this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2024
37 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

7942 readers
1563 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


๐Ÿ Meta


๐Ÿ—บ๏ธ Provinces / Territories


๐Ÿ™๏ธ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


๐Ÿ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


๐Ÿ’ป Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


๐Ÿ’ต Finance, Shopping, Sales


๐Ÿ—ฃ๏ธ Politics


๐Ÿ Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] streetfestival 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

FWIW given the downvotes, I think your points are valid, although I think things are more complex and need a more nuanced response. (For example, I see this as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that I don't want to blind myself as a result of enjoying--weather willing.)

It alarms me when I see people react angrily or defensively by mere exposure to the idea that we as a society need to consume less if we want to 'flatten the curve,' so to speak, of climate change. These are really important conversations that we need to be having. And there is a lot of corporate and ultra-wealth interest in us not having these conversations and not taking action (sooner versus later). I think they may have a hand in disseminating the idea that any such cut-backs we make will greatly reduce our quality of living and "how dare they!" kind of thing that is really black-and-white and denial-based. But it can play into the human psyche and fend off critical thinking and a willingness to examine one's own role in things pretty effectively

[โ€“] zaphod 8 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

The most obvious problem with their comment is the dismissive, holier-than-thou tone.

They could have made their point by suggesting non-disposable alternatives: finding a local viewing party with shared equipment, preferring reusable glasses, or safe alternative ways of viewing like pinhole cameras or projection techniques.

But no. It's much easier to sneer on an anonymous forum while stoking that sense of superiority instead of actually offering something constructive.

[โ€“] Grappling7155 4 points 11 months ago

It would be nice to get to a doughnut economy where we can build a strong social foundation within the ecological boundaries of the planet, but of all things, worrying about recyclable, reusable, and rarely consumed eclipse glasses shouldnโ€™t be our first priority

[โ€“] Kichae 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Their points aren't valid, though. The glasses are predominantly paper, and they're reusable. And the eclipse is a significant natural and cultural event that is also dangerous.

Their argument boils down to "buying anything is bad", and that is an empty, cynical stance that is fueled entirely by smug self-satisfaction, not concern for the environment.

They can do more to help by unplugging their shit and reducing the global electrical usage.

[โ€“] Fiivemacs 1 points 11 months ago

Lol reusable. Enjoy buying trash for 3 hours with the thought that it's reusable when you know you're throwing them in the garbage right after. Keep consuming peasent, keep consuming.