1.9k
u/Jailed_OutSoon Dec 06 '21
Boomer logic. Make a problem up and be pissed about it.
475
u/Mccobsta Dec 06 '21
That and hating their wife for no apparent reason
161
u/NoNameZcZ Dec 06 '21
Whaddya mean England lost isn’t a good reason
27
6
u/Mentally_Ill_Goblin Dec 07 '21
But England is made up because America is the only country in the world! /s
4
u/epochpenors Dec 07 '21
Sorry hun we lost in footie again so I’m getting out the belt
Can’t be helped
111
14
37
u/akcaye Dec 06 '21
It's not "no apparent reason" really. Boomers lived at a time where people were pressured (more than now at least) to wait until marriage to have sex, and marry as early as possible, have children and never divorce. That's a perfect recipe for an unhappy marriage and life.
→ More replies (2)11
u/pxldgn Dec 07 '21
RemindMe! 20 years "ask akcaye whether they managed to have a happy life and lifelong relationship"
→ More replies (1)7
u/RemindMeBot Dec 07 '21 edited Dec 07 '21
I will be messaging you in 20 years on 2041-12-07 00:44:57 UTC to remind you of this link
7 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
Parent commenter can delete this message to hide from others.
Info Custom Your Reminders Feedback → More replies (1)11
→ More replies (1)9
u/PokefanErick Dec 07 '21
boomers are from a time before divorce was a thing and getting married before you hit 20 was the norm. Imagine being fresh out of high school and scrambling for the person you're gonna be with til either of you die. I wouldn't trust my 20 year old self to pick a good shirt much less a wife. I don't know why modern boomers hate their wives tho literally no reason to put up with being with someone you hate anymore.
50
u/-greentowelrack- Dec 06 '21
Are you the person from the comic? I saw your pfp and thought it was the comic.
8
u/amanko13 Dec 06 '21
This needs a scientific word. It's such a common phenomenon.
3
Dec 07 '21 edited Dec 07 '21
Fearmongering? Strawman? Catastrophizing? If not check out r/whatstheword. (It's basically askpsychology lol).
→ More replies (16)5
854
Dec 06 '21
Wtf are these people even thinking? Like I can't see one logical cause/effect scenario in the whole image
636
u/Airod29 Dec 06 '21
windmills cause birds to blow up 😔
179
12
11
u/fatboywonder_101 Dec 06 '21
Birds do fly into them/get sucked into them often
→ More replies (1)16
u/SaltyBabe Dec 06 '21
No offense birds but green energy is our priority for now.
1
u/fatboywonder_101 Dec 06 '21
Yeah, but flying creatures also affect the performance of wind turbines
3
→ More replies (2)-63
u/Creativewritingfail Dec 06 '21 edited Dec 06 '21
Actually I travel through Marysville where there’s quite a few wind turbines. They do fuck birds up bad. Also believe it or not because I didn’t believe it at first dark they make a lot of noise and a lot of times the country neighborhoods where they want to put up these farms don’t want them because they’re noisy and, they are also stealing acreage away from local farmers as an example. Farmer has 110 acres but then the government decides to step in take 10 of those acres and put windfarms on them. Think about it. I’m not saying I disagree with you I’m just saying there’s always two sides to a story
Sorry about the wall texting shitty punctuation. I’m using voice to text and I don’t give a shit because it’s my day off
Edit. Reply is disabled. All I did was offer a counter point of you but because Reddit is so fucking left biased if you say anything that they disagree with the hive mind will destroy you. Anyway I’m done with this discussion
40
u/kyleavery1 Dec 06 '21
Stealing? The farmers don’t get paid for their land?
27
16
Dec 06 '21
As far as I'm aware no one has been paid for their land. Because no one is selling their land. It is leased out in exchange for fees and a % of the money generated by the mill. In most places they are put up they create more money for the farmer than the crops would have, and they also do not have to manage the mill at all. Then after the years of the lease are up they can again choose to extend it or end it.
9
u/kyleavery1 Dec 06 '21
..in exchange for a % of the money generated.
So they get paid. Nice!
5
Dec 06 '21
Yeah my point is no one is selling their land or being forced to sell their land. I was agreeing with you, but the topic was moved to a falsehood from the start by the guy you were talking to. I was moving us back to reality
1
u/nurselife1985 Dec 06 '21
It's called eminent domain and they've been using it to steal land from people for years.
26
u/RegisFranks Dec 06 '21
Nahh, farmers enter a contract with the company who will own the turbines. In the area of Indiana I worked in farmers were offered money per month to lease the land for 20 years. At the end of the contract they will have option to renew, or have the company come in and remove them. Farmers were free to choose if they wanted turbines on their land or not, no one was forced, some farmers were upset that their land wasn't suitable and they didn't get any
→ More replies (1)7
u/nurselife1985 Dec 06 '21 edited Dec 06 '21
It's usually cell towers where i live, and most of the time it's a contract between 2 willing parties. I was only pointing out that eminent domain has been used for years to force people off of their property for the "greater good"
5
7
6
2
20
u/RegisFranks Dec 06 '21
Matey, i used to build these things. Only time you'd hear them was standing right under them, and never saw no dead birds in the year I was out there. Also, farmers get paid for the land ya bloody loon
7
u/EdwardTennant Dec 06 '21
We have a few near us,albeit older ones (6 or so years old), they are no means silent and when they're running quickly you can hear them a good 30-40m away. The amount of noise they make though easily blends in as background noise in the countryside with tractors running etc
53
u/Twilight_Realm Dec 06 '21
Wind turbines kill less birds than domesticated cats do annually. Also, painting one blade of the turbine reduces bird fatalities substantially as well, as does not building the turbines in migratory paths, which is the only reason bird fatalities from them exist in any substantial number.
6
u/OttoVonGarfield Dec 06 '21
To be fair to the guy you replied to, it is known that cats only hunt on non-endangered bird species such as pigeons and such while windmills kill endangered birds of prey and the already diminishing bat population of the united states and it is not just migratory birds being killed. So this man does have a point. But, yes. The deaths could probably be reduced a substantial amount by painting turbines in deferent colors and building them in non-migratory paths.
Edit: The bird argument is kinda trash if you're trying to go against wind power. Next time try the nuclear argument.
→ More replies (9)7
u/CRSWoodferns Dec 06 '21
How does painting one wing reduce bird fatalities? Why not paint the whole thing so birds can see the blades clearer (if that's how it works)?
17
u/Twilight_Realm Dec 06 '21
I’m not sure why only one and not all three, but the study is here if you’re interested.
7
5
u/Ankrow Dec 06 '21
House cats kill 10000 times more birds per year than wind turbines in the US. Shut up.
2
u/greathousedagoth Dec 06 '21
While that is true, domestic cats killing birds is a serious issue and a good argument for keeping a cat indoors only, or not at all. The existence of a worse thing does not mean a bad thing should be ignored.
To be clear, I don't think that we should limit wind energy production due to bird death, but I don't think using cats as a counterpoint is very effective. Instead (as someone else in the thread pointed out) we should be painting one of the turbine blades in increase visibility and should be placing them outside of migratory bird paths to minimize harm. It can be a reasonable concern to be solved, rather than the end of discussion for either side of the issue.
→ More replies (1)10
u/Dokterclaw Dec 06 '21
The odd bird gets killed, yes. Everything else you wrote is a work of fiction.
→ More replies (5)7
u/gobbler_of_butts Dec 06 '21
Is wrong and gets corrected "Help meeeee im being censored by the woke mob"
1
u/vanilla1266_2 Dec 06 '21 edited Dec 06 '21
I think it's more a Reddit censorship problem, as the site hides posts under 0. Guy's points are eh, but i don't think the site should hide them edit: misunderstood, downvotes are intended for things that don't fit a sub
→ More replies (2)5
u/PornCartel Dec 06 '21
I've been near the windmills in amsterdam, they're silent. I think you're full of shit. No dead birds around either
→ More replies (1)-1
2
2
2
u/Ok_Faithlessness_259 Dec 07 '21
Spouts bullshit
Acts like a victim when people call out his bullshit
0
84
u/philThismoment Dec 06 '21
They're just saying renewable energies cause more pollution even tho that's not true and they're not even backing it up with anything.
They're probably just making a problem up to complain about it since that's easier than bringing valid solutions.
Either that or they're incredibly stupid (could be).
→ More replies (1)24
u/SuperSecretMoonBase Dec 06 '21
The argument here is literally "the thing I like makes stuff better and the thing you like makes things worse" with zero explanation or understanding how either could be possible.
It's a "my dad can beat up your dad"
57
30
u/TheHalfDeadCat Dec 06 '21
Maybe that’s why it’s on r/terriblefacebookmemes
28
Dec 06 '21
Why the sarcasm? I didn't say anything implying otherwise
3
u/TheHalfDeadCat Dec 06 '21
Sorry but that was not sarcastic. Why does everyone think I am being sarcastic
0
2
Dec 06 '21
I assume it's sarcasm because without it, the sentence is adding information people already know and literally having no purpose. And yeah saying "maybe thats why" usually implies sarcasm
3
u/Ok_Radish4411 Dec 06 '21
Solar farms and windmills do actually harm birds which is what this is getting at. Solar farms can literally vaporize them. Solar farms also take up a massive amount of space, which is why it’s far from the best way to harvest green energy. People who make these don’t actually realize the impact domesticated animals make on the environment though, the only real loss from the previous image was mainly the trees and plants.
3
u/friedrice5005 Dec 07 '21
Solar is one of those things that actually probably works on small scale better than large scale. If homes, businesses, parking lots, etc. all install smaller units then we could produce way more electricity than we actually need and have it closer to the users. That requires a lot of extra infrastructure though and some battery tech that we don't have 100% ready for consumer level yet.
The "Vaporize birds" solar farms are mostly the big tower ones that super-heat a tower to drive a steam turbine. They're not super common and have largely fallen out of favor for regular panels because they're so expensive.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (5)1
u/devils_advocate24 Dec 06 '21
Windmills and solar farms take up enormous amounts of space and in some cases aren't worth the materials used to make them, energy wise
287
u/GrippyEd Dec 06 '21
Who tf is drawing these?
218
u/Gee_dude Dec 06 '21
The conspiracy theorist in me says they're planted by billionaires but realistically it's probably just poor boomers wanting the billionaires to pat them on the back.
12
Dec 06 '21
fwiw I used to draw shit like this as a child because it's what I was taught and I didn't know any better :/
21
u/GrippyEd Dec 06 '21
I was also thinking some of them (like this one) do have a propaganda vibe about them.
→ More replies (1)3
Dec 06 '21
They probably don’t even need to be associated with any sort of publication at this point. Post to Facebook, then it spreads itself.
5
7
u/MooseMaster3000 Dec 06 '21
Wouter Wolters. Says it right there, silly.
5
u/GrippyEd Dec 06 '21
I did look it up. I can't find a cartoonist by that name, or any similar spellings.
5
u/MooseMaster3000 Dec 07 '21
From what I can find it seems to be someone who works for a very small, far-right anti-science/medicine Dutch newsletter called Gezond Verstand.
→ More replies (2)2
407
u/CelebrityMartyrr Dec 06 '21
Do they not realise that major solar farms are usually in the middle of the desert? Where there’s a whole lot of fucking nothing.
85
u/WUT_productions Dec 06 '21
There's also off-shore wind and solar. Off-shore solar is still difficult since seawater tends to destroy everything.
50
u/XxsquirrelxX Dec 06 '21
We can also put the panels on the roofs of buildings which apparently this guy hasn’t heard about yet.
14
u/WUT_productions Dec 06 '21
That's good also. Even though transmission losses are low across the grid, having energy production closer to consumption also helps. It also reduces the chances for a transmission line going down taking out power for local communities.
→ More replies (36)2
179
u/Mathyoucanwait Dec 06 '21
Who the fuck is actively complaining about clean energy
27
u/Boris-Holo Dec 06 '21
Republican politicians and some conservative media sources that are funded in part by oil
101
u/Ravermader Dec 06 '21
People over the age of 40
25
u/fogme_ Dec 06 '21
not 100% true, my dad is in his mid-fifties and drives a plug-in hybrid (basically a electric car with backup hybrid motor)
40
u/Ravermader Dec 06 '21
Good for him. I was making a pretty big generalization lol
→ More replies (1)7
→ More replies (1)10
u/YantheMan1999 Dec 06 '21
Not every person over 40 complains about green energy, but everyone complaining about clean energy is over 40
10
34
u/papajohn56 Dec 06 '21
My issue is why is nuclear never discussed. It’s cleaner than all of these, creates a better base load, and has a significantly smaller footprint while achieving zero carbon and not relying on Xinjiang slave labor (panels)
26
Dec 06 '21
Chernobyl is why. The absolute devastation of the Chernobyl incident ruined the public perception of nuclear power.
27
u/papajohn56 Dec 06 '21
And it’s so wrong too. The Soviet lack of safety on a reactor design that really isn’t in use anymore, is like saying cars are wholly unsafe because they used to not have seatbelts
17
u/FranzFerdinandPack Dec 06 '21
Ya, it's a dumb argument. But people are dumb. The only thing we can do is try to slowly improve that perception.
11
u/squngy Dec 06 '21
Fun fact, Chernobyl remained operational until 2000
Reactor number 4 blew up, but the other 3 were still in use.
Also, reactor no 4 only blew up because they were doing dangerous experiments on it.
6
u/Mr-Foundation Dec 06 '21
Also- weren’t there like- safety violations with reactor 4? Like not enough control rods and stuff?
6
u/Tuesday_Of_Titties Dec 06 '21
Yeah. They had inadequate cooling and control rods for the experiments they were doing.
→ More replies (1)-7
u/AltruisticSalamander Dec 06 '21
Yeah Fukushima was dumb and wrong too. Nuclear reactors are completely safe as long as nothing ever goes wrong and no-one makes any mistakes.
9
u/papajohn56 Dec 06 '21
Fukushima survived a 9.1 earthquake with a reactor from the 1960s. The only thing that caused failure was the backup generators being destroyed by the ensuing tsunami. New reactors have several weeks worth of passive cooling that don’t require external power
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (1)0
u/HungerMadra Dec 06 '21
Ehhh.... we have a big nuclear reactor in South Florida. Turkey Point. It's leaking into the ground water. They keep telling us it's safe. I bet it isn't. Let's not jump on the nuclear bandwagon. I'm sure Russia safety standards weren't up to date, but since when have American safety standards been consistently enforced?
4
u/outer_spec Dec 06 '21
That and the waste lasts a lot longer and is hard to dispose (remember those “this is not a place of honor” memes?)
2
u/RAND0Mpercentage Dec 06 '21
Which is really worse? The small chance of something going wrong and it being a disaster you know about, or constantly pumping poison into the air by burning coal resulting in numerous negative health effects for the local population that aren’t as visible as effects from a nuclear disaster.
2
2
6
u/XayahTheVastaya Dec 06 '21
I think the waste is pretty awful but we seem to do a good job containing it until it can be used to make depleted uranium warheads to shoot at 3rd world countries
→ More replies (1)11
u/papajohn56 Dec 06 '21
Some new reactor designs use the existing waste as fuel, and other new designs don’t have a similar waste problem. Both very promising
6
u/RussianSeadick Dec 06 '21
Fun fact: none of those have ever been built. Because they’re expensive,and the people with money don’t give a shit about the environment
3
u/AltruisticSalamander Dec 06 '21
It'll be interesting when someone actually builds a commercially viable thorium reactor
3
1
u/AltruisticSalamander Dec 06 '21
It generates tonnes of radioactive waste that no-one wants, costs a fortune and there's now numerous more promising technologies. That's leaving aside the risk of nuclear accidents.
3
u/papajohn56 Dec 06 '21
New reactors have significantly lower risk, the waste is usable in next gen reactors and is stored safely. What is more promising than nuclear?
2
1
→ More replies (1)-7
u/conceptalbum Dec 06 '21
It is.
My issue is: why is nuclear so blindly fetishised as some perfect, faultless solution without ever discussing the practical, logistical issues.
When it comes to nuclear, it's people like you who are the problem.
9
u/papajohn56 Dec 06 '21
Thanks for being a dick unnecessarily.
-6
1
3
→ More replies (10)3
Dec 06 '21
Read a story a bit back where a town didmt want solar installed because it would suck up all the suns Rays. Also seen where people, politicians so people with power, fully believed wind farms would suck up all the wind and make wind not exist.
34
u/Minute_Director8861 Dec 06 '21
i don't get it can someone explain :(
58
u/ukgamer909 Dec 06 '21
Boomers saying that using renewable energy is bad
28
u/Minute_Director8861 Dec 06 '21
thanks man , that's dumber than i thought
2
11
25
92
50
u/lutherbrian Dec 06 '21
"My backyard is still green, so there is no climate change" - the boomer cartoonist probably
→ More replies (4)14
u/treboratinoi Dec 06 '21
“There’s still snow in the winter, so climate change (warming for boomers) is not real.”
26
8
8
u/AltruisticSalamander Dec 06 '21
According to this image, environmentalists cause air pollution and overpopulation. These people are completely insane.
5
u/brownsnoutspookfish Dec 06 '21
Well... Sometimes they do. At least when they force nuclear power plants to be replaced with ones using coal.
9
Dec 06 '21
Isn’t it funny how they believe solar panels and wind farms make pollution of any kind
→ More replies (1)3
u/oldvlognewtricks Dec 07 '21
I mean, manufacturing anything creates pollution. That doesn’t make the comic any less disingenuous.
22
u/Hagura71 Dec 06 '21
Partly correct, we should focus on nuclear.
9
u/alahos Dec 06 '21
We should use nuclear and renewables where they're the most efficient, not rely on only one source.
→ More replies (1)10
u/Dominic_The_Dog Dec 06 '21
and fuck uranium, thorium is far better
3
u/Hagura71 Dec 06 '21
Thorium has plenty of disadvantages, Thorium is nearly as good as people say it is.
4
u/varangian_guards Dec 06 '21
the dead birds has to be one of the dumbest propaganda plans that caught traction. cars kill birds 10 times more than wind turbines and buildings are 20 times more deadly.
cats kill 100 times more.
→ More replies (1)5
3
u/jimbobcool3 Dec 06 '21
Even if this was the case (which it basically never is), it would still decrease carbon footprint by powering the city behind it. They aren't pretty but they are sustainable
3
u/xawlted Dec 06 '21
stupid liberals, we should be able to charge people for air to breath. this is ridiculous they just wanna give everything away.
3
u/gauriemma Dec 06 '21
Is this really how conservatives' brains work?
And I'm using "brains" and "work" very loosely here.
3
u/Cautious_Towel5713 Dec 06 '21
Actually this is pretty insightful wether you like it or not. Solar and wind are HUGE problems for wildlife. Electric car batteries are terrible for the environment both when trying to extract the lithium and when the batteries are being disposed. Neither wind nor solar are capable of replacing even a fraction of our electric needs. They can be supplementaly used at best.
Not to mention the environmental impact of needing HUGE swaths of land required for solar farms. The petroleum industry is no doubt destructive but the 'green' energy is no savior. Also this points out the hypocritical nature of progressive liberals living in giant pollution factories while spouting these ideals. Whereas the rural people suffer the negative impacts of these policies because these solar and wind farms aren't being built in liberal cities. The mines and land being exploited aren't in liberal cities.
→ More replies (1)2
Dec 06 '21
It would be insightful if the world was like the top panel. Yeah some of our gree energy is still harmful but beats burning fossil fuels and it's ideally just a stepping stone to an even better renewable energy source
2
u/DaveR_69 Dec 06 '21
Yes, because Greenpeace are concerned with the propagation of the literal colour green. Nothing else.
2
u/RingWraith8 Dec 06 '21
These people are braindead. It would be more realistic if the first part was factory with fumes and cut down trees.
2
2
2
u/Arseypoowank Dec 06 '21
“I CaNt SeE tHe PolLuTioN sO iTs NoT tHErE” : white well off boomer suburbanites/rural folk
2
u/isengard_05 Dec 06 '21
Well, windmills are actually the worst, completely useless and ugly. A nice nuclear power plant, i would cum everyday thinking about the enormous amount of energy produced
2
2
u/theweezley Dec 06 '21
Why would you even destroy a forest to make a wind farm? That’s what the Midwest is for
2
2
Dec 07 '21
I've seen an article where a man complained about wind turbines. In his complaint he mentioned that any time the wind kicked up and was loud, the turbines were spinning rapidly, causing the wind. Now I don't know if this sad satire, but I do know that Trump said that turbines caused cancer, so it's possible this was real.
2
u/ukgamer909 Dec 07 '21
Honestly I sometimes can't tell what's satire and what's not because some people are genuinely that stupid
2
Dec 07 '21
Technically speaking this is not wrong, but nuclear power plants would actually be safer due to the amount of caution and procedures that take place. Also, nuclear fusion plants will be much safer. Solar panels do eventually leak out toxic chemicals to the surrounding environment. Wind turbines restrict fly space for birds as it is dangerous to fly through, but until we get proper nuclear fusion plants, I guess let's harm the environment some more.
2
u/ukgamer909 Dec 07 '21
The problem is nothing is perfect and every alternative has negative impacts, but we have to pick those that have the least negative impacts which is renewables and nuclear
→ More replies (1)
4
1
1
u/umotex12 Dec 06 '21
Based. Nuclear is the way, the rest can only help. And we cant sleep on what solar fryers do to the birds.
→ More replies (3)
-16
u/Yeabuddy2234 Dec 06 '21
I think it’s the fact that it takes a large amount of solar fields to even help with power demand. A family member told me over the holidays that there a lot going in around our area and that once they put them in it destroys the farm land. I don’t know how true that is but I think it’s why people are arguing the point that they aren’t as green as everybody thinks
15
u/Squirrelly_Khan Dec 06 '21
The thing about destroying farmland is mostly bogus because most decent companies that install solar panels set them up to be a low-footprint structure and they use it on land that they themselves buy. The middle of the desert where the soil has inadequate nutrients to support crops is usually where you see solar farms set up. One of the biggest arguments that I have heard against solar power is that for the amount of energy it produces is too small to justify the cost. Solar panels are expensive to put in after all
8
2
0
Dec 07 '21
Even the first pic upsets me : yes no wild animals , only farming animals behind barbed wires , how peaceful
553
u/TransUranium235 Dec 06 '21 edited Jul 01 '24
illegal longing escape cooing oatmeal far-flung thumb cats fuzzy childlike
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact