6 ms·

"Don't dump toxic waste into fucking manholes" is "left-wing" now? You're gonna have a real head spin moment when you find out who founded the EPA!

bawolff 11mo ago
Its more basic then that. This is follow laws as they are written. It should not be a left/right issue. If you dont like a law, that's why its a democracy.
ETH_start 11mo ago
Of course not. But there are a myriad of wrong-doings from all sectors of the economy. Choosing to focus exclusively on the wrongdoings of interests that are obstacles to the coalition of unions, bureaucracies, and allied media that economically benefit from ever-increasing public spending (from 20% of GDP in 1950 to 38% today) is a case of shaping public opinion by selection.
- port11 11mo ago
  Pure whataboutism, come on. Yes, other things deserve investigation, but so does this. And there's plenty of right-wing media — in fact I'd argue too much such that there's a lack of balance in US media.
  - ETH_start 11mo ago
    >Yes, other things deserve investigation, but so does this. I was not trying to imply that this does not deserve investigation. I just thought that it was relevant to point out the agenda or ideological bias of the source because it helps to know these kinds of things. >And there's plenty of right-wing media — in fact I'd argue too much such that there's a lack of balance in US media. Journalists are overwhelmingly left-wing in their ideological leanings. The result is something you could call "silence by selection": investigative reporting on corporate or conservative money is constant, but similar investigations of public-sector unions’ financial pipelines, pensions, and political leverage are almost non existent. When mainstream coverage discusses "special interests", it targets corporations or billionaires, not the public-sector class which is the single most powerful political bloc in every advanced Western democracy (and which is the reason why every major urban area in the US is controlled by Democrats).
    - ndsipa_pomu 11mo ago
      > I was not trying to imply that this does not deserve investigation. I just thought that it was relevant to point out the agenda or ideological bias of the source because it helps to know these kinds of things. As noble as your intentions may be, it's unnecessary and muddies the conversation if you keep adding cherry-picked information about your view of the politics of those involved. Also, "left-wing" and "right-wing" are not particularly useful terms as they are ill defined and vary from place to place (e.g. the U.S. left-wing is considered very right-wing in most of Europe).
      - ETH_start 11mo ago
        The views of the politics of those involved is not controversial. They are very much part of the American left, as their X feed makes abundantly clear.
        ndsipa_pomu 11mo ago
        As I understand it, X is a cesspit of right-wing hate and vitriol, so I wouldn't trust their evaluation of "left". As I said, it's really not a useful term to use and you're diverting the discussion away from the issues involved to a discussion of politics instead. Your comments come across as if you're trying to push a specific narrative.
        ETH_start 11mo ago
        Please don't take my words for it. See their X feed and judge for themselves whether they have a partisan agenda: https://x.com/propublica https://x.com/propublica I think where an outlet stands in the larger political landscape is useful context and there's nothing distracting or inappropriate about bringing it up, so we can agree to disagree.
        ndsipa_pomu 11mo ago
        I don't plan on visiting that site whilst it's being run by a blatant Nazi. There was a literal world war to stop that kind of evil and yet people seem to have forgotten. I hope you are not one of those people - I'm always suspicious of anyone that continues to use X/Twitter. It's funny, Musk has enough money to end world hunger and instead he decides to be a complete arsehole.

bawolff 11mo ago

Its more basic then that. This is follow laws as they are written. It should not be a left/right issue. If you dont like a law, that's why its a democracy.

ETH_start 11mo ago

Of course not. But there are a myriad of wrong-doings from all sectors of the economy. Choosing to focus exclusively on the wrongdoings of interests that are obstacles to the coalition of unions, bureaucracies, and allied media that economically benefit from ever-increasing public spending (from 20% of GDP in 1950 to 38% today) is a case of shaping public opinion by selection.

port11 11mo ago
Pure whataboutism, come on. Yes, other things deserve investigation, but so does this. And there's plenty of right-wing media — in fact I'd argue too much such that there's a lack of balance in US media.
- ETH_start 11mo ago
  >Yes, other things deserve investigation, but so does this. I was not trying to imply that this does not deserve investigation. I just thought that it was relevant to point out the agenda or ideological bias of the source because it helps to know these kinds of things. >And there's plenty of right-wing media — in fact I'd argue too much such that there's a lack of balance in US media. Journalists are overwhelmingly left-wing in their ideological leanings. The result is something you could call "silence by selection": investigative reporting on corporate or conservative money is constant, but similar investigations of public-sector unions’ financial pipelines, pensions, and political leverage are almost non existent. When mainstream coverage discusses "special interests", it targets corporations or billionaires, not the public-sector class which is the single most powerful political bloc in every advanced Western democracy (and which is the reason why every major urban area in the US is controlled by Democrats).
  - ndsipa_pomu 11mo ago
    > I was not trying to imply that this does not deserve investigation. I just thought that it was relevant to point out the agenda or ideological bias of the source because it helps to know these kinds of things. As noble as your intentions may be, it's unnecessary and muddies the conversation if you keep adding cherry-picked information about your view of the politics of those involved. Also, "left-wing" and "right-wing" are not particularly useful terms as they are ill defined and vary from place to place (e.g. the U.S. left-wing is considered very right-wing in most of Europe).
    - ETH_start 11mo ago
      The views of the politics of those involved is not controversial. They are very much part of the American left, as their X feed makes abundantly clear.
      - ndsipa_pomu 11mo ago
        As I understand it, X is a cesspit of right-wing hate and vitriol, so I wouldn't trust their evaluation of "left". As I said, it's really not a useful term to use and you're diverting the discussion away from the issues involved to a discussion of politics instead. Your comments come across as if you're trying to push a specific narrative.
        ETH_start 11mo ago
        Please don't take my words for it. See their X feed and judge for themselves whether they have a partisan agenda: https://x.com/propublica https://x.com/propublica I think where an outlet stands in the larger political landscape is useful context and there's nothing distracting or inappropriate about bringing it up, so we can agree to disagree.
        ndsipa_pomu 11mo ago
        I don't plan on visiting that site whilst it's being run by a blatant Nazi. There was a literal world war to stop that kind of evil and yet people seem to have forgotten. I hope you are not one of those people - I'm always suspicious of anyone that continues to use X/Twitter. It's funny, Musk has enough money to end world hunger and instead he decides to be a complete arsehole.