It was an obtuse, lazy and (in hindsight) now very funny joke.
“Neoliberal” because one of the key ideological aspects of neoliberalism is the emphasis on individual responsibility. The big example that comes to mind is how the phrase “carbon footprint” was coined and popularised by oil companies as part of an advertising campaign to shift responsibility for climate change from fossil fuel companies to individual consumers.
“Greenwashing” was getting at the bullshit around recycling (which you also highlight in your comment). Often this isn’t as blatant as it is here: even if there were two bags, it’s likely that very little, if any, of the “recycling” bag would actually be recycled, and that the effort spent in separating recycling from regular trash is wasted energy that only perpetuates the feeling of doing something positive for the environment.
I found the image striking because although it isn’t hard to spot that there’s only one bag and that it doesn’t matter which hole someone throws their rubbish, I think it’s likely that someone passing by quickly wouldn’t notice this (especially if opaque bin bags were used). This is offensive to me because I’m finding that many people nowadays are struggling with chronic decision fatigue due to being worn down by the modern attention economy, and I consider the “personal responsibility” facet of climate change PR to be a facet of this. That’s what caused me to comment, but I didn’t know how to capture what I wanted to convey in a quick and straightforward manner, so I went for the lazy reply that, in hindsight, didn’t add anything meaningful to the conversation. I hope this is clearer, despite lacking in brevity
frayedpickles@lemmy.cafe 1 month ago
What does this even mean? Recycling doesn’t happen anyway.
AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net 1 month ago
It was an obtuse, lazy and (in hindsight) now very funny joke.
“Neoliberal” because one of the key ideological aspects of neoliberalism is the emphasis on individual responsibility. The big example that comes to mind is how the phrase “carbon footprint” was coined and popularised by oil companies as part of an advertising campaign to shift responsibility for climate change from fossil fuel companies to individual consumers.
“Greenwashing” was getting at the bullshit around recycling (which you also highlight in your comment). Often this isn’t as blatant as it is here: even if there were two bags, it’s likely that very little, if any, of the “recycling” bag would actually be recycled, and that the effort spent in separating recycling from regular trash is wasted energy that only perpetuates the feeling of doing something positive for the environment.
I found the image striking because although it isn’t hard to spot that there’s only one bag and that it doesn’t matter which hole someone throws their rubbish, I think it’s likely that someone passing by quickly wouldn’t notice this (especially if opaque bin bags were used). This is offensive to me because I’m finding that many people nowadays are struggling with chronic decision fatigue due to being worn down by the modern attention economy, and I consider the “personal responsibility” facet of climate change PR to be a facet of this. That’s what caused me to comment, but I didn’t know how to capture what I wanted to convey in a quick and straightforward manner, so I went for the lazy reply that, in hindsight, didn’t add anything meaningful to the conversation. I hope this is clearer, despite lacking in brevity