5 ms·

I agree. If somebody from Iraq did this to a US river, it would a catastrophic act of bioterrorism, an act of war warranting death by drone without trial. Mayb

I agree. If somebody from Iraq did this to a US river, it would a catastrophic act of bioterrorism, an act of war warranting death by drone without trial. Maybe calling it corporate bioterrorism (though a bit hyperbolic) could shift the overton window into somewhere closer to reality.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
This is a somewhat one-sided perspective. The end polluter is often the US government itself. Do we hold the government officials to that same standard? How about the citizens that elected them?
- rngname22 3y ago
  I think the only real answer we can have is, yes. Unless something really fundamental changes, where egregious forms of pollution of forever chemicals is seen the same way things like incest, rape, or murder, then nothing will change.
  - TylerE 3y ago
    The problem is the GOP has spend the last 40 years trying to kill the EPA (Which, ironically, was created by Nixon). When Congress continually undermines and rolls back the agencies rules, who actually is to blame? The regulator? Congress? The voters?
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    Should we lock up fireman who use pfas and all of our local governments that instruct and allow them to do so? Should we equivocate putting out apartment fires with murder? The point I'm trying to make is that this scenario isn't as black and white as one might think. It's easy to be an absolutist about it when it's not your child burning to death.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  If it is a horrific crime to produce the pollution in the first place, the US government could not buy that product on the open market. I don't care who WANTS to buy bad shit, it is on you as a company to not make that bad shit. For some reason, even though plenty of people are ready and willing to buy and sell murder, we still don't allow it. Both can be bad and disallowed.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    Sure, I just think the majority of the blame is misplaced. The US government knew it was bad, bought it, and then knowingly created the vast majority of contamination. They then Sue manufacturers like 3M, while continuing to buy and use it and cause more contamination. It is like buying a knife, stabbing a bunch of people, then suing the manufacturer while still running around stabbing people. It screams of misdirection.
- superchroma 3y ago
  Yes government should be held to the same standard. They should live in fear of the law, as many citizens do.
gruez 3y ago
The difference is intent. Killing someone unintentionally attracts much less ire than premeditated killing. If you can demonstrate you took reasonable care (eg. someone jumping in front of you while on the highway) you won't even be punished.

s1artibartfast 3y ago

This is a somewhat one-sided perspective. The end polluter is often the US government itself. Do we hold the government officials to that same standard? How about the citizens that elected them?

rngname22 3y ago
I think the only real answer we can have is, yes. Unless something really fundamental changes, where egregious forms of pollution of forever chemicals is seen the same way things like incest, rape, or murder, then nothing will change.
- TylerE 3y ago
  The problem is the GOP has spend the last 40 years trying to kill the EPA (Which, ironically, was created by Nixon). When Congress continually undermines and rolls back the agencies rules, who actually is to blame? The regulator? Congress? The voters?
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  Should we lock up fireman who use pfas and all of our local governments that instruct and allow them to do so? Should we equivocate putting out apartment fires with murder? The point I'm trying to make is that this scenario isn't as black and white as one might think. It's easy to be an absolutist about it when it's not your child burning to death.
mrguyorama 3y ago
If it is a horrific crime to produce the pollution in the first place, the US government could not buy that product on the open market. I don't care who WANTS to buy bad shit, it is on you as a company to not make that bad shit. For some reason, even though plenty of people are ready and willing to buy and sell murder, we still don't allow it. Both can be bad and disallowed.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  Sure, I just think the majority of the blame is misplaced. The US government knew it was bad, bought it, and then knowingly created the vast majority of contamination. They then Sue manufacturers like 3M, while continuing to buy and use it and cause more contamination. It is like buying a knife, stabbing a bunch of people, then suing the manufacturer while still running around stabbing people. It screams of misdirection.
superchroma 3y ago
Yes government should be held to the same standard. They should live in fear of the law, as many citizens do.

gruez 3y ago

The difference is intent. Killing someone unintentionally attracts much less ire than premeditated killing. If you can demonstrate you took reasonable care (eg. someone jumping in front of you while on the highway) you won't even be punished.