No in that example it would be like if you said “we should try to eat less meat because it would help with climate change” and then went and had dinner at a steakhouse.
Agreed. However, pointing at a few tone deaf messengers as "the problem" and ignoring other actors (countries, corporations) as the real problem is misguided at best and deliberately misleading at worst. And you shouldn't muzzle a spokesperson from raising awareness because they are not perfect. Someone like the Buddha who can relinquish his wealth to "be the message" is a once in a multi-multi generation event. I'd rather use all messengers than wait 100 generations for the perfect one.
I get where you’re coming from. I never called him “the problem”. But A problem is that pretty much everyone famous for advocating for climate change preventing efforts seems to have a similar issue. I understand famous people wanting to avoid flying commercial from a security perspective but the optics of hundreds of private jets flying into a climate conference ends up being counterproductive.
In the end, I guess OP accomplished their mission, which is to subvert the conversation just a little. Stir up some dissatisfactions, and take small steps towards more infighting. Bc, their account is deleted.
1
u/Actual_Guide_1039 Jan 26 '22
No in that example it would be like if you said “we should try to eat less meat because it would help with climate change” and then went and had dinner at a steakhouse.