3 ms·
I want to believe these changes can be positive, but the people in charge of enacting them have done nothing but disabuse me of trust and good faith.
by spicyusername 2y ago
I want to believe these changes can be positive, but the people in charge of enacting them have done nothing but disabuse me of trust and good faith.
- tomrod 2y agoMy take exactly. It makes the takes around Yarvin's Dark Enlightenment seem like their real motive.
- spankalee 2y agoWhat changes and what's any indication that they would ever have been positive regardless of these people? Unilaterally taking a chainsaw to federal agencies, against their congressional establishment, in a rush in the first three weeks of the administration, is a terrible idea no matter who's running the show. Even if that were somehow a positive thing, the goals range from ridiculously dubious to outright evil.
- oliwarner 2y agoI assume the rush is so these changes get made law-by-budget. Whatever they manage to cut will stay cut once Congress sets that as the ongoing budget and assuming a fairly balanced future, it could take decades to undo.
- motorest 2y ago> I want to believe these changes can be positive, (...) What is there to suggest these changes have any positive trait whatsoever? They don't even carry a plausible justification.
- r00fus 2y agoHow could anyone feel positively about any changes to a codebase that are not allowed to be reviewed by anyone else?
- insane_dreamer 2y agoIf the change was _technical_ (streamline systems for greater efficiency) I would be supporting it. But it's clear the change is _ideological_. And even if you think that one ideology is better than the other, ideological purges of civil servants (who may hold personal political views but whose offices are apolitical and usually there for decades regardless of the party in power), are very dangerous -- just two steps away from fascism.