5 ms·

This debate style is pretty frustrating to me. Use a talking point for the other side and act like it is why the reason it the decision is made. It really doe

This debate style is pretty frustrating to me. Use a talking point for the other side and act like it is why the reason it the decision is made. It really does not lend itself to getting to the root of issues and finding what compromise is. In my opinion this added nothing to the conversation when in theory the op asked for a real answer.

SSchick 1y ago
Ok, what is your counter argument?
Daishiman 1y ago
Im sorry if you’re naive about life but the Republican Party has shown nothing but contempt for life in general. Ideological coherency is not something they have cared about, hence debating them as if their arguments has any weight whatsoever is not useful. Whenever they propose something, just ask yourself which lobbyist stands something to gain. That will be a sufficient explanation.
thegrim33 1y ago
[flagged]
- thrance 1y ago
  What's up to debate here? It's crystal clear: they removed important health regulations so that a few companies could make slightly more money not having to clean up after themselves. What's not to hate there?
  - suby 1y ago
    It is frustrating. Rolling back forever chemical regulations is analogous to reintroducing leaded gasoline. Should we be expected to debate and weigh the pros and cons of leaded gasoline? Some things require nuance, but some things are clearly and unambiguously bad. PFAS have well known health risks, they're persistent, bio-accumulative, and linked to cancers and endocrine disruption. We should err on the side of caution. An angry reaction against this is justified. It's insanity.
    - throwaway173738 1y ago
      That’s the argument—yes. Consumers are supposed to educate themselves about all the industries in their backyard before buying a house to make sure that none of them have ever dumped PFAS in the last 100 years. And also they need to move to a place where it doesn’t rain, because PFAS is also in the water cycle. If nobody does that then the free market has spoken.
  - hobs 1y ago
    The problem is people are so trained that there must be both sides to every issue and you must steel man every other debater when sometimes the guy is coming at you with a knife. There's no two sides to deregulating every business to poison us all, its just profit over people in the most direct and obvious way. There's no complex plan, there's no 4d chess, its just a transparent power grab for ideologues that really have either no interest in the outcomes of their terrible agenda because it ends in power for them or are literally in the pockets of those who desire the end of America.
    - overfeed 1y ago
      > The problem is people are so trained that there must be both sides to every issue Other people are culture warrior and intentionally poison the well (pun nit originally intended) so their side doesn't look bad, because the discussion has devolved into an ideological spat and not about the topic at hand
zzzeek 1y ago
these are fascistic decisions. fascism is well understood, and it is the root of the issue here. a confused, sickened and desperate population is easier to control and manipulate. end of story.
spankalee 1y ago
It's not a debate style, this is the actual explanation. Do you think you have a better one?
zug_zug 1y ago
I understand this may look dismissive or blamey, but sometimes (actually a shocking amount) there aren’t equal merits to both sides… I’ve looked into this a lot and there isn’t any strong argument I’ve seen that this is good for humanity, and let’s not pretend every political action is a sincere attempt to improve the world for all equally. If you look into all the abuse heaped upon the man who discovered leaded gasoline was bad it helps give context on just how far some people will go for their own profits.
- throwaway173738 1y ago
  Or the companies selling cigarettes. The only positive is that cigarettes alleviate the stress caused by being addicted to cigarettes.
  - yndoendo 1y ago
    There is also a social water cooler like aspect. Historically brakes were only provided to those that smoke so people took up smoking so they could get a brake. Some companies still follow this asinine ideology and do not provide brakes to non-smokers.
    - DoctorOetker 1y ago
      So without smokers, there wouldn't be any workers rights at all?
    - teddyh 1y ago
      (You mean “break”, not “brake”.)
      - yndoendo 1y ago
        Yes, unable to edit to fix typos. And no I do not condone smoking. It was to point out system design flaws in the business world.
greenie_beans 1y ago
[flagged]
VerminOctopus1 1y ago
This nonsense meta comment is pretty frustrating to me. Use a counter argument rather than wringing your hands and whining with no apparent critique other than “I don’t like that this person is being mean”
saghm 1y ago
It's not out of the realm of possibility that one side of a issue is not acting in good faith. If that's the case, compromise isn't really a viable option; trying to work with someone within a system doesn't work if they literally don't support the system itself. Obviously not everyone agrees that's what's happening here, but not everyone agrees with your premise that there's guaranteed to be some reasonable compromise to every possible issue either. In some ways, you're kind of arguing the same thing but in reverse by claiming that the comment you're responding to isn't being made in good faith. You're certainly entitled to hold that opinion, but only because of the exact same logic that entitles the parent commenter to hold the opinion that they express in the first place (and for what it's worth, I don't think it's actually being made in bad faith; not everyone will agree about where to draw the line, but at least to me it seems like we're long past the point of giving the benefit of the doubt on policies like the one described in TFA).
supportengineer 1y ago
Take one step backwards. Do cockroaches debate with the boot heel that comes to squish them? The billionaires are not “debating” anything with the “little people”
tensor 1y ago
Well, the facts are that this administration will always, without fail, without a single exception, do the opposite of what has been shown to be good for the US people. This isn't a property of authoritarianism either, no other authoritarian state is so uniformly across the board against science, medicine, and technology. If you have any other suggestion than the reason they do this is something related to money, please be my guest and volunteer. Because otherwise it is the most baffling and self destructive policy making that has ever been documented in the history of humankind.
- trimethylpurine 1y ago
  Trump's EPA created these PFAS rules. Now re-read your comment and look how politically biased you are so much as to be seen as crazy. Here is the statement from the organization pushing for this. It really wasn't hard to find either. https://www.awwa.org/AWWA-Articles/epa-announces-changes-to-pfas-drinking-water-standard/ https://www.awwa.org/AWWA-Articles/epa-announces-changes-to-...
  - Larrikin 1y ago
    The first administration had some people acting in good faith even if you disagreed with them. This second term does not.
    - trimethylpurine 1y ago
      Giving municipalities more time and money to enact change aligns just fine with what I think most people would call good faith. You just can't please some people, I guess.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - colinmorelli 1y ago
    It seems like the PFAS rules were set in prior administrations [1]. In fact, even in the article you've linked above, the text states: > retaining its maximum contaminant levels for PFOA and PFOS but pulling back on its use of a hazard index and regulatory determinations for additional PFAS Key word being "retaining," indicating the maximum contaminant levels were already in place prior to the change mentioned here. Putting aside allegations of "political bias," can you point to a source which clearly indicates the PFA limits were put in place by the current administration? Would like to learn if I'm wrong. [1]: https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/biden-harris-administration-finalizes-first-ever-national-drinking-water-standard https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/biden-harris-administration...
lawn 1y ago
And this is in part why these things are happening. People will dismiss it as "talking points" or "too ridiculous". And then they will continue to do it, fully aware that people will just not believe what is happening.
Workaccount2 1y ago
The media would have a much harder time collecting ad dollars if they didn't use strawman arguments and misrepresentation to lock in an audience. Ask a liberal about conservatives or a conservative about liberals and they have abso-fucking-lutely no idea what the ideals of the other side are. None whatsoever. Thanks silo'd media.
- mindslight 1y ago
  What are the current ideals of so-called conservatives? Being a libertarian who can entertain both left and right approaches to problems, I thought I had a decent handle on where they were coming from. But then they seemingly went bat-shit insane during Covid. I try to appeal to what I thought were some of the underlying values (eg belief in institutions, America as a force for good in the world, individual liberty, slow and measured change), and always get written off like I just don't understand or something. But never any explanation for what I'm actually missing. The best I've been able to come up with is that they've set aside actually living those values in favor of thinking that we need some massive societal cataclysm to get back to a place where those values have more of a draw, but that's clearly not itself conservative.
bee_rider 1y ago
I think it is just venting, rather than debate. Realistically we’re locked in for about a year and a half of full Republican control of every branch of government before literally anything at all can be changed (and even then the main achievable goal for the midterms would be for Democrats to take the House, right? Which gives them at least some ability to do some oversight, but is pretty limited).
beAbU 1y ago
Thanks for calling this out. I share your frustration. As a non-american it's becoming more and more difficult to tell the two sides apart with all the shit flinging going on.

SSchick 1y ago

Ok, what is your counter argument?

Daishiman 1y ago

Im sorry if you’re naive about life but the Republican Party has shown nothing but contempt for life in general. Ideological coherency is not something they have cared about, hence debating them as if their arguments has any weight whatsoever is not useful. Whenever they propose something, just ask yourself which lobbyist stands something to gain. That will be a sufficient explanation.

thegrim33 1y ago

[flagged]

thrance 1y ago
What's up to debate here? It's crystal clear: they removed important health regulations so that a few companies could make slightly more money not having to clean up after themselves. What's not to hate there?
- suby 1y ago
  It is frustrating. Rolling back forever chemical regulations is analogous to reintroducing leaded gasoline. Should we be expected to debate and weigh the pros and cons of leaded gasoline? Some things require nuance, but some things are clearly and unambiguously bad. PFAS have well known health risks, they're persistent, bio-accumulative, and linked to cancers and endocrine disruption. We should err on the side of caution. An angry reaction against this is justified. It's insanity.
  - throwaway173738 1y ago
    That’s the argument—yes. Consumers are supposed to educate themselves about all the industries in their backyard before buying a house to make sure that none of them have ever dumped PFAS in the last 100 years. And also they need to move to a place where it doesn’t rain, because PFAS is also in the water cycle. If nobody does that then the free market has spoken.
- hobs 1y ago
  The problem is people are so trained that there must be both sides to every issue and you must steel man every other debater when sometimes the guy is coming at you with a knife. There's no two sides to deregulating every business to poison us all, its just profit over people in the most direct and obvious way. There's no complex plan, there's no 4d chess, its just a transparent power grab for ideologues that really have either no interest in the outcomes of their terrible agenda because it ends in power for them or are literally in the pockets of those who desire the end of America.
  - overfeed 1y ago
    > The problem is people are so trained that there must be both sides to every issue Other people are culture warrior and intentionally poison the well (pun nit originally intended) so their side doesn't look bad, because the discussion has devolved into an ideological spat and not about the topic at hand

zzzeek 1y ago

these are fascistic decisions. fascism is well understood, and it is the root of the issue here. a confused, sickened and desperate population is easier to control and manipulate. end of story.

spankalee 1y ago

It's not a debate style, this is the actual explanation. Do you think you have a better one?

zug_zug 1y ago

I understand this may look dismissive or blamey, but sometimes (actually a shocking amount) there aren’t equal merits to both sides… I’ve looked into this a lot and there isn’t any strong argument I’ve seen that this is good for humanity, and let’s not pretend every political action is a sincere attempt to improve the world for all equally. If you look into all the abuse heaped upon the man who discovered leaded gasoline was bad it helps give context on just how far some people will go for their own profits.

throwaway173738 1y ago
Or the companies selling cigarettes. The only positive is that cigarettes alleviate the stress caused by being addicted to cigarettes.
- yndoendo 1y ago
  There is also a social water cooler like aspect. Historically brakes were only provided to those that smoke so people took up smoking so they could get a brake. Some companies still follow this asinine ideology and do not provide brakes to non-smokers.
  - DoctorOetker 1y ago
    So without smokers, there wouldn't be any workers rights at all?
  - teddyh 1y ago
    (You mean “break”, not “brake”.)
    - yndoendo 1y ago
      Yes, unable to edit to fix typos. And no I do not condone smoking. It was to point out system design flaws in the business world.

greenie_beans 1y ago

[flagged]

VerminOctopus1 1y ago

This nonsense meta comment is pretty frustrating to me. Use a counter argument rather than wringing your hands and whining with no apparent critique other than “I don’t like that this person is being mean”

saghm 1y ago

It's not out of the realm of possibility that one side of a issue is not acting in good faith. If that's the case, compromise isn't really a viable option; trying to work with someone within a system doesn't work if they literally don't support the system itself. Obviously not everyone agrees that's what's happening here, but not everyone agrees with your premise that there's guaranteed to be some reasonable compromise to every possible issue either. In some ways, you're kind of arguing the same thing but in reverse by claiming that the comment you're responding to isn't being made in good faith. You're certainly entitled to hold that opinion, but only because of the exact same logic that entitles the parent commenter to hold the opinion that they express in the first place (and for what it's worth, I don't think it's actually being made in bad faith; not everyone will agree about where to draw the line, but at least to me it seems like we're long past the point of giving the benefit of the doubt on policies like the one described in TFA).

supportengineer 1y ago

Take one step backwards. Do cockroaches debate with the boot heel that comes to squish them? The billionaires are not “debating” anything with the “little people”

tensor 1y ago

Well, the facts are that this administration will always, without fail, without a single exception, do the opposite of what has been shown to be good for the US people. This isn't a property of authoritarianism either, no other authoritarian state is so uniformly across the board against science, medicine, and technology. If you have any other suggestion than the reason they do this is something related to money, please be my guest and volunteer. Because otherwise it is the most baffling and self destructive policy making that has ever been documented in the history of humankind.

trimethylpurine 1y ago
Trump's EPA created these PFAS rules. Now re-read your comment and look how politically biased you are so much as to be seen as crazy. Here is the statement from the organization pushing for this. It really wasn't hard to find either. https://www.awwa.org/AWWA-Articles/epa-announces-changes-to-pfas-drinking-water-standard/ https://www.awwa.org/AWWA-Articles/epa-announces-changes-to-...
- Larrikin 1y ago
  The first administration had some people acting in good faith even if you disagreed with them. This second term does not.
  - trimethylpurine 1y ago
    Giving municipalities more time and money to enact change aligns just fine with what I think most people would call good faith. You just can't please some people, I guess.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- colinmorelli 1y ago
  It seems like the PFAS rules were set in prior administrations [1]. In fact, even in the article you've linked above, the text states: > retaining its maximum contaminant levels for PFOA and PFOS but pulling back on its use of a hazard index and regulatory determinations for additional PFAS Key word being "retaining," indicating the maximum contaminant levels were already in place prior to the change mentioned here. Putting aside allegations of "political bias," can you point to a source which clearly indicates the PFA limits were put in place by the current administration? Would like to learn if I'm wrong. [1]: https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/biden-harris-administration-finalizes-first-ever-national-drinking-water-standard https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/biden-harris-administration...

lawn 1y ago

And this is in part why these things are happening. People will dismiss it as "talking points" or "too ridiculous". And then they will continue to do it, fully aware that people will just not believe what is happening.

Workaccount2 1y ago

The media would have a much harder time collecting ad dollars if they didn't use strawman arguments and misrepresentation to lock in an audience. Ask a liberal about conservatives or a conservative about liberals and they have abso-fucking-lutely no idea what the ideals of the other side are. None whatsoever. Thanks silo'd media.

mindslight 1y ago
What are the current ideals of so-called conservatives? Being a libertarian who can entertain both left and right approaches to problems, I thought I had a decent handle on where they were coming from. But then they seemingly went bat-shit insane during Covid. I try to appeal to what I thought were some of the underlying values (eg belief in institutions, America as a force for good in the world, individual liberty, slow and measured change), and always get written off like I just don't understand or something. But never any explanation for what I'm actually missing. The best I've been able to come up with is that they've set aside actually living those values in favor of thinking that we need some massive societal cataclysm to get back to a place where those values have more of a draw, but that's clearly not itself conservative.

bee_rider 1y ago

I think it is just venting, rather than debate. Realistically we’re locked in for about a year and a half of full Republican control of every branch of government before literally anything at all can be changed (and even then the main achievable goal for the midterms would be for Democrats to take the House, right? Which gives them at least some ability to do some oversight, but is pretty limited).

beAbU 1y ago

Thanks for calling this out. I share your frustration. As a non-american it's becoming more and more difficult to tell the two sides apart with all the shit flinging going on.