagree – as many of the folks I know are fine with their lives. They do get angry when politicians and activists of one sort or another just won’t leave them be. They are tired of others trying to “evolve” them six ways to Sunday on issues they don’t care about or keep taking money away from their families because “it’s good for them – we know better what’s best for them“.
Oh, but the rest of us won’t sign up for her “train”, eh? She didn’t like that last part much:
As I said, either you get the seriousness of the problem or you don’t – so if climate change is not a concern for you, my views simply won’t compute. I gave up years ago arguing with those who just want to be left alone and not evolve.
And the debated ended up on my terms:
“…not evolve”
Well, THAT’S a rather condescending attitude. And every time I hear it from someone that is Left of Center, “evolve” generally means “you have to agree with me”.
Horsepucky, but par for the course in many of the conversations I try to have with folks “not of my philosophy”. Which, I may add, pretty much destroys the Left’s use of the words “tolerance” and “inclusion” because the real use of those two words has nothing to do with their actual definitions.
Thanks for letting us know where you stand on this.
For such a serious problem, then explain the 50 years that they’ve been yammering at the rest of us AND that every one of their dire predictions have gone toes up? But these folks are true believers – why else would they use religious words such as “deniers”? No, she doesn’t want to argue with us – just MAKE us do her bidding.
Eco-Totalitarians