3 ms·
I think you’re completely sidestepping the point of the OPs post about “emotional truth”. It’s indisputably true that a data center tapped a water supply witho
by afavour 2mo ago
I think you’re completely sidestepping the point of the OPs post about “emotional truth”.
It’s indisputably true that a data center tapped a water supply without the supplier knowing about it and it caused water pressure in surrounding homes to drop:
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/05/08/georgia-data-centers-water-00909988 https://www.politico.com/news/2026/05/08/georgia-data-center...
Whether it was a “material amount” of water is pretty irrelevant here. “affects my home water supply and they didn’t pay for it” makes it plenty material for voters and just feeds into the existing narrative that these companies are stomping all over the will of everyday people.
- tptacek 2mo agoYou're right: I'm not taking seriously the idea of "emotional truth".
- afavour 2mo agoI don’t really get the point you’re making. That it’s illogical? Sure. Voters often are. They still get to vote, though. Sometimes you have to sell an idea through emotion. “I assure you the data center is not using a material amount of water” is not going move the dial.
- ToucanLoucan 2mo agoYou should. Emotional truths get people killed and buildings burned just as effectively as real ones. Arguably even more effectively than real ones.