I read the article but it's still unclear what argument the anti-wind groups use to say _why_ "wind is bad for environment/our children/the economy/greater good"?
decimalenough · 5m ago
Ruins the view, kills birds, noisy is the usual trifecta. Or to quote one site I won't deign to link to, "Protecting the marine environment and ecosystems from the industrialisation of our oceans."
Of course, the same folks have no objections whatsoever to offshore drilling.
thaumasiotes · 30s ago
> Of course, the same folks have no objections whatsoever to offshore drilling.
Well, if they were entirely sincere in their concern for the view, the birds, and the noise, only one of those concerns would apply to offshore drilling.
Considering "preventing industrialization" to be an end in itself is something different, usually associated with being pro-wind-power.
NIMBYism (destroying the beautiful views from my golf course) and "Think of the birds" also feature high on the list.
sligor · 13m ago
Who needs argument in 2025 ? Just say it is "woke".
nicolailolansen · 1h ago
Anti-wind groups are oil-funded? Surprised Pikachu.
fabian2k · 16m ago
Only the ones not funded by Russia.
sligor · 12m ago
Well, Russia itself is oil founded (huge part of the budget)
dzhiurgis · 23m ago
Why tho? Oil money should be funding renewables so they continue making money.
melvinroest · 13m ago
You can argue both sides right? It makes business sense for oil money to do that.
However, there's also a trend that giant corporations are kind of like giant oil tankers (no pun intended). It takes a humongous amount of energy to change a company's fundamental core business. Oil companies are in the business of oil. Even if they expand to becoming an energy company, it takes a long time for them to change their "oil DNA". Based on that, I can imagine that certain oil companies - though not all oil companies - elect to maintain the status quo.
I don't think this is unique to big oil. It's unique to big {pharma, tech, oil, *}. What I find harder to find out is what the "weights" are for both sides and how they are influenced.
chii · 17m ago
> Oil money should be funding renewables
not while there's still oil to be extracted. Rigs (esp. offshore ones) take a lot of initial investment, and takes several decades to fully pay out. It's not hard to imagine that those investments hadn't fully matured and so they'd want the demand for oil to continue.
Tade0 · 37m ago
A major reason I don't treat conspiracy theorists seriously is that with all their paranoia they have a huge blind spot for the Captain-Planet-cartoon-villainy the oil industry is engaging in.
Just the stuff the Heartland Institute does is enough to write a book about and still not a peep from the usual crowd.
MomsAVoxell · 20m ago
If you don't treat conspiracy theorists seriously, how would you know if the conspiracy theory scene has already addressed oil industry corruption?
The War-for-Oil conspiracy theories are proven correct.
The suppression of 'free energy' is discussed widely as being a result of oil-industry repression.
And on and on.
Dylan16807 · 14m ago
You can learn about a scene without thinking they're competent.
It doesn't really prove war for oil, war tends to mess up production and also we have a huge amount of domestic production. But that depends on what exactly the claims are.
"Free energy" doesn't exist so that just goes back to them barking up the wrong tree. It's taking a real villain and blaming them for nonsense instead of something they actually do.
e40 · 1h ago
The disgust this article invokes is overwhelming.
I n my ideal world these people would be prosecuted.
usrnm · 59m ago
But we live in their ideal world, not yours
oulipo2 · 58m ago
So let's vote them out
xyzal · 55m ago
I would love to obtain a handbook on how to convince moronic far-right leaning neighbors to change or at least soften their stance. I usually just tell them to fuck off, which apparently is not that much effective.
JumpCrisscross · 43m ago
> love to obtain a handbook on how to convince moronic far-right leaning neighbors to change or at least soften their stance
Real answer? Pick a battle and commit to it. That means allying with folks who agree with you—or have an incentive to agree—on your one issue with whom you may strongly disagree on other policy or even moral positions. This doesn’t need to be a permanent alliance, after all, just a transactional one to achieve a goal.
westpfelia · 32m ago
Dont call them moronic. Don't tell them to fuck off.
If you HONESTLY want to try to convince people that these politicians and industries are a net negative you can not just sit there and call people fucking idiots. It makes a person retreat into their view that much more. You have to just calmly explain things. Sometimes you have to explain that thing a lot.
A lot of people who voted right wing are looking for reasons to re-evaluate their decisions. Dont give them a reason to double down by calling them fucking mornons. Soft language will win this fight.
jimkleiber · 13m ago
> Sometimes you have to explain that thing a lot.
This.
Sometimes I think I want people to change their minds extremely and instantaneously. When I look at the micro-changes they make, and have the endurance to see these changes over time, they can actually make extreme changes and in a short period of time. It's just rarely instantaneously extreme.
chii · 14m ago
> A lot of people who voted right wing are looking for reasons to re-evaluate their decisions
i dont believe this to be the case. If they have such a reason, then surely they would've already examined it much earlier and came to a conclusion under which they won't have been a right wing voter in the first place.
So there's something else at play, such as preconceived notions, or the inability to sort out facts from fiction (being presented as fact on TV), that makes them behave the way they did.
Dylan16807 · 28m ago
If your only advice is to not insult people then this really isn't helpful.
Upvoter33 · 13m ago
> A lot of people who voted right wing are looking for reasons to re-evaluate their decisions
If only
shoobiedoo · 27m ago
> I usually just tell them to fuck off
and then everyone clapped
Dylan16807 · 22m ago
That implies you don't believe the story? There is zero reason to disbelieve something as mundane as telling someone to fuck off.
vincnetas · 29m ago
step one, stop calling them "moronic far-right leaning neighbors" ;)
tovej · 54m ago
Astroturfing has been the favorite MO of harmful industries like tobacco, oil, and defense for a long time now.
It's sad that this has become so normal, and that they can pressure opponents into silence. I'm wondering if we'll ever get rid of this.
yahoozoo · 28m ago
Next you’ll tell me anti-oil groups are wind-funded.
lstodd · 20m ago
Anti-oil groups are oil funded so that the oil can show they are "responsible" to their boards.
Of course, the same folks have no objections whatsoever to offshore drilling.
Well, if they were entirely sincere in their concern for the view, the birds, and the noise, only one of those concerns would apply to offshore drilling.
Considering "preventing industrialization" to be an end in itself is something different, usually associated with being pro-wind-power.
There is, of course, a debunking video response (14 minutes): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKVNFqqzvP4
NIMBYism (destroying the beautiful views from my golf course) and "Think of the birds" also feature high on the list.
However, there's also a trend that giant corporations are kind of like giant oil tankers (no pun intended). It takes a humongous amount of energy to change a company's fundamental core business. Oil companies are in the business of oil. Even if they expand to becoming an energy company, it takes a long time for them to change their "oil DNA". Based on that, I can imagine that certain oil companies - though not all oil companies - elect to maintain the status quo.
I don't think this is unique to big oil. It's unique to big {pharma, tech, oil, *}. What I find harder to find out is what the "weights" are for both sides and how they are influenced.
not while there's still oil to be extracted. Rigs (esp. offshore ones) take a lot of initial investment, and takes several decades to fully pay out. It's not hard to imagine that those investments hadn't fully matured and so they'd want the demand for oil to continue.
Just the stuff the Heartland Institute does is enough to write a book about and still not a peep from the usual crowd.
The War-for-Oil conspiracy theories are proven correct.
The suppression of 'free energy' is discussed widely as being a result of oil-industry repression.
And on and on.
It doesn't really prove war for oil, war tends to mess up production and also we have a huge amount of domestic production. But that depends on what exactly the claims are.
"Free energy" doesn't exist so that just goes back to them barking up the wrong tree. It's taking a real villain and blaming them for nonsense instead of something they actually do.
I n my ideal world these people would be prosecuted.
Real answer? Pick a battle and commit to it. That means allying with folks who agree with you—or have an incentive to agree—on your one issue with whom you may strongly disagree on other policy or even moral positions. This doesn’t need to be a permanent alliance, after all, just a transactional one to achieve a goal.
If you HONESTLY want to try to convince people that these politicians and industries are a net negative you can not just sit there and call people fucking idiots. It makes a person retreat into their view that much more. You have to just calmly explain things. Sometimes you have to explain that thing a lot.
A lot of people who voted right wing are looking for reasons to re-evaluate their decisions. Dont give them a reason to double down by calling them fucking mornons. Soft language will win this fight.
This.
Sometimes I think I want people to change their minds extremely and instantaneously. When I look at the micro-changes they make, and have the endurance to see these changes over time, they can actually make extreme changes and in a short period of time. It's just rarely instantaneously extreme.
i dont believe this to be the case. If they have such a reason, then surely they would've already examined it much earlier and came to a conclusion under which they won't have been a right wing voter in the first place.
So there's something else at play, such as preconceived notions, or the inability to sort out facts from fiction (being presented as fact on TV), that makes them behave the way they did.
If only
and then everyone clapped
It's sad that this has become so normal, and that they can pressure opponents into silence. I'm wondering if we'll ever get rid of this.