3 ms·

DOGE Is Bringing Back a Deadly Disease

78 points by voxadam 1y ago

voxadam 1y ago
https://archive.is/s7IQ9 https://archive.is/s7IQ9
chasing 1y ago
It’s not just the general stupidity, it’s the complete disrespect for people who actually are experts and the bone-deep lack of empathy for human pain and suffering that my brain simply cannot work itself around.
Animats 1y ago
The cruelty is the point.[1][2] [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/the-cruelty-is-the-point/572104/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/the-cruelt... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/21/books/cruelty-is-point-adam-serwer.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/21/books/cruelty-is-point-ad...
- wetpaws 1y ago
  [dead]
jmclnx 1y ago
This is a new one on me :( Well that is what happens when you have an anti-science administration running the country.
tastyfreeze 1y ago
Now that the danger is known why wouldn't workers protect themselves without government requirements? Removing the requirement doesn't automatically mean less safe workplaces. It puts the responsibility for being safe on the business or individual.
- cratermoon 1y ago
  You expect workers to pay for protection out of their own pockets? Against a risk their employer denies exists.
  - tastyfreeze 1y ago
    My family members that have worked oil fields were responsible for buying their own PPE even though it was regulation that required it.
    - janice1999 1y ago
      Sounds like the issue is lack of government inspections to enforce regulations.
    - defrost 1y ago
      I'm sorry they had to go through that. Here in Australia, on mine sites, off shore oil rigs, construction, etc. employers are required to provide general safety conditions, adhere to safety regulations, and provide an allowance for personal protection equipment (gloves, goggles, boots, rugged shirts, trousers with day-glo, etc.)
- throw0101d 1y ago
  > Now that the danger is known why wouldn't workers protect themselves without government requirements? At the risk of losing their jobs if they push back 'too much' against the companies. If it's no longer mandatory, lower regulations can be a 'competitive advantage' when it comes to costs, and so that incentivizes companies to cut back.
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  > Now that the danger is known why wouldn't workers protect themselves without government requirements? Because workers don't control working conditions.
  - AlotOfReading 1y ago
Hizonner 1y ago
A deadly disease?
JohnTHaller 1y ago
Link in case the anti-science flagging brigade kills it: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/05/doge-silicosis-prevention/682745/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/05/doge-silic...
- slater 1y ago
  Already showing as flagged, alas...
hbogert 1y ago
Maybe I'm dumb, but why is this flagged? I'm seeing more and more flagged articles. The common denominator seems in my experience to be pieces critical of the USA government

78 points by voxadam 1y ago

https://archive.is/s7IQ9 https://archive.is/s7IQ9

It’s not just the general stupidity, it’s the complete disrespect for people who actually are experts and the bone-deep lack of empathy for human pain and suffering that my brain simply cannot work itself around.

Animats 1y ago

The cruelty is the point.[1][2] [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/the-cruelty-is-the-point/572104/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/the-cruelt... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/21/books/cruelty-is-point-adam-serwer.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/21/books/cruelty-is-point-ad...

wetpaws 1y ago
[dead]

jmclnx 1y ago

This is a new one on me :( Well that is what happens when you have an anti-science administration running the country.

tastyfreeze 1y ago

Now that the danger is known why wouldn't workers protect themselves without government requirements? Removing the requirement doesn't automatically mean less safe workplaces. It puts the responsibility for being safe on the business or individual.

cratermoon 1y ago
You expect workers to pay for protection out of their own pockets? Against a risk their employer denies exists.
- tastyfreeze 1y ago
  My family members that have worked oil fields were responsible for buying their own PPE even though it was regulation that required it.
  - janice1999 1y ago
    Sounds like the issue is lack of government inspections to enforce regulations.
  - defrost 1y ago
    I'm sorry they had to go through that. Here in Australia, on mine sites, off shore oil rigs, construction, etc. employers are required to provide general safety conditions, adhere to safety regulations, and provide an allowance for personal protection equipment (gloves, goggles, boots, rugged shirts, trousers with day-glo, etc.)
throw0101d 1y ago
> Now that the danger is known why wouldn't workers protect themselves without government requirements? At the risk of losing their jobs if they push back 'too much' against the companies. If it's no longer mandatory, lower regulations can be a 'competitive advantage' when it comes to costs, and so that incentivizes companies to cut back.
dragonwriter 1y ago
> Now that the danger is known why wouldn't workers protect themselves without government requirements? Because workers don't control working conditions.
- AlotOfReading 1y ago

Hizonner 1y ago

A deadly disease?

JohnTHaller 1y ago

Link in case the anti-science flagging brigade kills it: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/05/doge-silicosis-prevention/682745/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/05/doge-silic...

slater 1y ago
Already showing as flagged, alas...

hbogert 1y ago

Maybe I'm dumb, but why is this flagged? I'm seeing more and more flagged articles. The common denominator seems in my experience to be pieces critical of the USA government