5 ms·

While technically true, I get the feeling you must be new to government

by Xeoncross 5y ago

KennyBlanken 5y ago
[flagged]
- adamrezich 5y ago
  > "If you allow bike lanes in our city, in a few years these bike commies will be trying to spend tax dollars on buying everyone bikes, and then make it illegal to drive your car in the road!" strawman fallacy (or "whataboutism" if you prefer (I don't))
- kelnos 5y ago
  It seems pretty weird to try to equate an absurd scenario around bikes, to a situation where governments with track records of accumulating and abusing power might... accumulate and abuse more power. Asserting that "this time will be different" feels a bit naive, no?
- skellington 5y ago
  Many long term political goals are achieved through incrementalism which others might call the "slippery slope." Incrementalism is a political tactic that is extremely effective. To dismiss it purely as an argumentative fallacy in all cases demonstrates naivety and the person who pointed out that you probably don't understand government was right to do so. There are probably very few cases where the government implemented a rule or regulation or tax or anything where it was eventually rolled back. The government has a long and documented track record of incrementally expanding its reach and power. The US homeland security act will never time out. The Canadian emergencies act will likely also continue on forever, but the act doesn't actually have to get worse to BE worse. The act is already dictatorial. The controlling government will just figure out how to apply the emergencies act more liberally against political opponents. That's how it will get worse.
- loki49152 5y ago
  You do realize that this is, in fact, very similar to what the people who stumped for "just letting us have bike lanes" have progressed to advocating, right? Totally car-free roads, roads that technically are car-usable but have been rigged so that they won't support normal traffic, various pushes to force (or "nudge" or "encourage") people to ride bikes or take mass transit instead of driving... etc. And they even helped with convenient tax credits for taking their preferred modes of transportation! (spending tax dollars)
- dang 5y ago
  Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar. Your GP comment was already unsubstantive, which is the main reason why we're getting a flamewar in this subthread, and it's also not cool to feed it as you're doing here. If a parent comment is breaking the site guidelines (which https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30432570 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30432570 was), the thing to do is flag it, not reply by fueling the flames. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: we've also had to ask you this kind of thing in the past.
dang 5y ago
Please don't post unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments, and please don't cross into personal attack. All that is directly destructive of what we're trying for on this site. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- Xeoncross 5y ago
  My apologies, I don't usually reply like this. I felt like the parent brushed off the points raised too quickly.

While technically true, I get the feeling you must be new to government

KennyBlanken 5y ago

[flagged]

adamrezich 5y ago
> "If you allow bike lanes in our city, in a few years these bike commies will be trying to spend tax dollars on buying everyone bikes, and then make it illegal to drive your car in the road!" strawman fallacy (or "whataboutism" if you prefer (I don't))
kelnos 5y ago
It seems pretty weird to try to equate an absurd scenario around bikes, to a situation where governments with track records of accumulating and abusing power might... accumulate and abuse more power. Asserting that "this time will be different" feels a bit naive, no?
skellington 5y ago
Many long term political goals are achieved through incrementalism which others might call the "slippery slope." Incrementalism is a political tactic that is extremely effective. To dismiss it purely as an argumentative fallacy in all cases demonstrates naivety and the person who pointed out that you probably don't understand government was right to do so. There are probably very few cases where the government implemented a rule or regulation or tax or anything where it was eventually rolled back. The government has a long and documented track record of incrementally expanding its reach and power. The US homeland security act will never time out. The Canadian emergencies act will likely also continue on forever, but the act doesn't actually have to get worse to BE worse. The act is already dictatorial. The controlling government will just figure out how to apply the emergencies act more liberally against political opponents. That's how it will get worse.
loki49152 5y ago
You do realize that this is, in fact, very similar to what the people who stumped for "just letting us have bike lanes" have progressed to advocating, right? Totally car-free roads, roads that technically are car-usable but have been rigged so that they won't support normal traffic, various pushes to force (or "nudge" or "encourage") people to ride bikes or take mass transit instead of driving... etc. And they even helped with convenient tax credits for taking their preferred modes of transportation! (spending tax dollars)
dang 5y ago
Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar. Your GP comment was already unsubstantive, which is the main reason why we're getting a flamewar in this subthread, and it's also not cool to feed it as you're doing here. If a parent comment is breaking the site guidelines (which https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30432570 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30432570 was), the thing to do is flag it, not reply by fueling the flames. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: we've also had to ask you this kind of thing in the past.

dang 5y ago

Please don't post unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments, and please don't cross into personal attack. All that is directly destructive of what we're trying for on this site. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Xeoncross 5y ago
My apologies, I don't usually reply like this. I felt like the parent brushed off the points raised too quickly.