Environmentalist projects are one of the most reliable places to go in search of smugness in its pure form. South Park famously made fun of Prius drivers as producers of “a cloud of smug” that threatened to destroy everything in its path. Earth Day celebrations provide another opportunity for production of smugness and self-righteousness in copious quantities, along with a non-trivial dose of outright ideological indoctrination smuggled into schools and neighborhoods under the deceptive guise of education. The latest version is “turn out the lights tonight” showcased by TMV’s Technology Editor, Joe Windish. (To be fair, Windish does not specifically endorse the event or its rhetoric, but he doesn’t criticize it either. Nonetheless, my beef isn’t with Windish, but rather with the environmentalist movement leaders he quotes.)
The annoying thing with these kinds of projects is not so much the activity itself — turning off unneeded lights is just common sense — but the extreme rhetoric that goes with it:
For the first time in history, people of all ages, nationalities, race and background have the opportunity to use their light switch as their vote – Switching off your lights is a vote for Earth, or leaving them on is a vote for global warming.
That’s right. If you don’t follow the orders of the environmentalists and join their movement on demand, you are a bad person who hates the planet!
It would not have been difficult to promote this event without such comments, so the choice to include them is a slap not only at those who disagree, but also at those who simply decline to participate with the required enthusiasm. And that is out-of-line. As long as this continues to be the dominant rhetorical method of the environmentalist movements, they will remain politically ineffective in enacting their preferred policies. People don’t like being ordered about and demonized whenever they dissent or even just fail to participate.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
