11.2 million. That’s the number of American citizens who rank climate change as their top issue but didn’t vote in the 2024 election, according to research by the Environmental Voter Project. For context, Donald Trump won the presidency in 2024 by less than 2.3 million votes. For a little over a decade, EVP has been [...]Read More... from If So Many Americans Care About Climate, Why Don’t They Vote Like It?
The question was “why don’t they vote like it?” I answered the question from what I’ve been told by multiple coworkers and family. I didn’t say, “this is my opinion.” In fact, I said this is not my opinion and I did vote. Just because you don’t like the answer, doesn’t mean a lot of people don’t believe that. I think it’s a terrible argument personally however, the question didn’t ask my opinion, it was asking why those people don’t vote like it. I simply shared what has been told directly to me by the people who refuse to vote.
I strongly disagree. I certainly understand why this idea has risen to the forefront, but I find this mentality to be far more obtuse than attempting to flesh out the nuance of a situation. Assessing both sides of an argument is of utmost importance. Qualifying the pursuit of more accurate information as “stupid” is peak irony.
I know, the internet is full of bots and rabble rousers. No doubt they are directed at divisive issues and engage in “both sides” messaging to cast doubt on popular sentiment and advance some propaganda. This is annoying and a real problem, but the wholesale rejection of valid observation or analysis, with reactive, myopic aphorisms is precisely the type of response that allows propaganda to continue its insidious spread.
An evident tactic of propagandists is to flood the zone with emotional binaries. It seeds chaos, disrupts chain of thought, and invokes group selection posturing. I believe the “smart/dumb” binary to be one of the most powerful, and engaging with it, even if one thinks they are on the right “side”, disrupts and obfuscates the pursuit of truth.
No, it makes them sound informed. Saying that “The one party who keeps openly destroying the environment is sooooo much better than the other party who keeps openly destroying the environment” is what makes anyone who says it sound fantastically silly and at worse stupid.
Hey heads up the “both sides” argument makes anyone who says it sound fantastically silly and at worse stupid.
The question was “why don’t they vote like it?” I answered the question from what I’ve been told by multiple coworkers and family. I didn’t say, “this is my opinion.” In fact, I said this is not my opinion and I did vote. Just because you don’t like the answer, doesn’t mean a lot of people don’t believe that. I think it’s a terrible argument personally however, the question didn’t ask my opinion, it was asking why those people don’t vote like it. I simply shared what has been told directly to me by the people who refuse to vote.
I strongly disagree. I certainly understand why this idea has risen to the forefront, but I find this mentality to be far more obtuse than attempting to flesh out the nuance of a situation. Assessing both sides of an argument is of utmost importance. Qualifying the pursuit of more accurate information as “stupid” is peak irony.
I know, the internet is full of bots and rabble rousers. No doubt they are directed at divisive issues and engage in “both sides” messaging to cast doubt on popular sentiment and advance some propaganda. This is annoying and a real problem, but the wholesale rejection of valid observation or analysis, with reactive, myopic aphorisms is precisely the type of response that allows propaganda to continue its insidious spread.
An evident tactic of propagandists is to flood the zone with emotional binaries. It seeds chaos, disrupts chain of thought, and invokes group selection posturing. I believe the “smart/dumb” binary to be one of the most powerful, and engaging with it, even if one thinks they are on the right “side”, disrupts and obfuscates the pursuit of truth.
No, it makes them sound informed. Saying that “The one party who keeps openly destroying the environment is sooooo much better than the other party who keeps openly destroying the environment” is what makes anyone who says it sound fantastically silly and at worse stupid.