4 ms·

I think the “does it pipe toxic spill-prone chemicals through your drinking water supply” question is at least relevant to the legitimacy of someone’s stake in

I think the “does it pipe toxic spill-prone chemicals through your drinking water supply” question is at least relevant to the legitimacy of someone’s stake in the situation.

gruez 3y ago
In other words, "only in cases that you support".
- ethanbond 3y ago
  Uhh yeah, I don't think anyone should be able to veto anyone's construction project. I do think that people should be able to veto (or at least protest) construction projects like ones that pipe toxic chemicals through their drinking water. I mean, you can say that's "only in cases you support" dismissively, but I call it "dependent upon the facts of the situation."
  - gruez 3y ago
    >I mean, you can say that's "only in cases you support" dismissively, but I call it "dependent upon the facts of the situation." I point out dismissively because clearly "right to protest" or whatever is only a marginal factor for opposing them getting kicked out. The real reason is that they supported the protesters, and because they support them, they can do no wrong, regardless of what the laws might be. Maybe this is painfully obvious to everyone already, but I want to point out that specifically.
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      It's not just possible but quite sensible to support these particular protestors' particular claims without necessarily supporting all possible vetos of all possible construction projects OR supporting fully arbitrary selections of "protestable projects." Now you're making shit up about "they believe the protestors can do no wrong" to shore up your ridiculous dichotomy that even you don't actually believe.
      - gruez 3y ago
        > It's not just possible but quite sensible to support these particular protestors' particular claims without necessarily supporting all possible vetos of all possible construction projects OR supporting fully arbitrary selections of "protestable projects." Right but even that's absurd. You're basically saying "people shouldn't be able to use protests to veto whatever they want, unless it's A Good Reason™". For one, what is "A Good Reason"? How would the judicial or executive branch decide? Or is it up to the court of public opinion? Shouldn't that be left up to the legislature than whoever is terminally online on twitter or whatever? What happens if I think it's A Good Reason but you don't? >Now you're making shit up about "they believe the protestors can do no wrong" to shore up your ridiculous dichotomy that even you don't actually believe. I'm not sure how "they believe the protestors can do no wrong" is an incorrect depiction unless you interpret "can do no wrong" literally, to mean that even if they committed war crimes or whatever they'd be still left off the hook. It's pretty clear what's happening is that the protesters in question are fighting for a cause that some commenters support, and as a result they're given extra leeway to conduct activities that would otherwise be considered illegal. For instance if a bunch of farmers[1] decided to protest in a major capital by setting up encampments and blocking traffic for weeks, I doubt they'd be left off the hook. [1] feel free to replace with other groups if you happen to sympathize with them, eg. NIMBYs, white nationalists, etc.
wenebego 3y ago
Wont someone think of the shareholders?

I think the “does it pipe toxic spill-prone chemicals through your drinking water supply” question is at least relevant to the legitimacy of someone’s stake in the situation.

gruez 3y ago

In other words, "only in cases that you support".

ethanbond 3y ago
Uhh yeah, I don't think anyone should be able to veto anyone's construction project. I do think that people should be able to veto (or at least protest) construction projects like ones that pipe toxic chemicals through their drinking water. I mean, you can say that's "only in cases you support" dismissively, but I call it "dependent upon the facts of the situation."
- gruez 3y ago
  >I mean, you can say that's "only in cases you support" dismissively, but I call it "dependent upon the facts of the situation." I point out dismissively because clearly "right to protest" or whatever is only a marginal factor for opposing them getting kicked out. The real reason is that they supported the protesters, and because they support them, they can do no wrong, regardless of what the laws might be. Maybe this is painfully obvious to everyone already, but I want to point out that specifically.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    It's not just possible but quite sensible to support these particular protestors' particular claims without necessarily supporting all possible vetos of all possible construction projects OR supporting fully arbitrary selections of "protestable projects." Now you're making shit up about "they believe the protestors can do no wrong" to shore up your ridiculous dichotomy that even you don't actually believe.
    - gruez 3y ago
      > It's not just possible but quite sensible to support these particular protestors' particular claims without necessarily supporting all possible vetos of all possible construction projects OR supporting fully arbitrary selections of "protestable projects." Right but even that's absurd. You're basically saying "people shouldn't be able to use protests to veto whatever they want, unless it's A Good Reason™". For one, what is "A Good Reason"? How would the judicial or executive branch decide? Or is it up to the court of public opinion? Shouldn't that be left up to the legislature than whoever is terminally online on twitter or whatever? What happens if I think it's A Good Reason but you don't? >Now you're making shit up about "they believe the protestors can do no wrong" to shore up your ridiculous dichotomy that even you don't actually believe. I'm not sure how "they believe the protestors can do no wrong" is an incorrect depiction unless you interpret "can do no wrong" literally, to mean that even if they committed war crimes or whatever they'd be still left off the hook. It's pretty clear what's happening is that the protesters in question are fighting for a cause that some commenters support, and as a result they're given extra leeway to conduct activities that would otherwise be considered illegal. For instance if a bunch of farmers[1] decided to protest in a major capital by setting up encampments and blocking traffic for weeks, I doubt they'd be left off the hook. [1] feel free to replace with other groups if you happen to sympathize with them, eg. NIMBYs, white nationalists, etc.

wenebego 3y ago

Wont someone think of the shareholders?