3 ms·

I did not downvote it (as you can see from replies I certainly don't find it embarrassing, and I am upset that AOC was forced to remove it), but a) it's not fa

by geofft 8y ago

I did not downvote it (as you can see from replies I certainly don't find it embarrassing, and I am upset that AOC was forced to remove it), but a) it's not factually correct - the document in question, while legitimate/authentic, is not the Green New Deal, it is entitled "Green New Deal FAQ" b) it's clearly an internal document, not a public policy proposal: the very first line makes it clear this is internal strategy c) it's from one prominent person in the Green New Deal movement and the other sponsors of the bill may well disagree with the proposals to ban airplanes and cows d) I'm pretty sure the cow thing was a joke (of the form "of course we won't get rid of all emissions, obviously, cows are going to fart for as long as we have cows and nobody's getting rid of cows") - again, it's an internal reference sheet, the tone is obviously very different from a real, public proposal e) it's basically political flamebait, very little there has to do with the intersection of the Green New Deal and the topic of the article (high-speed rail) f) and as others pointed out, the actual Green New Deal is pro-electric-cars, so it's actively misleading for the tiny portion of relevance it has.

nailer 8y ago
> it's clearly an internal document > it's basically political flamebait Why would the DNC produce a document that's flame bait? Or is discussing the contents of the document flame bait?
- geofft 8y ago
  Sorry, my pronouns were unclear. In the first sentence, "it" refers to the document. In the second sentence, "it" referred to the comment to which you replied. Very little that's in the document is relevant to this conversation, and the comment itself was attempting to discredit a particular thesis (HSR is a good idea for the US) by discrediting other theses held or allegedly held by the same people (providing for people unwilling to work is good, bovicide is good, etc.). (I don't think it's unusual for politicians to, in the course of their legitimate work, produce internal documents that when brought to a technical discussion forum can be used to produce political flamebait. It's certainly not unusual for technical people to do the same - a Google internal strategy memo on some recent W3C discussion, with no context, can easily turn into flamebait if posted to HN.) Edit: to clarify my pronouns further, in my first sentence I meant "I did not downvote the comment (I don't find the document embarrassing)", and in (a) I meant that the comment is not factually correct in identifying the document with the Green New Deal. In (b), (c), and (d) I mean the document. ... Also, I think it's incorrect that the DNC produced it. AOC's staff produced it, did they not? And it starts off with a sentence about how they want to make sure other Democrats don't claim credit for it. (Remember, again, that we are talking about the document entitled "Green New Deal FAQ" that was briefly posted to AOC's website, not about the Green New Deal legislation.)
  - nailer 8y ago
    > it's incorrect that the DNC produced it. AOC's staff produced it, did they not? You're right, AOC's staff produced the FAQ, I stand corrected. I still think - if AOC is considered the main backer of the GND - that the FAQ reflects very badly on her team's intentions.

by geofft 8y ago

nailer 8y ago

> it's clearly an internal document > it's basically political flamebait Why would the DNC produce a document that's flame bait? Or is discussing the contents of the document flame bait?

geofft 8y ago
Sorry, my pronouns were unclear. In the first sentence, "it" refers to the document. In the second sentence, "it" referred to the comment to which you replied. Very little that's in the document is relevant to this conversation, and the comment itself was attempting to discredit a particular thesis (HSR is a good idea for the US) by discrediting other theses held or allegedly held by the same people (providing for people unwilling to work is good, bovicide is good, etc.). (I don't think it's unusual for politicians to, in the course of their legitimate work, produce internal documents that when brought to a technical discussion forum can be used to produce political flamebait. It's certainly not unusual for technical people to do the same - a Google internal strategy memo on some recent W3C discussion, with no context, can easily turn into flamebait if posted to HN.) Edit: to clarify my pronouns further, in my first sentence I meant "I did not downvote the comment (I don't find the document embarrassing)", and in (a) I meant that the comment is not factually correct in identifying the document with the Green New Deal. In (b), (c), and (d) I mean the document. ... Also, I think it's incorrect that the DNC produced it. AOC's staff produced it, did they not? And it starts off with a sentence about how they want to make sure other Democrats don't claim credit for it. (Remember, again, that we are talking about the document entitled "Green New Deal FAQ" that was briefly posted to AOC's website, not about the Green New Deal legislation.)
- nailer 8y ago
  > it's incorrect that the DNC produced it. AOC's staff produced it, did they not? You're right, AOC's staff produced the FAQ, I stand corrected. I still think - if AOC is considered the main backer of the GND - that the FAQ reflects very badly on her team's intentions.