[beanjammin]

They certainly want us to feel like its unfixable, but it's not. Were govt to put the effort into the energy transition that we saw in the early days of covid we could zero our emissions, and relatively quickly. The technology is largely available, it needs to be implemented.

The ties between the fossil fuel industry and the far right are clear. Apathy, indifference, inertia, they are all products of propaganda and updated Cambridge Analytica methods.

Fossil fuel interests will stop at nothing to further their greed.

[psadauskas]

All of this is extremely easily fixable, from a technical standpoint. But, every solution would make some rich guy very slightly less rich, so its going to be an uphill battle where we have to fight for each step.

If there's some proposed legislation that would make things notably better for 50 million people, but would cost an insurance company 100 million dollars, then that insurance company can spend any amount less than 100 million fighting the bill and still come out ahead. Even 10 million can buy a lot of lobbyists, and almost guarantee torpedoing the bill.

Meanwhile the 50 million people are working 80 hours/wk across three jobs just to put food on the table, are stressed about how to pay rent, and don't have the personal cell phone number of their congressperson even if they had the time and energy to call them.

[ethbr1]

The failure for Democrats has been to convert those 80 hours/wk and poor economic conditions to support.

Trump can increase inequality and make wealthy people wealthier, but says he's doing good for poor people. If things get better, it's because of him. If things get worse, it's because of someone else.

Ergo, poor people support him.

[psadauskas]

I'm not sure "failure for Democrats" is the right way to frame it, because the system is working as intended, and the Democrats are responding to the lobbyists rather than the people, same as Republicans.

Your choices are the party of billionaires, or the party of billionaires except we don't hate gay people quite as much.

[schmidtleonard]

[flagged]

[pjc50]

You weren't paying attention to his Twitter, then. The far right turn was extremely obvious.

[epgui]

You can pinpoint, fairly easily, the year Elon turned from eccentric to insane to sometime in 2019 just by looking at his wiki page. It’s so weird.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

Huh, makes me wonder about claims that it’s a reaction to his daughter coming out as trans. That happened publicly in 2020, according to wikipedia, but it probably came up in private beforehand. The timing is close enough that it seems likely. It’s interesting to note since I wasn’t really familiar with the timeline of his villain arc.

[assbuttbuttass]

No one becomes transphobic when a family member comes out as trans, it's usually the opposite

[theossuary]

Am I misreading this it are you claiming the family of trans people becoming more transphobic when they find out not common? Because it's extremely common. There's a reason the joke exists: Don't like in-laws? Date a trans person and you won't have to worry about them!

[bbatsell]

I agree that it's not the usual response, but given Musk's strong promotion of natalism and the fact that he has used IVF to select XY embryos for _all_ of his offspring...

[pjc50]

? It's uncommon for trans people to still be on good terms with their family. Coming out often gets terrible reactions.

[ta1243]

I think it was "pedo guy" which broke something in him.

[epgui]

Maybe... But to me that whole incident seems more like a symptom than a cause. IMHO (disclaimer: pure conjecture), Musk must have been "broken" prior to engaging in such behaviour.

[close04]

> The ties between the fossil fuel industry and the far right are clear.

The fossil fuel industry has ties to anyone who will promote their business.

> Fossil fuel interests will stop at nothing to further their greed.

Exactly. Nothing. If tomorrow the left advances their interest be sure that the fossil fuel industry will just as quickly attach to them.

[dgb23]

Is there a term to describe "whataboutism but it's not even happening"?

[close04]

> "whataboutism but it's not even happening"?

What's not happening? I think you are confusing what "whataboutism" is? "Whatabout" the exact same fossil fuel industry OP referenced? I corrected a misconception that OP had, and I guess so do you: that the oil industry cares about political affiliation. To you this probably sounded like a support of the right, and whatabouting the left. Least effort interpretation meets trigger happiness.

The oil industry has monetary affiliations and intrinsically sees no political color or affiliation except in the interest of making that money. The other way around, the US right has a strong preference for the oil industry, while the left has less. But I was clear that I'm looking at it from the industry's perspective: the oil industry doesn't care about right or left. They will without a doubt allow any tide to lift their boat without any moral argument. This distinction is important. Plenty of places in the world where the oil industry is affiliated to the center or left.

Again, there's nothing intrinsically "right wing" about the oil industry, there something strongly "oil leaning" in the US right-wing.

An example that captures this a bit is Musk publicly supporting and having ties to the democrat administration for years when it benefited him and the EV/green agenda. He had no qualms shifting to supporting the republicans when he thought this will benefit him even more despite the right being anti-green. You can bet that he'd try to switch back if the tides turn again although this time it's hard to come back from what he did.

Source: worked in the oil industry for years.

[timeon]

'whataboutism' was not correct term here just search vector for similar effect.

I would call it maybe 'relativizing'. Like making everything so relative that anything could happen in theory while taking away attention from the fact (hence similarity with whataboutism) that it just (or mostly) happens in one specific case. So Oil industry would align with 'Left' if 'Left' aligned with Oil industry, but that is not relevant take since it is not happening.

And using Musk is not example of this case because he is not part of oil industry.

[close04]

> Like making everything so relative

That industries shift affiliation if it brings them money is not "relative", it's just something they show again and again, some more than others. I don't care about US politics right/left but as someone who worked in the oil industry I can guarantee you that the industry will shift its affiliation towards the side that makes it more money. Many industries do this, much of the left leaning tech sector collectively kissed the boot of the Trump administration, shoveled money his way, and clapped on order at his inauguration. It probably wasn't ideological but pragmatic.

> And using Musk is not example of this case because he is not part of oil industry.

And yet he is, as the perfect example of changing affiliation for money. The poster child of the traditionally left EV/green industry slinking away to the famously non-green right. How many examples do you need? Worldwide the oil industry doesn't show a particular preference to the right, it does without exception show preference to the side making them more money.

[FireBeyond]

> And yet he is, as the perfect example of changing affiliation for money.

Musk has never changed affiliations.

You can look at his political contributions. Like most of the ultra-wealthy, he does donate to both political parties. But he has never donated more to the Democrats than the Republicans.

In fact, in the average year, for the last 16 years (I went back as far as I have lived in the US) he's donated, eleven times more to the Republican party.

Musk has been libertarian at best, not liberal. And even that is sketchy. It's fine for him as CEO to go on podcasts and smoke weed and have "the highest ability to process ketamine on the planet", but work for Tesla or any of his companies and you'd best piss clean, or you're out.

[timeon]

> I can guarantee you that the industry will shift its affiliation towards the side that makes it more money

Which in this case is just 'right-wing' side. I get that they would shift to other side if it fits but in reality there is no other.

> And yet he is, as the perfect example of changing affiliation for money.

He may be example of "of changing affiliation" for money - even if this is also arguable - but still not relevant to topic of that fossil industry goes hand in hand with right-wing agenda.

Why do you want to move attention from the relation between right-wing politics and fossil industry by creating hypothetical scenarios that are not happening and by moving the goalpost of the topic with examples that are tangential at best?

[trust_bt_verify]

You are correct. The fossil fuel industry will fund anyone who will take their money and push their greedy agenda. The difference in the republicans are normally the only ones who will stoop that low to sell out future generations for power today. That’s why no one cares about your false equivalency.

[const_cast]

I believe the term is "dishonesty".