Let's not discredit Jons prior work. This is just an example of a person becoming old and losing grip
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Jon Stewart Confusingly Seems To Side With Fossil Fuel Companies in his Apple TV+ Show
- Thread starter WrenchNinja
- Start date
Wouldn't the reality likely be closer to them just taking the money and then doing nothing different.
It makes me sad when otherwise intelligent people I tend to agree with on issues seem to intentionally misread arguments/comments.
He's not "siding" with them in any way shape or form. He's basically saying that these companies will not go anywhere and haven't under any current approach, so we have to find one that will lead to them deciding it's better to make money on clean/renewable/etc. energy.
It's not much different than people who want to push for abstinence-only sex education and then balk because there's all kinds of STIs and pregnancies. These energy companies are too powerful and too entrenched for them to go anywhere outside of having an obvious incentive to do so. Kids are gonna experiment with sex, and giant energy companies are going to flex their power from now until the end of capitalism itself. Better to accept that reality and work with it to achieve the needed results.
He's not "siding" with them in any way shape or form. He's basically saying that these companies will not go anywhere and haven't under any current approach, so we have to find one that will lead to them deciding it's better to make money on clean/renewable/etc. energy.
It's not much different than people who want to push for abstinence-only sex education and then balk because there's all kinds of STIs and pregnancies. These energy companies are too powerful and too entrenched for them to go anywhere outside of having an obvious incentive to do so. Kids are gonna experiment with sex, and giant energy companies are going to flex their power from now until the end of capitalism itself. Better to accept that reality and work with it to achieve the needed results.
This is what I feel. We actually don't even have the power to acquiesce properly. They'll take what we have regardless; they have all the cards.
This was my read as well. I watched the episode and thought it was a pretty reasonable take.
His show has been really uneven for me overall. I thought the GameStop episode in particular mischaracterized a lot of things (though at least it was in service of highlighting a lot of the real problems with the stock market).
Environmentalist purists turn their nose up at the idea because it's not the ideal, and I agree, it's not, and almost certainly will prop up fossil fuels longer than they should be, but the planet is more important. And going hard into carbon captures tech is probably the only realistic bridge we have at the moment that can both impact not just fossil fuels, but the enormous and impossible to shut down chemical industry as well.
Which, of course, will require tons of money being shoveled into the very same companies that fueled climate change denial, but it's one of the few pathways I can see an actual workable solution outside of magical thinking that we can just shut these industries down over night.
Did this episode come out yet, or is this just from the 4-5 sec trailer, as the article in the OP suggests?
I was never a huge fan of John Stewart back in the day, it just wasn't for me, but I still think he's pretty smart, usually right, typically pretty funny but like a safe satirist funny, and I respect him and his opinions.
I listened to an interview with him on Kara Swishers podcast last week and this thread is touches on a point that he exactly described. That the incentives of the internet are to maximize division and hot takes by snipping out fairly mild bits of conversation, like a 60min conversation between two people that is probably pretty reasonable and most people agree with, and then turning it into "JOHN STEWART SIDES WITH THE OIL COMPANIES." And then whether it's twitter or Reddit or here, everybody has to take their pound of flesh based on a pretty limited clip where almost nobody has the context of what he or any guests are saying. "he was never funny" "he's bill Maher" or whatever:
Jon Stewart on Why the Right Would 'Rather Do a Deal With Putin Than Pelosi'
https://nyti.ms/3hzKnOc
It was in response Swisher asking him about the news blowup of "Jon Stewart defends Joe Rogan" head line from a month ago or so.
He continues there saying that, no, he wasn't defending Joe Rogan passing covid misinformation or vaccine conspiracies, it was kind of a jokey conversation with podcast guests and he was setting the stage for the opinions of the other guests, including one guest who was the authoritative expert and is the one who provides the expert analysis. Now, that might still do some harm, but I think the reductive headline around it actually does more harm than the conversation on a comedy podcast, people in support of Rogan or who share his anti vax stuff will see that and say, "See, even liberal Jon Stewart agrees that cancel culture has gone too far," and people who might be open to most of Stewart's largely liberal views and his show will think, "wow what happened to Jon Stewart...?" Or as he put it "Jon Stewart is a both sides piece of shit defending misinformation."
I suspect this is likely the same. I don't have apple+ so I can't watch the show, and generally don't care about about Jon Stewart to bother. But I think this incentives system around distilling an hour long conversation into the hottest of takes to sell ads or clout in the surveillance economy is bad, and it's killing our ability to talk about things.
Another thing is that most people don't read articles or context, they scan headlines. If you've been scanning headlines on this site and you were asked to form an opinion about Jon Stewart today, based on the two most popular Jon Stewart threads in the last 2 months, it'd be "Jon Stewart has become someone who defends Joe Rogan and Oil Companies," and that's probably a false comparison.
I think there's a place for John Oliver's show which is basically, like, John Oliver tells you why this thing is bad and why the world sucks. And that's good and a good show but it's John Oliver's show, and not everybody has to have that format. And then there's a place for expert commentary, of an interviewer who might take a point of view that they don't agree with in order to set the stage for an expert to provide the expert analysis or opinion. I think both formats are useful. This doesn't mean that Stewart is even playing devil's advocate, advocating for an oil company, he's setting the stage for an expert to share the experts opinion, which is the one we're supposed to come away with. Jon Stewart is a comedian after all, he's not the energy industry expert.
I'll probably try to get more.of this interview but just based on what I know about Jon Stewart, based on his activism, I kinda doubt he's "going to bat for the oil companies' or something. Maybe he turned heel, but I doubt it. Stewart is a generally a pretty safe liberal, you're not going to get arguments from him that are very progressive or leftist, he usually won't encourage y'know overthrowing the capitalist order or guiotining the executives. You'll get safe, mainstream, overall usually pretty right but not challenging, takes. And there's room for those challenging takes too, but Stewart probably won't be giving them.
This thread is a good example though of the point he made on Sway. This thread is, I dunno, 60 posts long or whatever, and so far most of the responses from the people who watched the segment are like "I think it's a pretty reasonable point setting up his expert," but that's only a few posts. I haven't watched it, I probably won't, but the conversation most of us who haven't watched is is a distillation of what the actual conversation is, a conversation about a reductive presentation of the conversation. Stewart also gets it, he gets how the incentives of social media and algorithmic driven news feeds reward these reductive bylines and the ad driven nature of the "free" web has conditioned us to only talk in those reductive ways.
Side note we have such an eagerness to be confused these days. "Jon Stewart confusingly sides with oil companies'," and very few people want to put in the effort to *not* be confused. Like, if you're confused enough to bring it up as a topic to thousands of people, I dunno, try to unconfuse yourself. It reminds me of the people who "are so confused by the CDC mask recommendation," like "first they said no masks, then they said masks, it's so confusing and nobody knows what to do,' and it's like... Nah, it's not confusing, and if you're confused 2 years later why don't you like, look it up and not be confused anymore? But that's me picking nits about modern day know nothingism.
I was never a huge fan of John Stewart back in the day, it just wasn't for me, but I still think he's pretty smart, usually right, typically pretty funny but like a safe satirist funny, and I respect him and his opinions.
I listened to an interview with him on Kara Swishers podcast last week and this thread is touches on a point that he exactly described. That the incentives of the internet are to maximize division and hot takes by snipping out fairly mild bits of conversation, like a 60min conversation between two people that is probably pretty reasonable and most people agree with, and then turning it into "JOHN STEWART SIDES WITH THE OIL COMPANIES." And then whether it's twitter or Reddit or here, everybody has to take their pound of flesh based on a pretty limited clip where almost nobody has the context of what he or any guests are saying. "he was never funny" "he's bill Maher" or whatever:
Jon Stewart on Why the Right Would 'Rather Do a Deal With Putin Than Pelosi'
https://nyti.ms/3hzKnOc
It was in response Swisher asking him about the news blowup of "Jon Stewart defends Joe Rogan" head line from a month ago or so.
He continues there saying that, no, he wasn't defending Joe Rogan passing covid misinformation or vaccine conspiracies, it was kind of a jokey conversation with podcast guests and he was setting the stage for the opinions of the other guests, including one guest who was the authoritative expert and is the one who provides the expert analysis. Now, that might still do some harm, but I think the reductive headline around it actually does more harm than the conversation on a comedy podcast, people in support of Rogan or who share his anti vax stuff will see that and say, "See, even liberal Jon Stewart agrees that cancel culture has gone too far," and people who might be open to most of Stewart's largely liberal views and his show will think, "wow what happened to Jon Stewart...?" Or as he put it "Jon Stewart is a both sides piece of shit defending misinformation."
I suspect this is likely the same. I don't have apple+ so I can't watch the show, and generally don't care about about Jon Stewart to bother. But I think this incentives system around distilling an hour long conversation into the hottest of takes to sell ads or clout in the surveillance economy is bad, and it's killing our ability to talk about things.
Another thing is that most people don't read articles or context, they scan headlines. If you've been scanning headlines on this site and you were asked to form an opinion about Jon Stewart today, based on the two most popular Jon Stewart threads in the last 2 months, it'd be "Jon Stewart has become someone who defends Joe Rogan and Oil Companies," and that's probably a false comparison.
I think there's a place for John Oliver's show which is basically, like, John Oliver tells you why this thing is bad and why the world sucks. And that's good and a good show but it's John Oliver's show, and not everybody has to have that format. And then there's a place for expert commentary, of an interviewer who might take a point of view that they don't agree with in order to set the stage for an expert to provide the expert analysis or opinion. I think both formats are useful. This doesn't mean that Stewart is even playing devil's advocate, advocating for an oil company, he's setting the stage for an expert to share the experts opinion, which is the one we're supposed to come away with. Jon Stewart is a comedian after all, he's not the energy industry expert.
I'll probably try to get more.of this interview but just based on what I know about Jon Stewart, based on his activism, I kinda doubt he's "going to bat for the oil companies' or something. Maybe he turned heel, but I doubt it. Stewart is a generally a pretty safe liberal, you're not going to get arguments from him that are very progressive or leftist, he usually won't encourage y'know overthrowing the capitalist order or guiotining the executives. You'll get safe, mainstream, overall usually pretty right but not challenging, takes. And there's room for those challenging takes too, but Stewart probably won't be giving them.
This thread is a good example though of the point he made on Sway. This thread is, I dunno, 60 posts long or whatever, and so far most of the responses from the people who watched the segment are like "I think it's a pretty reasonable point setting up his expert," but that's only a few posts. I haven't watched it, I probably won't, but the conversation most of us who haven't watched is is a distillation of what the actual conversation is, a conversation about a reductive presentation of the conversation. Stewart also gets it, he gets how the incentives of social media and algorithmic driven news feeds reward these reductive bylines and the ad driven nature of the "free" web has conditioned us to only talk in those reductive ways.
Side note we have such an eagerness to be confused these days. "Jon Stewart confusingly sides with oil companies'," and very few people want to put in the effort to *not* be confused. Like, if you're confused enough to bring it up as a topic to thousands of people, I dunno, try to unconfuse yourself. It reminds me of the people who "are so confused by the CDC mask recommendation," like "first they said no masks, then they said masks, it's so confusing and nobody knows what to do,' and it's like... Nah, it's not confusing, and if you're confused 2 years later why don't you like, look it up and not be confused anymore? But that's me picking nits about modern day know nothingism.
Last edited:
How could they get money set aside for doing something different and then not doing that? The money would specifically come in subsidizing greener industries and would be track with production like any decent subsidy
Lie, similar to VW. Or more likely lobby to make the goals so laughably broad and vague they can get them by having a green energy department that just buys carbon offsets.
Feels like a whole lot of effeort to dance around saying words like "corrupt" in regards to our current government
I really wonder what shows like this would be 100 years ago, would he be saying the same bullshit back then?
"JD Rockefeller controls 70% of the entire oil industry. How do we bribe him? 🤔" -Jon Stewart
This is honestly such a dumb quote that it's hard to process. Of course they're not going to take away their profits willingly, that is the entire reason why taxes and lawsuits exist.
I really wonder what shows like this would be 100 years ago, would he be saying the same bullshit back then?
"JD Rockefeller controls 70% of the entire oil industry. How do we bribe him? 🤔" -Jon Stewart
Lie about what? About not producing X number of solar panels, X number of wind turbines, X number of green energy jobs, etc.? Just write the subsidies in terms of clearly defined goals and you're pretty much good to go.
If it's just about general corruption, then sure I guess that's always going to be a problem, but a government is better off being corrupt and possibly accomplishing something rather than just being corrupt and accomplishing nothing.
They can lie about all those things, then tie things up in the courts for the next decade while changing the terms of the conditions required in the background until they no longer need to meet those goals. By the time anything rolls around, its just a fine they can pay, same with a lot of illegal things they get up to.
Not even remotely true. It consistently has the best shows, and I watch them far more than others.
Yeah I am baffled that some people here think what he said is somehow outrageous or a sign of him losing touch
That's the thing though. He's not questioning the underlying system. If the oil companies had only been better participants in the system, everything would be fine. That's what I get from it.
The neoliberal centrist superhero strikes again!
Any attempt to "bribe" these companies will just result in them just not fulfilling their end. If we had the power to force them to do so then you don't need to bribe them at that point. You just skip to forcing them to comply.
All of this ignores that alternative sources of energy are only made unviable due to these companies actions. Due to their "regulations". This all a bit like looking to the NRA for help with gun control. They are killing us and charging a surcharge for doing so.
Have some god damned backbone Stewart.
Any attempt to "bribe" these companies will just result in them just not fulfilling their end. If we had the power to force them to do so then you don't need to bribe them at that point. You just skip to forcing them to comply.
All of this ignores that alternative sources of energy are only made unviable due to these companies actions. Due to their "regulations". This all a bit like looking to the NRA for help with gun control. They are killing us and charging a surcharge for doing so.
Have some god damned backbone Stewart.
Oliver's comedy blows. "We bought the stupid thing again" isn't funny even when they tried to be cute and subvert it.
It's ugly, and again, will piss off a certain sect of environmentalists, but there is intersectionality where oil companies, because it will keep them rich, will go along with some solutions.
Shell, others join coalition supporting Houston carbon capture hub
The growing coalition is more evidence of the oil industry’s growing interest in carbon...
Namely because it will inject literally 100's of billions into their industry in the short term and in their mind will keep their long run profits higher than fighting it because it keeps oil consumption viable.
Now, combine solutions like that with aggressive subsidies and investments into things like solar panels, electric vehicles, wind tech and other green energy expansion around the country, and promote it around the globe, and you can see a path toward what he's talking about here.
That's not what I get from it, but what is the alternative? We've seen how even more impossible it is for countries with state ownership and reliance on oil profits to decide, willingly, to walk away from that cash flow.
I'm also not sure how that argument solved the current problem? We simply aren't abandoning capitalism any time soon, best we can hope is to improve its functioning. Which, absolutely, needs to happen.
At this point, as depressing as it is to say… he's not wrong. These companies and the government are so entrenched and dug in that they will never be held accountable. The only path forward may be to steer them towards the profits. It's a defeatist take for sure, but if we're honest with ourselves, that's where we are.
Arguing for the system in play is maintaining the status quo. Not everyone agrees that's a viable path forward.
Moreover, he should have railed harder against oil and ethanol subsidies. We've propped up the current polluting systems and conditioned ourselves to glut on "cheap" oil.
Saying that fossil fuel companies are not our enemies.
Those companies are the enemies of all humanity, they have the blood of millions on their heads, and will have the blood of millions more.
The idea that you can have some policy magic bullet that get fossil fuel companies to be a positive force in fighting change is not only childishly naive, it's also the bullshit those companies been trying to sell for years to try to avoid public outrage.
These "uncomfortable" solutions seem to always maintain our current neoliberal order.
Yeah, some people turned on Jon Stewart a long time ago. He's not going to get the most charitable reading of his argument.
That would sound feasible in a reality where the oil companies could take ownership of the sun itself and charge people massive amounts for its usage, raking in massive profits.
No doubt if they could rig up a Dyson Sphere tomorrow, they'd ease up on oil, but alas.
Again, those aren't solutions though.
We are not getting rid of capitalism in time to save the planet. That's magical thinking and arguing idealist solutions for what is a practical debate.
Actively making gas 10 dollars a gallon is only going to get Americans up in arms and vote in Republicans, and then how are you solving anything? I get it, it was a shitty choice to make and has made this situation that much worse, but while it might temporarily feel good, do you really believe in your heart that if Biden forced gas prices up to as high as they could go to try and shock Americans off fossil fuels that 1.) it would actually work and not just literally destroy the economy, and 2.) wouldn't just lead to the largest red wave since Reagan and likely make Republicans the. Trump or DeSantis in 2022 and 2024 a sure thing?
He said ""Wouldn't it be better to hold our noses, to not villainize them, to understand that no industry is ever going to cut its own throat and take away its profits? How do we bribe them?" He's not saying they're not enemies, he's saying *treating them as enemies* will get us absolutely nowhere as they simply wield way too much power and influence. Just charging up and attacking will result in a metaphorical slaughter where nothing changes; they just have less opposition. He's saying we have to accept that they're far too big and powerful to overthrow at this point, and we need to work around them and just attempt to steer them into a sustainable direction. And sadly, he's not wrong.
It's ugly, and again, will piss off a certain sect of environmentalists, but there is intersectionality where oil companies, because it will keep them rich, will go along with some solutions.
Shell, others join coalition supporting Houston carbon capture hub
The growing coalition is more evidence of the oil industry’s growing interest in carbon...www.houstonchronicle.com
Namely because it will inject literally 100's of billions into their industry in the short term and in their mind will keep their long run profits higher than fighting it.
Now, combine solutions like that with aggressive subsidies and investments into things like solar panels, electric vehicles, wind tech and other green energy expansion around the country, and promote it around the globe, and you can see a path toward what he's talking about here.
It's worth a shot, because anything's worth a shot at this point. but ultimately I think the only controlled interests who have the ability to do anything here are in fact the oil companies themselves.
The will to maintain political momentum on any number of goals beyond powergrabs or reversion just does not seem compatible with in particular the US system. So in fact, what we're waiting for is for the Oil and Gas companies to decide for us.
Well especially *us* in any case. No opinion we have as people who aren't policymakers of mover and shakers has any impact on what goes on out there in this system.
We might as well know nothing.
I mean, we already kind of knew this was going to be his stance. He and many others have made his money being the critics for the system.
yep and this is discussed with the Shell CEO here at 5:20. Activists have the best ideas but they have no power, the oil companies have the power. The CEO tries to deny it but continues to beat around the bush.
Yeah, he's not wrong.
FYI, there's a bit of a moment right now where a lot of people are just realizing that John Stewart was always - broadly - centrist, and perhaps unwilling to admit that some bad actors are just plain bad. That people will do the right thing if it's just explained to them in a sufficiently clever way to finally make them understand.
And maybe his wording here does play into that image, but again, he isn't actually wrong in this case.
FYI, there's a bit of a moment right now where a lot of people are just realizing that John Stewart was always - broadly - centrist, and perhaps unwilling to admit that some bad actors are just plain bad. That people will do the right thing if it's just explained to them in a sufficiently clever way to finally make them understand.
And maybe his wording here does play into that image, but again, he isn't actually wrong in this case.
Well yeah, companies will lie and the only disadvantages are some fines and lawsuits that they'll largely shrug off or delay til they matter as little as possible.
And as for corruption the oil industry already defangs most every national push for energy industry regulation to cause as few ripples as possible. If it's bribery it makes more sense to just have the same 50ish senators and 200ish house members who are already in their pocket to make any compromising changes benefit oil companies for little if any effort. There's no point to compromise when they can essentially write the rules to benefit them no matter if they play by them or not.
Unfortunately, part of the problem is that there is no we.
There is no coalition of power here. What exists is a bunch of factions with no ability to push companies, monetarily or otherwise, in any direction that they don't already agree with.
So maybe some people will look to bribe them, but some people will also look to pay them to push the drill harder into the ground, and others don't care, and others might attack them and ruin the efforts to get them to go in that direction. No, there is no we here.
I think it's worse than that tbh. Even our current underlying liberal system has mechanisms in place to punish bad actors, but this isn't even positioning fossil fuel companies as bad actors at all.
In theory, we're supposed to have both a metaphorical carrot (subsidies, carbon capture, etc) and stick (regulatory action, taxes, new legislation, etc) to prevent the collective energy industry from destroying the world as we know it. Problem is, the stick part of our government seems to be broken and Stewart doesn't appear to want to mention that part at all so his best idea is to try feeding carrots to a donkey that is kicking us in the face.
He is taking defeatism approach to this. It's pretty dumb, but it's not totally irrational. I think oil companies will weaken if government push energy away from fossil fuels. From transportation to electricity. If suddenly no one cares about oil, they will have to diversify to survive. And my understanding is that some of these companies are already doing just that.
We need to villainize those companies way more, and specifically about the way they are bribing the US government to stop climate change action.
Those fuckers get away with murder (literally).
We have to take some pretty drastic actions against those companies, it's going to be very hard thing to do even with public support, but it's have zero chance without one. And we're up against a very well funded and coordinate PR campaign trying to paint those companies as a force for good.
Seems like a slightly misleading headline. I don't know if he's necessarily wrong in identifying that maybe the quickest practical solution is to make it economical for them to do the right thing, because they're immensely powerful to try to take on in a more direct way.
Seems super fair to disagree with that notion too admittedly, I think you could certainly make the case that he's being too defeatist, but I'm not fully understanding the "fuck this guy, he's PR for oil companies" take here.
Seems super fair to disagree with that notion too admittedly, I think you could certainly make the case that he's being too defeatist, but I'm not fully understanding the "fuck this guy, he's PR for oil companies" take here.
When George W. called the 9/11 terrorists cowards, Bill Maher said "We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, [it's] not cowardly."
It was a decent bit of observational humor, and it ended up getting his first show cancelled. Only one of the guests on the show agreed with him.
That's guest's name? Dinesh D'Souza.
Totally agree, use their greed to manipulate them towards a better solution. If they see money in green energies, they'll just convert. they have the money to do it. they aren't gonna let some fucking start ups muscle into the world energy business.
I mean, big tobacco is facing a real decline these days. I will not be surprised the day we see mass legalization and Camel/Marlboro GREENS at the markets. These powered industries will just shift, just give them the incentive to do so.
I mean, big tobacco is facing a real decline these days. I will not be surprised the day we see mass legalization and Camel/Marlboro GREENS at the markets. These powered industries will just shift, just give them the incentive to do so.
Did I miss something? What's the feasible profit motive we're going to provide that's supposed to make them change? If you're going to realpolitik, you kind of need specifics.
They literally got Sarah Raskin to withdraw her nomination to the Federal Reserve Board today, in no small part due to her writing on climate change. Where do you think Manchin got the idea to reject her from? They own the process, and they're not going to play ball just for some new subsidies. They're extremely comfortable where they are—ExxonMobil had it's best annual earnings last year.
They literally got Sarah Raskin to withdraw her nomination to the Federal Reserve Board today, in no small part due to her writing on climate change. Where do you think Manchin got the idea to reject her from? They own the process, and they're not going to play ball just for some new subsidies. They're extremely comfortable where they are—ExxonMobil had it's best annual earnings last year.
Given the way information is funneled in the US, this will literally NEVER happen. There are tons of thing that the broad populous supports overwhelmingly and still nothing changes (paid maternity leave etc)
The problem is, we already tried that tactic back in the 80s and 90s when they were arguably more vulnerable. I remember seeing lots of ads about how oil companies are evil, shows that would have plot lines about oil spills killing animals, basically every way imaginable to paint oil in a bad light to convince the population to back alternative solutions. It did not work. Just trying the same tactic isn't going to work.
exactly why the Princeton dude mentioned government needs to move faster but was shutdown by the person to his left because the government doesn't want to.
You can look at the auto industry; a while ago Cali made it so manufacturers had to have a certain amount of BEV or Hybrids or face a stiff fine. So the auto manufactures made little progress and compliance cars. Obv this changed with the UK, Canada, and China (huge markets) saying all vehicles must be PHEV or BEV by 2030-35. Now everyone is working overtime to get these vehicles up to standards as their markets elsewhere for gas powered vehicles won't make up for the lost of those three markets.
Why would we want the companies that are destroying the planet and have all the power to take possession of a (potential) green future?
Because it's more polite or something? He seems to have massively underestimated the younger audience's willingness to completely tear down society if it means doing the right thing, so no, I don't think he'll find much sympathy for the poor oil companies we're being too mean to.
Didn't know about the transphobia and racism, so yeah, fuck him.
100% this.
Because it's more polite or something? He seems to have massively underestimated the younger audience's willingness to completely tear down society if it means doing the right thing, so no, I don't think he'll find much sympathy for the poor oil companies we're being too mean to.
Didn't know about the transphobia and racism, so yeah, fuck him.
100% this.