How would you even implement laws to prevent Billionaires? Say we capped it at $500 million net worth - wouldn't they just create various shell companies, offshore accounts, etc. to hide their true net worth?
Since when did laws ever apply to billionaires? The reality is that these people need to pay much more taxes than they do and the loopholes need to be eliminated.
I still couldn't care less what that hypocritical ass has to say.
I don't know if he's a hypocrite or not, and I don't care. I only care about whether what he says is fact, or not. If he doesn't practice what he preaches doesn't change that.
You also know the sources shouting loudest about his alleged hypocrisy are either climate deniers or linked to them somehow. Why do you care what they say when they're so obviously biased?
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to DownInFlames For This Useful Post:
Unless there's something I've missed, it doesn't appear that he's saying it's not ok to be rich. He's saying that it's not ok to be obscenely rich (which billionaires undeniably are).
His whole life he has watched as the ultra rich have done things like deny climate change, financially back politicians who deny climate change and/or block climate action, financially back climate disinfo talking heads, etc. So his frustration is understandable.
There are exceptions of course, but the vast majority of billionaires are callous, greedy, egocentric nightmares who give little to no regard for anything other than increasing their already vast wealth.
Simply put, if you have great privilege, you have a responsibility to use that privilege to be an ally in the fight against climate change, not do things to make the fight harder.
I don't know if he's a hypocrite or not, and I don't care. I only care about whether what he says is fact, or not. If he doesn't practice what he preaches doesn't change that.
You also know the sources shouting loudest about his alleged hypocrisy are either climate deniers or linked to them somehow. Why do you care what they say when they're so obviously biased?
This is extremely narrow minded and a reason that climate change is losing traction and the exact mentality that has led the USA into it's current unfortunate timeline. Calling people names only serves to unite them and rise against as we have seen with MAGA. For the longest time the big problem with trying to get the masses to accept climate change is that those preaching that the masses must change their lifestyles are the ones guilty of having the largest carbon footprints. It's simply not a good way to go about convincing the masses that they need to make all the sacrifices so the rich can preserve their lifestyle. We need to find better ways than using celebrities as mouthpieces and not resort to calling people "climate deniers" because they are hesitant to believe the rich and wealthy. It seems a lot of people here have disdain for the rich and wealthy when it comes to regular politics yet somehow when it comes to climate change the masses are supposed to do a 180 and think these people really have the best interests in mind. Suzuki has simply done a terrible job of getting his message across because he's first and foremost an ####### and secondly because he doesn't walk the walk.
The biggest thing we can take from this dark timeline in history is to ensure that we don't make the mistakes again and all your post did was show that many people still don't understand that calling people names and lumping them into groups is divisive and problems are much easier solved when people are united.
Last edited by Erick Estrada; 07-04-2025 at 09:27 AM.
This is extremely narrow minded and a reason that climate change is losing traction and the exact mentality that has led the USA into it's current unfortunate timeline. Calling people names only serves to unite them and rise against as we have seen with MAGA. For the longest time the big problem with trying to get the masses to accept climate change is that those preaching that the masses must change their lifestyles are the ones guilty of having the largest carbon footprints. It's simply not a good way to go about convincing the masses that they need to make all the sacrifices so the rich can preserve their lifestyle. We need to find better ways than using celebrities as mouthpieces and not resort to calling people "climate deniers" because they are hesitant to believe the rich and wealthy. It seems a lot of people here have disdain for the rich and wealthy when it comes to regular politics yet somehow when it comes to climate change the masses are supposed to do a 180 and think these people really have the best interests in mind. Suzuki has simply done a terrible job of getting his message across because he's first and foremost and ####### and secondly because he doesn't walk the walk.
The biggest thing we can take from this dark timeline in history is to ensure that we don't make the mistakes again and all your post did was show that many people still don't understand that calling people names and lumping them into groups is divisive and problems are much easier solved when people are united.
You say that as if it is a strategy people concerned about the environment use. But the reality is it's an invention of the oil industry to deflect blame from themselves(the wealthy). Shocking, right? That they'd make us fight amongst ourselves while they carry on making things worse and getting richer and we carry the guilt of inevitable failure and have to navigate the consequences? Success!
Quote:
One particularly significant rhetorical strategy the oil industry has adopted is to place responsibility for climate change mitigation and adaptation on the individual.
By putting the burden of reducing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions — and consequently the fight against climate change — on individuals, oil companies and their political allies are taking the onus off themselves to make changes to their fossil fuel production, consumption and exploitation practices.
This is extremely narrow minded and a reason that climate change is losing traction and the exact mentality that has led the USA into it's current unfortunate timeline. Calling people names only serves to unite them and rise against as we have seen with MAGA. For the longest time the big problem with trying to get the masses to accept climate change is that those preaching that the masses must change their lifestyles are the ones guilty of having the largest carbon footprints. It's simply not a good way to go about convincing the masses that they need to make all the sacrifices so the rich can preserve their lifestyle. We need to find better ways than using celebrities as mouthpieces and not resort to calling people "climate deniers" because they are hesitant to believe the rich and wealthy. It seems a lot of people here have disdain for the rich and wealthy when it comes to regular politics yet somehow when it comes to climate change the masses are supposed to do a 180 and think these people really have the best interests in mind. Suzuki has simply done a terrible job of getting his message across because he's first and foremost and ####### and secondly because he doesn't walk the walk.
The biggest thing we can take from this dark timeline in history is to ensure that we don't make the mistakes again and all your post did was show that many people still don't understand that calling people names and lumping them into groups is divisive and problems are much easier solved when people are united.
It’s not name-calling if that’s literally what you’re doing. Media outlets are being paid by some in the fossil fuel industry to deny climate change is an existential threat. They’re spreading the hypocrisy narrative. Should Suzuki practice what he preaches? Of course! But, again, that shouldn’t be used to discredit anything he says.
The Following User Says Thank You to DownInFlames For This Useful Post:
You say that as if it is a strategy people concerned about the environment use. But the reality is it's an invention of the oil industry to deflect blame from themselves(the wealthy). Shocking, right? That they'd make us fight amongst ourselves while they carry on making things worse and getting richer and we carry the guilt of inevitable failure and have to navigate the consequences? Success!
It’s not name-calling if that’s literally what you’re doing. Media outlets are being paid by some in the fossil fuel industry to deny climate change is an existential threat. They’re spreading the hypocrisy narrative. Should Suzuki practice what he preaches? Of course! But, again, that shouldn’t be used to discredit anything he says.
That's not what you said. Nobody discredited Suzuki. They just called him a hypocrite and you responded that people that call him a hypocrite are climate deniers or linked to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DownInFlames
You also know the sources shouting loudest about his alleged hypocrisy are either climate deniers or linked to them somehow. Why do you care what they say when they're so obviously biased?
You are saying here that because I called him a hypocrite I'm somehow a climate denier or linked to them which is totally false. Just a reminder to be better with your posting.
That's not what you said. Nobody discredited Suzuki. They just called him a hypocrite and you responded that people that call him a hypocrite are climate deniers or linked to them.
You are saying here that because I called him a hypocrite I'm somehow a climate denier or linked to them which is totally false. Just a reminder to be better with your posting.
Are you a media source? Then I didn’t refer to you at all.
If you called him a hypocrite it’s because you heard that from somewhere. That somewhere is likely involved in climate denial. They’re a source not to be trusted, even if this information about Suzuki is true.
Unless there's something I've missed, it doesn't appear that he's saying it's not ok to be rich. He's saying that it's not ok to be obscenely rich (which billionaires undeniably are).
This is extremely narrow minded and a reason that climate change is losing traction and the exact mentality that has led the USA into it's current unfortunate timeline. Calling people names only serves to unite them and rise against as we have seen with MAGA. For the longest time the big problem with trying to get the masses to accept climate change is that those preaching that the masses must change their lifestyles are the ones guilty of having the largest carbon footprints. It's simply not a good way to go about convincing the masses that they need to make all the sacrifices so the rich can preserve their lifestyle. We need to find better ways than using celebrities as mouthpieces and not resort to calling people "climate deniers" because they are hesitant to believe the rich and wealthy. It seems a lot of people here have disdain for the rich and wealthy when it comes to regular politics yet somehow when it comes to climate change the masses are supposed to do a 180 and think these people really have the best interests in mind. Suzuki has simply done a terrible job of getting his message across because he's first and foremost an ####### and secondly because he doesn't walk the walk.
The biggest thing we can take from this dark timeline in history is to ensure that we don't make the mistakes again and all your post did was show that many people still don't understand that calling people names and lumping them into groups is divisive and problems are much easier solved when people are united.
Bill Cosby on Family Values = Suzuki on Climate Change
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
How would you even implement laws to prevent Billionaires? Say we capped it at $500 million net worth - wouldn't they just create various shell companies, offshore accounts, etc. to hide their true net worth?
we don't have to prevent billionaires, we have to re-examine all the tax breaks that enabled profit-taking since 1980's Reganomics policy suggested Trickle-down economics as a viable economic strategy.
45 years ago, when corporate taxes were higher, significant effort was made to re-invest funds into personnel, infrastructure, research/development -- to avoid the higher profits that would elicit the higher tax rates.
Now we see an economy that focuses on "shareholder value." Every strategic decision is based on maximize profit / reduce costs. Profits rightfully go to the shareholders, but they are not responsible for any re-investment.
So maybe we need to discard this Trickle-down concept. Would only a slight raise in taxes might curb this "runaway billionaire-ism phenomena?
could the 1% manage tax rates that were the same as the rest of us instead of getting discounts at the higher levels of annual profit??
Last edited by para transit fellow; 07-04-2025 at 12:02 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to para transit fellow For This Useful Post:
This is extremely narrow minded and a reason that climate change is losing traction and the exact mentality that has led the USA into it's current unfortunate timeline. Calling people names only serves to unite them and rise against as we have seen with MAGA. For the longest time the big problem with trying to get the masses to accept climate change is that those preaching that the masses must change their lifestyles are the ones guilty of having the largest carbon footprints. It's simply not a good way to go about convincing the masses that they need to make all the sacrifices so the rich can preserve their lifestyle. We need to find better ways than using celebrities as mouthpieces and not resort to calling people "climate deniers" because they are hesitant to believe the rich and wealthy. It seems a lot of people here have disdain for the rich and wealthy when it comes to regular politics yet somehow when it comes to climate change the masses are supposed to do a 180 and think these people really have the best interests in mind. Suzuki has simply done a terrible job of getting his message across because he's first and foremost an ####### and secondly because he doesn't walk the walk.
The biggest thing we can take from this dark timeline in history is to ensure that we don't make the mistakes again and all your post did was show that many people still don't understand that calling people names and lumping them into groups is divisive and problems are much easier solved when people are united.
I don't know about you, but throughout my life I've been called I've been called all kinds of things:
But as soon as I reply with any pushback at all, using a definitionally correct term to describe those who are denying reality (which as been corroborated through entire mountain ranges of peer reviewed scientific research)... suddenly it's "Gasp! How dare you spread negativity and division!"
Look, I get the need for both sides to stop calling each other names. But it has to be a two-way street. It has to. As a starting point, right-wingers need to stop calling anything that isn't 100% laissez-faire capitalism, communism.
Quote:
For the longest time the big problem with trying to get the masses to accept climate change is that those preaching that the masses must change their lifestyles are the ones guilty of having the largest carbon footprints.
Not true. It's just that the celebrities who speak out about climate change get the media attention, especially by right-wing media that loves to light their hair on fire over any hypocrisy they can find. If their message was "hey, this person flies on a private jet, let's pressure this person to stop flying on a private jet", that would be reasonable. Instead, their message has been much closer to "hey, this person flies on a private jet, therefore climate change is a hoax". Not a reasonable message at all, yet hundreds of millions of people have fallen for it.
If you're looking for the real reason we're in the mess we're in, look no further than right-wing media.
As for the wealthy, you seem to be under the impression that they are largely on the side of acknowledging climate change and wanting to fight against it. I would argue it's actually the opposite - the vast majority of the wealthy would rather deny climate change because they don't want their massive fortunes & incomes to be taxed to pay for the energy transition. And, in the case of the O&G industry, they want the gravy train to continue for as long as possible.
Thing is, most rich people who deny climate change do so from the shadows, they avoid media attention, they let the right-wing media ecosystem do the talking for them. Whereas rich people who speak out about climate change on the acknowledgement side are relatively few, but they seem so much more numerous than they actually are because of the media attention they get. And their tendency to fly around in private jets does, unfortunately, make for very bad optics.
So, in regards to climate, have the ultra wealthy largely been a force for good or a force for bad? I'd argue they've largely been a force for bad. So if the masses really don't want to take the side of the ultra wealthy - they should be taking the side of climate change acknowledgement and action.
Quote:
Obscenely rich from whose perspective?
I don't know what to say to someone who doesn't think billionaires are obscenely rich. Kind of like I don't know what to say to flat earthers.
__________________
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Mathgod For This Useful Post:
__________________
@PR_NHL
The @NHLFlames are the first team to feature four players each with 50+ points within their first 45 games of a season since the Penguins in 1995-96 (Ron Francis, Mario Lemieux, Jaromir Jagr, Tomas Sandstrom).
Fuzz - "He didn't speak to the media before the election, either."
