[ocdtrekkie]

Everybody believes what they push for is for the best. You believe what you're pushing for is for the best too! That's what people do.

But at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter if the Koch brothers are evil incarnate or not, if Mike Rowe got them to dump a big pile of money into a good cause. You can both keep your opinion of the Koch brothers, without lowering your opinion of Mike Rowe. Because all he did was get someone with a lot of money to put a lot of money in a good place.

[wallace_f]

>Everybody believes what they push for is for the best. You believe what you're pushing for is for the best too! That's what people do.

I don't understand. I've known people to say things such as, "we're not good people," or, "honestly, why would I care about that?" I knew someone who did an oil change in his truck on the top floor of a parking garage, and let the oil drain down the storm drain - I said, "are you aware how bad that is for the environment?" and he said "yea but why would I care about that? I don't care, it doesn't help me." But he knew it was wrong.

It seems like there are people who know the difference between right and wrong, and don't care. There are also people who don't know the difference between right and wrong, and do care. I wish all people knew the difference between right and wrong, and did care, but that's not my observation.

[ocdtrekkie]

The problem is, I think you're fundamentally willing to accept that the conservative point of view is "wrong" and the liberal point of view is "right", and therefore, you believe the Koch brothers don't know what is right or don't care. There are both appealing and disgusting points in both the conservative and liberal rhetorics, and we get nowhere if we assume that is the case.

People's right and wrong (and level of care) is going to differ for various reasons. The amount of money you have is going to affect your amount of care too: People at the Koch brothers' income level have nothing left to do but care about things they think are not as they should be, and try to influence them. There's a point where you're so rich, you sway that money-laden power around to do what you think needs to be done. You and I may not agree with the Koch brothers on what needs to be done, but it doesn't mean they're inherently "wrong". And on the opposite end, someone who can't afford a shop to do their oil change may not be bothered about the tiny effect they might have on the environment in that one instance.

And again, even if they are evil incarnate. If Mike Rowe can get them to spend money on something good, then why shouldn't he? So look at the cause Mike is championing here, and decide how you feel about it. If you think he's doing a good thing, why does it matter where he got the money for it?

[addicted]

The American conservative viewpoint on the environment is factually wrong.

This is not an opinion. To the extent society had constructed objective ways to determine facts, the existence of human driven global warming is as much of a fact as you can get.

Unfortunately, in American politics, conservatives often fall afoul of reality. And its not a coincidence. The conservative side is the one actively discrediting science and expertise, and promoting religion and gut feel as real sources of knowledge.

There is an actual asymmetry which exists between the American conservative and liberal movements, in terms of accepting reality, which has been deliberately generated over the past few decades.

Its really hard to ignore this, and unfortunately makes a lot of the both sides do it statements horribly wrong.

This isnt to say liberals are immune to ignoring reality and facts. But they are far less likely to do so because they arent driven by a movement deeicated to discrediting the best (albeit imperfect) sources and methods of determinkng knowledge that humans have derived yet.

[orangecat]

The American conservative viewpoint on the environment is factually wrong.

"The environment" is a large topic. The liberal viewpoints on nuclear power and GMOs are also factually wrong, and are arguably resulting in even more harm.

[jolux]

Nuclear power used to make sense before solar was as cheap as it is now and considering that it's still getting cheaper it doesn't make a lot of sense. See: http://crookedtimber.org/2016/07/20/nuclear-math-doesnt-add-...

[ebbv]

I made the point you made in my comment and then addressed why I think it's not good enough, so I'm not sure what your point is in rehashing it?

As far as why I think badly of Mr. Rowe, it's not because he took a donation from Charles Koch but that he's actually written a fluff piece about Charles Koch here. If he said "Hey the guy pushes some terrible stuff, but I took his money and put it to good use." I'd say fair enough. But he's saying "Hey Charles Koch isn't a bad guy." which is baloney.

[cperciva]

It's possible that this was a well-crafted fluff piece, but it seems far more likely that Mike Rowe is being honest and he wrote it in response to the vitriolic messages he received.

[ocdtrekkie]

I didn't get the impression so much that "Mike Rowe thinks Charles Koch is all around swell", but more "Mike Rowe found some points of commonality with Charles Koch and is perfectly fine working with him on those common goals". And of course, it seems he got pelted at with enough messages about how horrible he is for associating with Koch, that he clearly saw fit to explain.

[orangecat]

But he's saying "Hey Charles Koch isn't a bad guy." which is baloney.

It really isn't. The Kochs are libertarians who genuinely believe that smaller and less intrusive government would benefit everyone. You can disagree with that theory, and you may even be correct, but it's not obviously stupid or evil.

(If your response is "they're climate change deniers", see https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/20.... There's still plenty you'll disagree with, but if anything they're to the left of the average conservative).