yes, it does. So the far right can use the same semantic arguments (redefining words) as the far left. "wind energy pollutes", that's enough (for them).
I'm not taking that position, just showing how dirty politics becomes when you stop using logic and just go for the jugular with opponents instead of engage with them on a fair level. Again, the ones who engage fairly will die off - figuratively or literally. It's an arms race, or (whatever biologists call it when two bacteria evolve defenses and kill each other).
First and second order problems aren't woke they're rational observations to outcome. The first order problems are decarbonise the second order problems are the anti wind and anti solar and anti nuke argument. It's not designed to denigrate or put somebody down, its distinguishing between categories of reasoning and outcome drive.
I'm sorry if you think I said it to be dismissive or to put somebody down. I just want to try and assert that aesthetics and personal preference have to rank against a larger outcome.
I accept for some people their personal outcome outranks wider goals. I don't know how you discuss problems with that view: what's the basis of e.g. decarbonising, if you don't believe it's a problem or don't care, as long as your personal domain is unaffected?
yes, it does. So the far right can use the same semantic arguments (redefining words) as the far left. "wind energy pollutes", that's enough (for them).
I'm not taking that position, just showing how dirty politics becomes when you stop using logic and just go for the jugular with opponents instead of engage with them on a fair level. Again, the ones who engage fairly will die off - figuratively or literally. It's an arms race, or (whatever biologists call it when two bacteria evolve defenses and kill each other).