3 ms·

Paxton is a crook though, abuses the power of his office, and generally would prefer to act in ways that hurt his political opponents rather than ways that serv

Paxton is a crook though, abuses the power of his office, and generally would prefer to act in ways that hurt his political opponents rather than ways that server the public. He works against the public interest and should be called out for it. So, it's genuinely shocking for the TAG under his direction to be protecting consumers from these kinds of abuses.

akira2501 2y ago
> He works against the public interest and should be called out for it It's an elected position in Texas. I understand that most of the people who frequent Hacker News wouldn't share his politics, but it's pretty undemocratic to "call him out" incessantly, even when it adds nothing to the situation being discussed, and in particular when he's been elected by a vote. It's mindless preaching to the choir to show that, yes, you are on the "proper" side of the false political divide. It's tiring. So, _I_ call _this_ out. The attitude, to me, boils down to, "I refuse to acknowledge anything good without reminding myself of everything bad." What value does this have? Maybe I just don't "get it."
- digging 2y ago
  > What value does this have? I'm literally trying to get him voted out because he gets rich harming people I care about. If you think an elected official working against the interests of the constituency is just going to naturally get voted out of office, I don't have the energy for the depth this conversation requires.
  - akira2501 2y ago
    > he gets rich harming people I care about. Assertions of opinion as if they were fact is part of what makes me bristle. To do this and then act surprised that I might not exactly share your view and that it would take extreme energy on your part to continue is a bit churlish, don't you think? > If you think an elected official working against the interests of the constituency is just going to naturally get voted out of office I do think that. If it's not happening in your mind, then I'd have to ask, what means are you using to judge the "interests of the constituency?" In particular, outside of polling, how can you be confident your measure truly represents a majority? > I don't have the energy for the depth this conversation requires. It's not that I begrudge you your position, it's just that I openly wonder if this is the best place and means to put forth these opinions. Again, if you are worried that votes will not be effective, then broadcasting this message where the majority already likely holds this view seems, to me, misguided.
    - digging 2y ago
      > > he gets rich harming people I care about. > Assertions of opinion as if they were fact How is that an opinion? I stated what's happening as plainly as I could. I didn't say "him bad" - I said his work does harm to people I care about, which it does; and that he gets rich doing it, which he does. Those aren't opinions, they're facts. You can dispute that they're true facts, but calling them opinions does not make sense. > I do think that. Ok, well, that's unfortunate.
  - lp0_on_fire 2y ago
    > If you think an elected official working against the interests of the constituency is just going to naturally get voted out of office, I don't have the energy for the depth this conversation requires. Regardless of what you think that's exactly how democracy works. If enough of his constituency thinks he is working against their interests they will vote him out. Conversely, if enough of his constituency thinks he is working for their interests he will get (re)elected. Democracy means sometimes people you don't like are elected to positions you'd rather they not be in, but that's the rub.
    - digging 2y ago
      > Regardless of what you think that's exactly how democracy works. As I said, I can't continue this conversation. Our understandings are too far apart.
      - lp0_on_fire 2y ago
        Your understanding seems to be "the rubes are too stupid to know what's for their own good" so it's probably good we don't continue the conversation - it makes you dangerous.
        digging 2y ago
        Not the case
- consteval 2y ago
  > it's pretty undemocratic to "call him out" incessantly I don't understand this sentiment. Using your freedom of speech to criticize a politician doesn't feel undemocratic to me. If anything, the implication that critic should be reserved feels undemocratic. You can vote and speak, and without critic we don't have a true democracy because voters aren't educated. Democracy requires not just voting, but informed voting.
splitstud 2y ago
[dead]

akira2501 2y ago

> He works against the public interest and should be called out for it It's an elected position in Texas. I understand that most of the people who frequent Hacker News wouldn't share his politics, but it's pretty undemocratic to "call him out" incessantly, even when it adds nothing to the situation being discussed, and in particular when he's been elected by a vote. It's mindless preaching to the choir to show that, yes, you are on the "proper" side of the false political divide. It's tiring. So, _I_ call _this_ out. The attitude, to me, boils down to, "I refuse to acknowledge anything good without reminding myself of everything bad." What value does this have? Maybe I just don't "get it."

digging 2y ago
> What value does this have? I'm literally trying to get him voted out because he gets rich harming people I care about. If you think an elected official working against the interests of the constituency is just going to naturally get voted out of office, I don't have the energy for the depth this conversation requires.
- akira2501 2y ago
  > he gets rich harming people I care about. Assertions of opinion as if they were fact is part of what makes me bristle. To do this and then act surprised that I might not exactly share your view and that it would take extreme energy on your part to continue is a bit churlish, don't you think? > If you think an elected official working against the interests of the constituency is just going to naturally get voted out of office I do think that. If it's not happening in your mind, then I'd have to ask, what means are you using to judge the "interests of the constituency?" In particular, outside of polling, how can you be confident your measure truly represents a majority? > I don't have the energy for the depth this conversation requires. It's not that I begrudge you your position, it's just that I openly wonder if this is the best place and means to put forth these opinions. Again, if you are worried that votes will not be effective, then broadcasting this message where the majority already likely holds this view seems, to me, misguided.
  - digging 2y ago
    > > he gets rich harming people I care about. > Assertions of opinion as if they were fact How is that an opinion? I stated what's happening as plainly as I could. I didn't say "him bad" - I said his work does harm to people I care about, which it does; and that he gets rich doing it, which he does. Those aren't opinions, they're facts. You can dispute that they're true facts, but calling them opinions does not make sense. > I do think that. Ok, well, that's unfortunate.
- lp0_on_fire 2y ago
  > If you think an elected official working against the interests of the constituency is just going to naturally get voted out of office, I don't have the energy for the depth this conversation requires. Regardless of what you think that's exactly how democracy works. If enough of his constituency thinks he is working against their interests they will vote him out. Conversely, if enough of his constituency thinks he is working for their interests he will get (re)elected. Democracy means sometimes people you don't like are elected to positions you'd rather they not be in, but that's the rub.
  - digging 2y ago
    > Regardless of what you think that's exactly how democracy works. As I said, I can't continue this conversation. Our understandings are too far apart.
    - lp0_on_fire 2y ago
      Your understanding seems to be "the rubes are too stupid to know what's for their own good" so it's probably good we don't continue the conversation - it makes you dangerous.
      - digging 2y ago
        Not the case
consteval 2y ago
> it's pretty undemocratic to "call him out" incessantly I don't understand this sentiment. Using your freedom of speech to criticize a politician doesn't feel undemocratic to me. If anything, the implication that critic should be reserved feels undemocratic. You can vote and speak, and without critic we don't have a true democracy because voters aren't educated. Democracy requires not just voting, but informed voting.

splitstud 2y ago

[dead]