←back to thread

150 points pmags | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.214s | source
Show context
RajT88 ◴[] No.43643433[source]
I've observed this weird cognitive dissonance with outdoorsmen, since I am quite fond of fishing.

They tend to be a pretty hardcore MAGA bunch, but also don't like pollution because it messes up their sport. When you ask them about stuff like this (how can you support someone who pretty openly wants to mess up your pastime?), they get mad or change the subject.

I get it - people are complicated and can care about many things at once. Nobody likes it when someone is seemingly poking at their belief systems. Still - you'd think it'd give them some kind of pause.

replies(21): >>43643451 #>>43643457 #>>43643479 #>>43643497 #>>43643522 #>>43643549 #>>43643589 #>>43643595 #>>43643605 #>>43643648 #>>43643677 #>>43643697 #>>43643736 #>>43643834 #>>43643883 #>>43643896 #>>43643976 #>>43643993 #>>43644002 #>>43644450 #>>43644811 #
zmgsabst ◴[] No.43643589[source]
Why would it “give them pause”?

Your question (as phrased here) is clearly provocative rather than curious and represents your biases (eg, “openly wants to mess up your pastime”). You don’t consider the two obvious answers, in that they see it differently or they have higher priorities, and are using extreme language.

Are you really surprised people are annoyed by that behavior?

replies(2): >>43643717 #>>43644506 #
redczar ◴[] No.43643717[source]
It didn’t come across as provocative to me. It would be a snowflake reaction to get indignant at such a small amount of “provocative” language.

The essence of the question is why do people who love the outdoors vote for politicians who want to repeal laws to protect the outdoors?

I presume that a reasonable person can easily answer this question and defend their position. I can think of several reasonable explanations and I’m opposed to hunting and am in favor of strong environmental regulations.

replies(2): >>43643785 #>>43643833 #
zmgsabst ◴[] No.43643833[source]
You don’t understand why people changed the subject rather than address an incurious question — and immediately resort to calling them “snowflakes” for doing so?

I think you’re answering your own question about why people don’t engage in discussions with you.

replies(1): >>43647083 #
1. redczar ◴[] No.43647083[source]
But I’m not the one who posed the question originally so your observation about me being unworthy of discussing things with isn’t pertinent. It’s easy to miss that I’m not the OP so if you did think I was OP then I understand your point.

Also I didn’t call anyone a snowflake. I said the response was a snowflake reaction. I used that term deliberately since it was in fashion for some time for conservatives to use it.

Lastly, it’s a bad look for you to engage with me while pointing out why people don’t engage with me. I think it would be better to just move on and ignore what I said.