4 ms·

> when people now see articles like this and read 'cancer-causing' they'll think 'like Starbucks coffee, so I'm happy with that risk - not a problem'. Well, I

by nawgz 5y ago

> when people now see articles like this and read 'cancer-causing' they'll think 'like Starbucks coffee, so I'm happy with that risk - not a problem'. Well, I can think of multiple site guidelines I see violated here too. > Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. > Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. Really, it'd be a compliment to call your comments facile. This article has as an opening graphic a stark juxtaposition of harsh industry and children attending school, which it then proceeds to discuss pretty thoroughly. It is difficult to believe you think the discussion there is about risks analogous to drinking a cup of coffee.

fundad 5y ago
Every post is going to attract someone "just asking questions" about whether a normal, serious, hypothetical person would immediately be thinking about right-wing talking points instead of thinking about health and suffering.
chrisseaton 5y ago
> It is difficult to believe you think the discussion there is about risks analogous to drinking a cup of coffee. I don't think that! And that's the point - same warning, but not the same risk.
- nawgz 5y ago
  If you think the behavior of people who do not read the article will be unchanged by yet another discussion of cancer, I think you will perhaps be surprised to learn that people who don't care about privacy don't care about yet another discussion of government overreach and people who don't care about politics remain unbothered by news articles decrying fascism or communism. The article was quite interesting, and showed some very good points. When you use words like "when people now see articles like this" to completely dismiss its very point, it ceases to feel like good faith discussion of anything besides some personal agenda you related to an article keyword.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    > When you use words like "when people now see articles like this" to completely dismiss its very point I think you're misreading my comments. I'm not dismissing the article. It's the opposite. I'm saying that my fear is that other people will unfortunately dismiss the article, due to fatigue of being warned that things cause cancer.
    - nawgz 5y ago
      You are strongly whitewashing your own comments. Your first comment - as mentioned re: personal agendas - was about 75% dedicated to to railing against California. The other 25% was where you expressed your opinion of the article: "probably nobody cares" Please write more carefully if you mean what you say when pressed, because these thoughts are not without merit, but the top level comment was completely off-topic and derogatory to the article and has scarcely spawned a useful discussion.
      - chrisseaton 5y ago
        > derogatory to the article I’m really not sure how you managed to take that away from the top level comment! I didn't say anything derogatory about it if you re-read it. I think you're possibly bringing in some kind of preconception. The article is important but its impact is watered down by people making ‘cancer-causing’ a daily warning. That was the point.
        nawgz 5y ago
        You are a sad person to use language like such a snake > I didn't say anything derogatory about it if you re-read it he says in response to a comment clearly outlining why it reads as derogatory regardless of author intention, ignoring those points to instead imply I am the problem. > The article is important but its impact is watered down by people making ‘cancer-causing’ a daily warning. That was the point. You can't really tell me that was the point - where do you suggest the article is important in your initial comment? Answer with a quotation please. To me, and any reasonable reader, the point was that you hate California, and everything else was just a weak justification to make that comment on this article.

by nawgz 5y ago

fundad 5y ago

Every post is going to attract someone "just asking questions" about whether a normal, serious, hypothetical person would immediately be thinking about right-wing talking points instead of thinking about health and suffering.

chrisseaton 5y ago

> It is difficult to believe you think the discussion there is about risks analogous to drinking a cup of coffee. I don't think that! And that's the point - same warning, but not the same risk.

nawgz 5y ago
If you think the behavior of people who do not read the article will be unchanged by yet another discussion of cancer, I think you will perhaps be surprised to learn that people who don't care about privacy don't care about yet another discussion of government overreach and people who don't care about politics remain unbothered by news articles decrying fascism or communism. The article was quite interesting, and showed some very good points. When you use words like "when people now see articles like this" to completely dismiss its very point, it ceases to feel like good faith discussion of anything besides some personal agenda you related to an article keyword.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  > When you use words like "when people now see articles like this" to completely dismiss its very point I think you're misreading my comments. I'm not dismissing the article. It's the opposite. I'm saying that my fear is that other people will unfortunately dismiss the article, due to fatigue of being warned that things cause cancer.
  - nawgz 5y ago
    You are strongly whitewashing your own comments. Your first comment - as mentioned re: personal agendas - was about 75% dedicated to to railing against California. The other 25% was where you expressed your opinion of the article: "probably nobody cares" Please write more carefully if you mean what you say when pressed, because these thoughts are not without merit, but the top level comment was completely off-topic and derogatory to the article and has scarcely spawned a useful discussion.
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      > derogatory to the article I’m really not sure how you managed to take that away from the top level comment! I didn't say anything derogatory about it if you re-read it. I think you're possibly bringing in some kind of preconception. The article is important but its impact is watered down by people making ‘cancer-causing’ a daily warning. That was the point.
      - nawgz 5y ago
        You are a sad person to use language like such a snake > I didn't say anything derogatory about it if you re-read it he says in response to a comment clearly outlining why it reads as derogatory regardless of author intention, ignoring those points to instead imply I am the problem. > The article is important but its impact is watered down by people making ‘cancer-causing’ a daily warning. That was the point. You can't really tell me that was the point - where do you suggest the article is important in your initial comment? Answer with a quotation please. To me, and any reasonable reader, the point was that you hate California, and everything else was just a weak justification to make that comment on this article.