Fool I am, my first thought would have been like Gergar said and go to the DMV and have them not issue registration for electric vehicles in the same way the DMV regulates what cars can or can't operate on public roadways.
That they want to CC the governor of California with this is just gold.
Again it moves the Overton window and normalizes this. First, it becomes a goal, then some people in the state government have to buy this, then the subsidies, and then one state does it, then multiple conservative states all buy into it, then the DMV charges you 400 dollars to use an EV, which then increases, and soon a ban when on a Friday night at midnight.
It does, but major manufacturers work on the weight of global trade. To make a single segment ICE car would mean drastically scaling back costs for the American market presuming other major economic countries don't follow America's route (and there's no reason to believe they will). So Americans would have their no EV bills up until they see the three wheel three seat three cylinder lawnmowers they'll have to settle for.
First, Hollywood generally don't call themselves woke. That's what others do to them.
Theoretically? They could prevent new registrations for EVs within the state after a given date. Combine that with already existing laws against driving non-registered vehicles and you've got a defacto EV ban, at least for state residents. This is (roughly) the framework states already use for emission standards and the like.
So how exactly do you square the fact you called the exposure of Hollywood an "accidental result"? That /only/ makes sense if you're saying those who took part in the movement itself didn't intend to expose Hollywood.
The accidental part was being specific to Hollywood, rather than the broad movement that was intended. I feel like I've said this 12 different ways.
That's not what I'm saying. The idea of MeToo is to expose how common sexual misconduct is. The celebrities that participated were exposing Hollywood elites, yes, I understand that, I understand that was deliberate. But what they thought was going to happen was a mass movement of regular people illustrating the ubiquity of those experiences, and instead the movement made it look like there's unusually high levels of sexual misconduct in the media industry. Not saying there necessarily is, I don't have that evidence, it's just the optics. Now I've said it 13 different ways.
Irrelevant, they're Democrats.
My only issues thus far with the idea of EVs - as a soft city dweller who loathes and fears the wilderness - is can my kids buy one for $1800 in 10 years at a used car market?
You've tried to reframe and rewrite what you originally said about 12 different ways, yes.
For what purpose, Silvanus? What was their intention? Exposing Hollywood was meant to be the means to broader movement, not the end goal.
For what purpose did they expose the sexual abuse they had suffered?
...you genuinely think that's somehow at odds with what i said. Amazing.
Again, "not at odds with" and "the explicit purpose" are very different standards.
Indeed. The first of which is the one you would have to meet, given what you've been saying: which is that it was "accidental" for them to expose Hollywood, rather than part of it.
But that would be because when a known name or celebrity is implicated, that makes the news. Nameless citizens don't.
That is certainly at least part of if not entirely the reason, but the optics are still there.
They might have been more successful at a broader movement had it not been for all the people more invested in attacking (Hollywood) liberals than raising awareness of sexual assault. In other words, conservatives.
The way I remembered it, MeToo hit prominent media conservatives as hard as liberal counterparts without any issue, and only really lost momentum when they attempted to torpedo a Supreme Court nomination with it. But looking back into google result history, I may have been ignorant, cause it looks like the spring and summer of 2018 before Kavanaugh was nominated were actually full of left wing articles critical of the movement, or at least the consequences of it.
www.cnn.com
