4 ms·

The obvious outcome of the "both sides"-ism of late: We need to give equal airtime to the Inhaling Ignited Hydrocarbons Is Okay Actually group. Sources don't m

The obvious outcome of the "both sides"-ism of late: We need to give equal airtime to the Inhaling Ignited Hydrocarbons Is Okay Actually group. Sources don't matter, depth of analysis doesn't matter, expert consensus doesn't matter, basic risk mitigation principles don't matter, what matters is that wherever a view is shared, all other views must be shared at equal volume and with equal credence.

alfor 4y ago
Just basic common sense would do. Everything is dangerous and has some risks, but usually weights the risks against other things, we see what are the ways to mitigate them, etc. If you say that gas stove is bad for indoor air quality, how does it compare to making toasts or having carpet and a bit more dust or living close to roads with lots of circulation. When it become a religious fervor, when there is only one side of the coin, that’s where there I see a problem.
GauntletWizard 4y ago
The obvious outcome of "Misinformation and hate speech" policing of late. Proponents of things that are synonymous with civilization cannot have any airtime at all.
- mysteryalias 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - kragen 4y ago
    most of usenet was unmoderated for decades, and was consequently the best source of information on a huge variety of topics, though it certainly was full of trolls the nazi revival seems to have come out of newer heavily censored platforms like twitter and youtube
- 1270018080 4y ago
  Right, the only defense of inhaling hydrocarbons is some kind of trad culture war thing. Like because something bad is happening it has to continue happening because it's a part of my "civilization".
lr4444lr 4y ago
Strawman. 37000 people die each year in vehicular accidents, but somehow people think there's a benefit to using cars, and to use them without making them 3X as expensive just to save perhaps half of those lives. So too do we continue to use gas appliances because they're relatively cheap, effective, and resilient, and if you want to convince us the harm is too great, then quantify it for our judgement.
- ethanbond 4y ago
  > if you want to convince us the harm is too great, then quantify it for our judgement. That's literally what TFA does. Dispute the data or the argument if you want. "This site looks like it doesn't like fossil fuels" is not disputing the data. It's "I suspect there's another side that's not represented [duh] and I therefore will dismiss this information out of hand." It's a terrible heuristic to get anywhere.
- ryukafalz 4y ago
  > 37000 people die each year in vehicular accidents, but somehow people think there's a benefit to using cars, and to use them without making them 3X as expensive just to save perhaps half of those lives. And each of those crashes is a tragedy. Surely you know that there are also efforts to make streets safer, and that other countries have been vastly more successful at it than the US? Traffic crashes were until very recently the leading cause of death among young people, and are still #2. We shouldn't just overlook that either!

alfor 4y ago

Just basic common sense would do. Everything is dangerous and has some risks, but usually weights the risks against other things, we see what are the ways to mitigate them, etc. If you say that gas stove is bad for indoor air quality, how does it compare to making toasts or having carpet and a bit more dust or living close to roads with lots of circulation. When it become a religious fervor, when there is only one side of the coin, that’s where there I see a problem.

GauntletWizard 4y ago

The obvious outcome of "Misinformation and hate speech" policing of late. Proponents of things that are synonymous with civilization cannot have any airtime at all.

mysteryalias 4y ago
[flagged]
- kragen 4y ago
  most of usenet was unmoderated for decades, and was consequently the best source of information on a huge variety of topics, though it certainly was full of trolls the nazi revival seems to have come out of newer heavily censored platforms like twitter and youtube
1270018080 4y ago
Right, the only defense of inhaling hydrocarbons is some kind of trad culture war thing. Like because something bad is happening it has to continue happening because it's a part of my "civilization".

lr4444lr 4y ago

Strawman. 37000 people die each year in vehicular accidents, but somehow people think there's a benefit to using cars, and to use them without making them 3X as expensive just to save perhaps half of those lives. So too do we continue to use gas appliances because they're relatively cheap, effective, and resilient, and if you want to convince us the harm is too great, then quantify it for our judgement.

ethanbond 4y ago
> if you want to convince us the harm is too great, then quantify it for our judgement. That's literally what TFA does. Dispute the data or the argument if you want. "This site looks like it doesn't like fossil fuels" is not disputing the data. It's "I suspect there's another side that's not represented [duh] and I therefore will dismiss this information out of hand." It's a terrible heuristic to get anywhere.
ryukafalz 4y ago
> 37000 people die each year in vehicular accidents, but somehow people think there's a benefit to using cars, and to use them without making them 3X as expensive just to save perhaps half of those lives. And each of those crashes is a tragedy. Surely you know that there are also efforts to make streets safer, and that other countries have been vastly more successful at it than the US? Traffic crashes were until very recently the leading cause of death among young people, and are still #2. We shouldn't just overlook that either!