3 ms·

I am going to give you a candid answer: I don't give a shit. That answer is going to sound unpopular here, but deep down is how most people feel.

by naoqj 5y ago

ensan 5y ago
When did how most people “feel deep down” become a sound policy making strategy? To be candid: in some matters, the regulators should not give a shit about how you want your phone. Good for EU and their mandates.
- naoqj 5y ago
  I don't understand. Are you saying that the government should do whatever they want even if it goes against what the majority of the population wants? That is everything but democratic.
  - dotancohen 5y ago
    Democracy has many flaws, you just identified one of them.
  - Tams80 5y ago
    Democracy isn't and shouldn't be absolute. And you do realise that no countries have complete democracy? Even Switzerland with their many referendums doesn't put every decision to a democratic vote. Partly for practical and pragmatic reasons, but also because some things are best not decided by the masses.
  - pbhjpbhj 5y ago
    The clear point is people that don't "give a shit" about the environment or their fellow people are not the majority and so the government should continue to make environmentally lead decisions regardless of the existence of sociopaths.
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    The government frequently makes everyone do things they would rather not do because the aggregate result is good. And the results of the collective action make everyone happy to the point that the law is supported. That's the basis of all tragedy of the commons based laws.
ornornor 5y ago
I guess cars would be slightly lighter and faster without seatbelts or airbags. Or planes would cost slightly less to fly if they were not required to carry safety equipment. That’s exactly because people like you don’t give a shit and corporations will do anything to save/make a buck that laws and regulations like this have to be made and enforced.
- naoqj 5y ago
  That makes no sense because people won't buy cars without seatbelts or airbags - and if they do, it's them dying, which they should have the freedom to do.
  - ornornor 5y ago
    It’s not only the owner of the car dying. It’s also the passengers who may or may not have had a say in the decision. Never mind the cost to society as a whole from medical bills resulting in these preventable injuries, the psychological trauma for survivors/witnesses, or the effect of orphaned children growing up without parents.
  - frenchman99 5y ago
    Don't you worry, if we keep using the planet like we currently do, and like you do by saying you don't give a shit, then we'll all die soon enough because of our lack of respect for our environment — lack of access to clean water will hit loads of people in the coming decades. Either that or we come up with laws that keep us competitive without destroying everything around us. I hope that's what Europe will do and I will support regulation that takes a tiny bit of comfort away if it makes us more resilient in the face of climate change and geopolitical difficulties.
  - 29083011397778 5y ago
    I'd say you're dead wrong here - just look at the pushback against seatbelts when the laws were introduced. Look at the devices on sale, today, to defeat seat belt alarms. Regarding your second point, that's also objectively incorrect. When accidents happen, passengers, especially backseat passengers, become projectiles that cause additional injuries or excess deaths for other occupants. It's not just the dude not wearing a seatbelt dying, it's also the people around them.
rpdillon 5y ago
This is one of the central supporting arguments for government regulation: customers won't pick what's better for society, but rather according to their own short-term needs. Since customers don't care, companies don't either (save those that use their environmental concern as part of their marketing...I suspect most of those measures don't really move the needle, though). That leaves only government. I wish it weren't this way, but I can't argue with the evidence.
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
> I don't give a shit Applying the golden rule, so why should anyone give a shit about what you think?
frenchman99 5y ago
Whether you give a shit or not isn't important. Regardless what you personally think, a law is accepted if it's acceptable. And most people will think "OK, I get that we can't continue to throw away phones and keep using some countries as slaves just because we want the latest iPhone now". Just like people in Europe accept to pay more taxes than in other places of the world because we get that solidarity is important.
Tams80 5y ago
It's unpopular because it makes you a selfish cunt. And yes, many, if not most people are selfish cunts in many ways. Myself included. But that does not make it good. It is something that you, I, and everyone else should be deeply ashamed of.

I am going to give you a candid answer: I don't give a shit. That answer is going to sound unpopular here, but deep down is how most people feel.

by naoqj 5y ago

I am going to give you a candid answer: I don't give a shit. That answer is going to sound unpopular here, but deep down is how most people feel.

ensan 5y ago

When did how most people “feel deep down” become a sound policy making strategy? To be candid: in some matters, the regulators should not give a shit about how you want your phone. Good for EU and their mandates.

naoqj 5y ago
I don't understand. Are you saying that the government should do whatever they want even if it goes against what the majority of the population wants? That is everything but democratic.
- dotancohen 5y ago
  Democracy has many flaws, you just identified one of them.
- Tams80 5y ago
  Democracy isn't and shouldn't be absolute. And you do realise that no countries have complete democracy? Even Switzerland with their many referendums doesn't put every decision to a democratic vote. Partly for practical and pragmatic reasons, but also because some things are best not decided by the masses.
- pbhjpbhj 5y ago
  The clear point is people that don't "give a shit" about the environment or their fellow people are not the majority and so the government should continue to make environmentally lead decisions regardless of the existence of sociopaths.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  The government frequently makes everyone do things they would rather not do because the aggregate result is good. And the results of the collective action make everyone happy to the point that the law is supported. That's the basis of all tragedy of the commons based laws.

ornornor 5y ago

I guess cars would be slightly lighter and faster without seatbelts or airbags. Or planes would cost slightly less to fly if they were not required to carry safety equipment. That’s exactly because people like you don’t give a shit and corporations will do anything to save/make a buck that laws and regulations like this have to be made and enforced.

naoqj 5y ago
That makes no sense because people won't buy cars without seatbelts or airbags - and if they do, it's them dying, which they should have the freedom to do.
- ornornor 5y ago
  It’s not only the owner of the car dying. It’s also the passengers who may or may not have had a say in the decision. Never mind the cost to society as a whole from medical bills resulting in these preventable injuries, the psychological trauma for survivors/witnesses, or the effect of orphaned children growing up without parents.
- frenchman99 5y ago
  Don't you worry, if we keep using the planet like we currently do, and like you do by saying you don't give a shit, then we'll all die soon enough because of our lack of respect for our environment — lack of access to clean water will hit loads of people in the coming decades. Either that or we come up with laws that keep us competitive without destroying everything around us. I hope that's what Europe will do and I will support regulation that takes a tiny bit of comfort away if it makes us more resilient in the face of climate change and geopolitical difficulties.
- 29083011397778 5y ago
  I'd say you're dead wrong here - just look at the pushback against seatbelts when the laws were introduced. Look at the devices on sale, today, to defeat seat belt alarms. Regarding your second point, that's also objectively incorrect. When accidents happen, passengers, especially backseat passengers, become projectiles that cause additional injuries or excess deaths for other occupants. It's not just the dude not wearing a seatbelt dying, it's also the people around them.

rpdillon 5y ago

This is one of the central supporting arguments for government regulation: customers won't pick what's better for society, but rather according to their own short-term needs. Since customers don't care, companies don't either (save those that use their environmental concern as part of their marketing...I suspect most of those measures don't really move the needle, though). That leaves only government. I wish it weren't this way, but I can't argue with the evidence.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

> I don't give a shit Applying the golden rule, so why should anyone give a shit about what you think?

frenchman99 5y ago

Whether you give a shit or not isn't important. Regardless what you personally think, a law is accepted if it's acceptable. And most people will think "OK, I get that we can't continue to throw away phones and keep using some countries as slaves just because we want the latest iPhone now". Just like people in Europe accept to pay more taxes than in other places of the world because we get that solidarity is important.

Tams80 5y ago

It's unpopular because it makes you a selfish cunt. And yes, many, if not most people are selfish cunts in many ways. Myself included. But that does not make it good. It is something that you, I, and everyone else should be deeply ashamed of.