4 ms·
The problem is that too many people get caught up believing that intent = effect. So when you suggest that a regulation’s (or even laws) effect might be bad, p
by kcplate 4y ago
The problem is that too many people get caught up believing that intent = effect.
So when you suggest that a regulation’s (or even laws) effect might be bad, people tend to assume you meant the intent was bad too. So you have to go through all sorts of linguistic gymnastics so they don’t feel their “good” intentions were being attacked.
- anon291 4y agoYeah, I had this difficulty with Prop 47 in California (people kept asking me why I didn't want to decriminalize non-violent crimes [1]) or measure 110 in Oregon [2]. It's difficult because basically if you daresay anything, they'll classify you as a member of the 'other' party which means you're a kook who deserves scorn, doxxing, threats (yes, all happened to me, very worrisome, almost had to move). [1] They didn't know it included certain sex crimes and theft with a weapon [2] They had faith the state government would be able to set up a magic mental health care system in 90 days after unemployment checks were delayed for almost four months and in a state where DMV regularly experiences outages that last weeks. I mean... maybe the measure is fine, but we'll never know as there's no possible way it was ever going to be implemented the way they sold it to us, and recognizing that is not some indictment of anyone who supports this measure. But alas, I'm just a curmudgeon.
- kcplate 4y agoThere is definitely an assumption among some that anything the government would do or a specific party would generally support is for the greater good or well thought out. Call it skepticism, pessimism, or realism, but my first assumption is just about anything a political group, faction, or government wants to do will likely result in a degree of harm.