(no title)
gw99 | 3 years ago
As for Aileen Getty, I'm on the fence. I think she has good intentions but threw money at these morons.
As for the morons, while I agree the message is good, the approach does nothing but damage the cause. They recently smashed all the pumps at my local petrol station. All that you end up with is pissed off people who associate the cause with negative people. This is a universally downward spiral.
rnd0|3 years ago
Google isn't showing me who that is; the only results I'm getting talk about the Getty heiress. Can you please tell us what that guy's name is and ideally a link to the story you're referring to?
gw99|3 years ago
zasdffaa|3 years ago
[deleted]
rizzom5000|3 years ago
What other methods have these people tried that have failed? How do you measure the success of this method in terms of achieving desired results? Is there data that shows traditional marketing is less effective at achieving the particular aim of this cause; whatever that aim is (because I'm not sure).
In terms of just spending money to stop climate change; do you have data to show that this method is more effective than spending the money on green energy research or other direct funding?
It seems incredibly vague to say that "working within the system doesn't have any effect" but I'd love to see the data that this is more effective than putting ads on TV in terms of actually getting people to support your cause.
Dma54rhs|3 years ago
gw99|3 years ago
The only solution is to target those people directly and make it too risky to do business which is environmentally reckless.
peyton|3 years ago
I expect to live.