This from the California Tourism Board.

[Anomalocaris]

yes.  if you associate an action with helping a tangible villain, they are much more likely to be persuaded to not do it in either public or private then if not doing it is portrayed as merely serving the good of the public that they have been indoctrinated over 60 years to care less and less about

---

---

The more Influence the right wing has on the outlook of a society, the stronger screwing a perceived enemy becomes as a motivator as compared to helping a friend or a fellow human being.   you can see if you can see this in the American society. The election of Trump ended the study support he receives are all glaring indicators of this. You are much more likely to get the necessary things done if you can portrayed as screwing the enemy then helping your fellow man.

---

yes.  if you associate an action with helping a tangible villain, they are much more likely to be persuaded to not do it in either public or private then if not doing it is portrayed as merely serving the good of the public that they have been indoctrinated over 60 years to care less and less about

---

The more right wing societies outlook, the more screwing a perceived enemy becomes a stronger motivator than helping a friend.

And 60 years of indoctrination is going to simply melt away via scapegoating? That’s pretty naive.

Boru

no, the indoctrination will not melt away via scapegoating.

But scapegoating has become the necessary alternative means to achieve necessary things in the environment the indoctrination has created.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

yes.  if you associate an action with helping a tangible villain, they are much more likely to be persuaded to not do it in either public or private then if not doing it is portrayed as merely serving the good of the public that they have been indoctrinated over 60 years to care less and less about

---

---

The more Influence the right wing has on the outlook of a society, the stronger screwing a perceived enemy becomes as a motivator as compared to helping a friend or a fellow human being.   you can see if you can see this in the American society. The election of Trump ended the study support he receives are all glaring indicators of this. You are much more likely to get the necessary things done if you can portrayed as screwing the enemy then helping your fellow man.

---

And 60 years of indoctrination is going to simply melt away via scapegoating? That’s pretty naive.

Boru

no, the indoctrination will not melt away via scapegoating.

But scapegoating has become the necessary alternative means to achieve necessary things in the environment the indoctrination has created.

Has it occurred to you that conservatives aren’t generally the people who demonize large corporations? The chief scapegoaters of oil companies are much more likely to be those on the left.

Boru

[Anomalocaris]

no, but conservatives are the ones who enlofted scapegoating to the status of the most effective tool in the policy battle.   but they are not the only ones who can wield such an efficacious tool.

they are also responsible for degrading the effectiveness of other tools.   so they have no one to blame if the tool they made so potent becomes the tool of choice to use against them.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

no, but conservatives are the ones who enlofted scapegoating to the status of the most effective tool in the policy battle.   but they are not the only ones who can wield such an efficacious tool.

they are also responsible for degrading the effectiveness of other tools.   so they have no one to blame if the tool they made so potent becomes the tool of choice to use against them.

Which pretty much disables your point that scapegoating corporations becomes more effective when a country drifts to the right - the people on the right are less likely to scapegoat big oil and the powers-that-be on the right are more inclined to protect big oil.

Boru

[Anomalocaris]

no, but conservatives are the ones who enlofted scapegoating to the status of the most effective tool in the policy battle.   but they are not the only ones who can wield such an efficacious tool.

they are also responsible for degrading the effectiveness of other tools.   so they have no one to blame if the tool they made so potent becomes the tool of choice to use against them.

Which pretty much disables your point that scapegoating corporations becomes more effective when a country drifts to the right - the people on the right are less likely to scapegoat big oil and the powers-that-be on the right are more inclined to protect big oil.

Boru

not really true.   people who are susceptible to the right’s scapegoating is susceptible to scapegoating in general.   the core of their motivation is shifting the blame for their own unsatisfactory state onto others.   they can be persuaded to blame the corporations just as easily as they can be pursuaded to blame immigrants and liberals.  the only reason why they tend to scapegoat immigrants and liberals is because the right wings had hitherto been far more enthusiastic and unscrupulous practitioners of the art of scapegoating.     

However people who are susceptible to scapegoating tend to have no long term inward loyalty to anything except inflating their own self worth by shifting blame for their failure onto others.  hence republicans who pride themselves on not being RINOs can fervently believe in anything their fuehrer says no matter how contradictory that is to what they had professed to be their core conservative principles yesterday.   who they support depends on who paints a more cartoonishly blood curdling picture of what is asserted to be their enemy.     so the right wing may have embraced the game more at first, but they have created an arena in which their causes are as easily flammable as they causes they loath and dread.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

You can’t have it both ways.

Boru

[Anomalocaris]

You can’t have it both ways.

Boru

how am i having it both ways?

people who are susceptible to scapegoating tactics have no real long term loyalties, and would support whoever scapegoats better and more persistently.  Scapegoat better than the right wing, and you will deprive them of the fruit of their 60 year labor and make it your own.

the right way may have scapegoated earlier, but in a free fire scapegoating battle they are at a disadvantage because the central pillars of their camp can be scapegoated more viscerally.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Blaming people for using a product when there are few viable alternatives that will solve the problem on a societal level is silly

Blaming the companies that have actively worked against fixing things or improving the situation to profit themselves is not

The environmental hypocrisy argument doesn't work . Individual users giving up stuff will not solve climate change only large changes will .

[Fake Messiah]

Consider a movie "Rear Window", which takes place over what was considered in 1954 to be a few unbearably hot summer days. Here’s an establishing shot of a thermometer



And it's not just fires in the US, but also in the arctic circle

The Arctic is burning like never before — and that’s bad news for climate change

Fires are releasing record levels of carbon dioxide, partly because they are burning ancient peatlands that have been a carbon sink.

Wildfires blazed along the Arctic Circle this summer, incinerating tundra, blanketing Siberian cities in smoke and capping the second extraordinary fire season in a row. By the time the fire season waned at the end of last month, the blazes had emitted a record 244 megatonnes of carbon dioxide — that’s 35% more than last year, which also set records. One culprit, scientists say, could be peatlands that are burning as the top of the world melts.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02568-y

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Blaming people for using a product when there are few viable alternatives that will solve the problem on a societal level is silly

Blaming the companies that have actively worked against fixing things or improving the situation to profit themselves is not

The environmental hypocrisy argument doesn't work . Individual users giving up stuff will not solve climate change only large changes will .

You’re correct. Individual users giving up stuff won’t solve climate change - I couldn’t agree more. But it would be a huge help.

One gallon of the petrol you put in your car produces 20 pounds of carbon dioxide. There are, very roughly, 1.4 billion passenger vehicles in the world. If each of these vehicles used an average of just one less gallon of fuel per week, that would keep more than 700 megatonnes of CO2 out of the atmosphere every year. Add in the emissions you get from building fewer cars (they’ll last longer) and producing and transporting the fuel (you’ll need less), etc and you’re within striking distance of a gigatonne.

One. Gallon. Per. Week.

Boru