US CE Spring 2022: I'm convinced it's useless which is why I argue about it all day every day

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > US CE Spring 2022: I'm convinced it's useless which is why I argue about it all day every day

«‹›4 »

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Here's the actual article, once again actually tracking the claim back to its source is more accurate than a mediating gloss.

quote:

The White House considered giving Americans gas cards to help offset high prices, but faced strong opposition from congressional committees, which questioned the plan's viability and effectiveness.

Why it matters: The Biden administration is feeling political pressure from high energy costs, made worse by Western sanctions against Russia, and Democrats desperately want to offer some kind of policy response.

What we're watching: The White House this week considered having the IRS send gas cards to Americans � a short-lived idea that some key House Democrats vehemently opposed.

The idea came up as part of a broader package to address gas prices, which is still in its early stages, a senior Democratic aide told Axios.
A House Democratic counsel on Wednesday laid out for the White House a list of reasons why gas cards would be a bad idea, including:

It would be expensive and poorly targeted.

It could worsen inflation and wouldn't do much to lower costs.

Delivering the cards would be a slow process that could bog down the IRS in the middle of the filing season, potentially delaying people's tax returns.

What they're saying: �There�s a variety of ideas being discussed to ensure that the costs American families are feeling at the pump are as minimal as possible," White House spokesperson Vedant Patel told Axios.

"However, gas cards being sent to the American people is not seriously under consideration. It is not an administratively feasible solution and the Biden administration is not considering this as a serious option to help American families," Patel said.

Even the CNN background source doesn't just say the issue is theft from mailboxes.

# ¿ Mar 21, 2022 17:36

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 13, 2024 19:45

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Lib and let die posted:

When, exactly, is it OK to cite the source rather than a mediator? I seem to remember you spending an awful lot of time breathlessly posting that sources don't matter, only mediators do and writing anyone off trying to go source-direct rather than rely on mediators as being bad faith actors/abusers/trolls.

You don't get to ignore either, which I think you know. Posting a tweet link and a snarky one-liner about it that doesn't address any part of its contents is already considered insufficient. I've documented how the root source provides more specific information, and that Bishyaler's post is already misrepresenting even the CNN story.

# ¿ Mar 21, 2022 17:50

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Bishyaler posted:

The CNN article sure has it.

"The Biden administration is worried that gas cards won't work because of execution issues and fraud concerns. In the past, cards have been stolen from mailboxes, a source familiar with the administration's thinking told CNN, adding that they are studying the pros and cons of various proposals."

Even your own quote states there are "execution issues and fraud concerns". This is in fact a problem with these stimulus payment programs, and was a programmatic concern with the last several rounds. The root article from Axios identifies that it was one of several actions considered during the ongoing development of a larger response package.

# ¿ Mar 21, 2022 18:04

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Twincityhacker posted:

There is also the problem of the underbanked, who probably most need the rebate, but I am not sure how the underbanked got their stimulus checks.

Unless those got stolen.

The IRS used a nonfiler tool to distribute them, or tried to get people to file a pro forma return so they had an address they could send checks to. They still had to pay check cashing company fees, thought, which I think was part of why they tried that mess with EIP cards.

Bishyaler posted:

That just sounds like Democrats are dusting off the Republican panic about welfare fraud to justify not helping people.

Even if this were true, it doesn't change the fact that you misrepresented the source. The forms of fraud that are generally a concern are people stealing IDs to harvest other people's payments.

Srice posted:

Somehow, complicated logistics didn't stop the stimulus payments from going out so I can't say I believe them when they call this proposal too complicated to carry out.

It put the IRS several additional months behind; the agency's now in an even worse state of collapse.

# ¿ Mar 21, 2022 18:14

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Bishyaler posted:

This is a bullshit argument and you know it. The posted article was from CNN and exactly zero people are obligated to dig into CNN's original source to find wording more favorable to Democrats.

It didn't even require "digging into" the original source. You misrepresented the text of the CNN article itself.

# ¿ Mar 21, 2022 18:22

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Bishyaler posted:

"We can't send people relief because it might be stolen from the mailbox." is the laziest justification for austerity I've ever heard. They're not even bothering to hide that they don't give a poo poo that they caused a gas panic and drove up the price of nearly every product. At this rate they'll be lucky if they only lose the midterms in a landslide instead of triggering an insurrection.

Bishyaler posted:

The CNN article sure has it.

"The Biden administration is worried that gas cards won't work because of execution issues and fraud concerns. In the past, cards have been stolen from mailboxes, a source familiar with the administration's thinking told CNN, adding that they are studying the pros and cons of various proposals."

These are two different claims about what the source says. They also ignore the other information provided, including in the root source, which provides further detail.

# ¿ Mar 21, 2022 18:32

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Gumball Gumption posted:

That Axios article isn't the source of the CNN article. The CNN article is primarily sourced from an unnamed White House spokesperson who also confirmed the Axios reporting and gave additional statements to CNN.

Great. This doesn't actually address the misrepresentation of the subject material, or the continuing dismissal of actual specific information about the subject provided in the thread.

# ¿ Mar 21, 2022 18:36

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Gumball Gumption posted:

Beats me dude, I'm just pointing out where you were wrong since your reading comprehension also isn't as hot as you think.

The CNN reporter got a single confirmatory quote on background so they could repost the content of the Axios article. Hence "mediating gloss".

Gumball Gumption posted:

Honestly I think you're again in one of those arguments where two people look at a collection of facts, come to different conclusions based on those, and you then get really mad that your conclusion isn't treated as a fact.

I also provided multiple specific references and descriptions of how the policies in question work or don't work, and went further in tracking the initial claim back to the Axio source. I am not obligated to meet your lack of effort with acquiescence.

# ¿ Mar 21, 2022 18:41

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Heck Yes! Loam! posted:

Jesus Christ NYT you are not helping

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1506095895577870341

No, we should not normalize the use of nuclear weapons what the everlasting gently caress.

I don't see how it's normalizing the use of nuclear weapons; it's talking descriptively about the problems of smaller "tactical" nukes normalizing the concept of nuclear war. If that's the descriptive reality, coverage is what produces pushback against it.

# ¿ Mar 22, 2022 06:21

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Heck Yes! Loam! posted:

There's no such thing as a tactical nuke. 'experts' advocating for them shouldn't be quoted in the headline.

This just reeks of natsec folks pushing for normalizing the use of nukes.

https://twitter.com/adamjohnsonNYC/status/1506132337318367239

It's...doing the opposite? Everyone quoted in the story is saying it's a bad idea to make smaller nukes, with the exception of Franklin C Miller, who they explicitly paint as wrong.

Describing what is happening is not an endorsement or a "normalization" of it.

# ¿ Mar 22, 2022 06:49

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Harold Fjord posted:

It's just a description of things that are happening. That's why you got powerful descriptive words like 'feel' in the headline.

Tag yourself. I'm the implied 'some' that aren't actually all that concerned about nuclear war

The explicit "some" is described in the text of the article. It's Trump, Putin, and Miller. Every other voice, including the editorial voice of the article, is about how the idea is garbage.

# ¿ Mar 22, 2022 16:21

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Willa Rogers posted:

Things can be done by executive order now.

Large swathes of this list are either already being done, already done, not doable by executive order or action, or so vague as to be unclear what can be done. I started to go through it with the IRS material, but it's not worth the time.

Curb abuse of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act�s Opportunity Zone program in which wealthy investors shield capital gains from taxes by promulgating new regulations that the Treasury Department annually certify Opportunity Zone funds fulfill all the program�s requirements, including 90 percent of an investment being made in an Opportunity Zone itself and robust reporting requirements. This is vague, but there�s already an annual cert process for participants in the Opportunity Zone program; if they�re asking for additional, intensive enforcement scrutiny, that would require additional Congressional funding.
Raise billions by closing the carried interest loophole that lets Wall Street executives managing other peoples� money disguise part of their salary as investment returns to cut their taxes; currently, investment income of wealthy money managers is taxed at the capital gains rate of 20 percent, whereas their wage income is taxed at 37 percent. I have no idea why the authors would think this wouldn�t require an act of Congress.
Fight unfair tax evasion by the wealthy through IRS authority to require reporting by financial institutions on large deposits related to business transactions without encroaching on the financial privacy for average account holders. This rule was proposed months ago.
Reverse Trump administration regulations that further expanded the offshore tax loopholes created by the Republican Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Promulgate new regulations to close transfer pricing loopholes, prevent earnings stripping, reform the abuse of foreign tax credits, and protect and expand the U.S. source taxation base. Incredibly vague, but several of these are already done. Others can�t, because TCJA was a law, and the president still doesn�t get to overturn laws.
Advance corporate transparency through a Securities and Exchange Commission rule requiring public companies to disclose information about their exposure to climate-related risks, including: the company�s direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions; the total amount of fossil fuel-related assets the company owns or manages; the company�s expected valuation if climate change continues at its current pace or greenhouse gas emissions are restricted to meet the 1.5 degrees Celsius goal; and the company�s risk management strategies related to the physical risks and transition risks posed by the climate crisis. Already being done.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Mar 24, 2022

# ¿ Mar 24, 2022 16:49

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Manager Hoyden posted:

That's a heck of a claim there

Which ones specifically are being done, and not in a squint-and-frame-it-just-right way

I provide some of the ones I did when I started trying to deal with it, but the reality is this is an absurd burden shift; dropping a list of nonspecific agenda asks and claiming the executive can unilaterally do all of them doesn't make it true.

# ¿ Mar 24, 2022 16:58

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Manager Hoyden posted:

So none of them then

Read what I wrote.

quote:

I provide some of the ones I did when I started trying to deal with it

Discendo Vox posted:

Large swathes of this list are either already being done, already done, not doable by executive order or action, or so vague as to be unclear what can be done. I started to go through it with the IRS material, but it's not worth the time.

Curb abuse of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act�s Opportunity Zone program in which wealthy investors shield capital gains from taxes by promulgating new regulations that the Treasury Department annually certify Opportunity Zone funds fulfill all the program�s requirements, including 90 percent of an investment being made in an Opportunity Zone itself and robust reporting requirements. This is vague, but there�s already an annual cert process for participants in the Opportunity Zone program; if they�re asking for additional, intensive enforcement scrutiny, that would require additional Congressional funding.

Raise billions by closing the carried interest loophole that lets Wall Street executives managing other peoples� money disguise part of their salary as investment returns to cut their taxes; currently, investment income of wealthy money managers is taxed at the capital gains rate of 20 percent, whereas their wage income is taxed at 37 percent. I have no idea why the authors would think this wouldn�t require an act of Congress.

Fight unfair tax evasion by the wealthy through IRS authority to require reporting by financial institutions on large deposits related to business transactions without encroaching on the financial privacy for average account holders. This rule was proposed months ago.

Reverse Trump administration regulations that further expanded the offshore tax loopholes created by the Republican Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Promulgate new regulations to close transfer pricing loopholes, prevent earnings stripping, reform the abuse of foreign tax credits, and protect and expand the U.S. source taxation base. Incredibly vague, but several of these are already done. Others can�t, because TCJA was a law, and the president still doesn�t get to overturn laws.

Advance corporate transparency through a Securities and Exchange Commission rule requiring public companies to disclose information about their exposure to climate-related risks, including: the company�s direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions; the total amount of fossil fuel-related assets the company owns or manages; the company�s expected valuation if climate change continues at its current pace or greenhouse gas emissions are restricted to meet the 1.5 degrees Celsius goal; and the company�s risk management strategies related to the physical risks and transition risks posed by the climate crisis. Already being done.

I'm not going to research every single area of US law and rulemaking to go through the whole threadshitting list.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Mar 24, 2022

# ¿ Mar 24, 2022 17:05

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Koos Group posted:

In fairness to him, you didn't indicate that you'd edited your post.

"I provide some of the ones I did when I started trying to deal with it" is in fact an indication.

Manager Hoyden posted:

Well I saw where you provided a list of things that are in a vague category of "being done" but it appears that none of them involve a single executive order, which was the whole point of the list from the Congressional Progressive Caucus

The list from CPC is about "executive action", not executive orders, which could do even fewer of the things on the list. The things "being done" all require rulemaking, usually notice and comment. An executive order is not a substitute for notice and comment rulemaking.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Mar 24, 2022

# ¿ Mar 24, 2022 17:11

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

B B posted:

So you're going to put a minimal amount of effort into proving that the list is bullshit but want the rest of the thread to believe that it's bullshit? I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that the House Progressive Caucus knows more about what can be done via executive action and executive order than you do.

I've put in effort and the response has been "nuh uh". Executive orders aren't the same thing as rulemaking or executive action.

RBA Starblade posted:

It seems like it's just via "executive action", not order, which I assume means it's not just something Biden can do alone, like was claimed.

"Executive action" generally includes rulemaking by executive agencies or agencies subject to executive control, which is a lot of them. Rulemaking's something the executive can direct an agency to do (although depending on the rule and agency, the agency can sabotage or block the rulemaking in various ways).

A bunch of the listed items require congressional funding or congressional changes to the law...or are asking for rules that are already proposed or even in implementation. It looks like the list a) wasn't proofread on initial assembly and b) hasn't been updated in at least a year. Its main utility is to deploy to poo poo up discussion by pretending it's authoritative and shifting a false burden onto the executive branch.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Mar 24, 2022

# ¿ Mar 24, 2022 18:01

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

CommieGIR posted:

Not the thread to discuss Azov or Ukraine, thanks

For the love of god stop entertaining and facilitating the derail you said was supposed to stop.

# ¿ Mar 24, 2022 21:25

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

GoutPatrol posted:

I'm glad this has been a productive talk about the efficacy of sanctions. Perhaps a whole new thread would be better to keep it going.

That warning was given two days ago- and weeks earlier, when all of this bullshit was being originally deployed in the Ukraine thread. Bolded text is not a substitute for moderation.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 02:46 on Mar 26, 2022

# ¿ Mar 26, 2022 02:44

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

some plague rats posted:

What do you get out of posting like this. Do you just really enjoy being volunteer Thread Cop or something?

I enjoy having a functional debate and discussion forum with consistently applied moderation standards, with the resulting sharing of knowledge and learning. That becomes difficult when the moderators continue to facilitate a culture of open contempt for the space.

# ¿ Mar 26, 2022 03:12

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

FTC suing Intuit over the "free" turbotax campaign

quote:

The Federal Trade Commission is taking action against Intuit Inc., the maker of the popular TurboTax tax filing software, by issuing an administrative complaint against the company for deceiving consumers with bogus advertisements pitching �free� tax filing that millions of consumers could not use. In addition, to prevent ongoing harm to consumers rushing to file their taxes, the Commission also filed a federal district court complaint asking a court to order Intuit to halt its deceptive advertising immediately.

# ¿ Mar 30, 2022 16:41

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

So many questions about this.

The head of a major anti-abortion group was just indicted by the Justice Department and arrested by D.C. Capitol Police because she apparently had 5 fetuses stolen from an abortion clinic they protested and "invaded" in 2020 in her house.

She has kept them there for two years after "rescuing" them.

Just a thousand WTFs looping into a ouroboros of WTFs.

https://twitter.com/BruceLeshan/status/1509570882095796225
https://twitter.com/NathanBacaTV/status/1509575371154460679

Not as surprising as I'd like it to be; I recall antiabortion groups have previously staged photos showing the mistreatment of the, ah, articles in question. Animal rights groups do the same with research labs.

Fritz the Horse posted:

see thread title

Radical new "not moderating, as a joke" policy.

# ¿ Mar 31, 2022 20:21

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Gumball Gumption posted:

Biden is using the bully pulpit to ask Congress for the changes he thinks we need. Good to see him finally use it.

https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1509599348702814208

The dems, including the executive, have raised this matter intermittently since at least the early 2000s. This admin had been raising the unused permits in press communications and calling for a reevaluation since January 2021, when it was part of comms on the halt on further leases following the Trump administration.

# ¿ Mar 31, 2022 22:18

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Worth noting here that "organic" as regulated in the US isn't synonymous with better animal treatment or nutrition; it's an awkward, massively captured combination of things, many of which are just tied to a fear-based market for "natural" products and processes.

# ¿ Apr 3, 2022 22:18

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

The U.S. is still trying to walk a tightrope of applying sanctions that punish Putin, but don't seriously impact the Russian oil and gas production industry that makes up most of its economy.

So, in response to alleged war crimes involving killing over 300 civilians who were bound and shot at close range, targeting non-strategically important civilian buildings like schools, museums, and grocery store, allowing rape of civilians, and taking Ukrainian civilians prisoner and back to Russian territory, the U.S. is seizing Putin's daughter's New York City condo, preventing her from competing in any U.S. dance competitions, and preventing all of his children from owning property or holding financial accounts in American territory.

https://twitter.com/kaitlancollins/status/1511702405938876421

Seems like the kind of thing that is going to make nobody happy.

It's explicitly, even in the tweet you're quoting, not the only thing in this sanctions package.

# ¿ Apr 6, 2022 18:24

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

selec posted:

Literally none of it will improve the lives of any American voters so it�s a wash anyway. Big ole WHO CARE imo.

You not caring does not obligate the rest of us to pretend that it doesn't matter.

# ¿ Apr 6, 2022 22:38

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

ellasmith posted:

Hello, I recently noticed that senator Mike Lee introduced legislation to repeal the Davis Bacon act.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/805

Does anyone here have an idea of the odds of this passing were the republicans to return to power? I consider myself a moderate blue collar type but the idea of this actually happening would be enough to turn me into a single issue democrat voter.

12 Senate cosponsors, ranging from Cruz to Paul to Scott, is a really bad sign.

# ¿ Apr 7, 2022 06:55

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Lib and let die posted:

What do you suggest as an alternative?

My wife just made a call to DCF the other day about a kid that showed up with bruises, and today the kid showed up with even more bruises. The child is 3 years old, and has a gigantic bruise around one of his eyes, as though he were hit in the face with a leather belt.

The argument of the article is "nothing". The author appears to believe that resolving other sources of inequality will make child abuse not exist. It is...not very persuasive. It's telling that the article puts 1,500 words between where it raises the question of addressing the alternative, and the nonanswer it devotes to answering it.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 17:32 on Apr 7, 2022

# ¿ Apr 7, 2022 17:29

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Koos Group posted:

What in the article indicates the author believes that eliminating those sources of inequality will eliminate child abuse completely, rather than just lessen it? The latter seems reasonable, since child abuse is strongly correlated with socioeconomic factors.

It's the gap between "The most common objection I hear to abolishing the child welfare system is 'How else will we protect children from severe abuse in their homes?'" and the discussion of mutual aid and payments at the tail end of the article. There is no other response provided for the question, so the author's solution of undoing the system appears to be either "this abuse will continue to exist and go unaddressed, and that's fine" or "all of it will go away". I chose the more charitable interpretation; Leon's summary covers the same ground. I'll note the "natural experiment" in new york just looks like deregulatory paradoxic reporting; a reduction in the apparatus intended to monitor and address a problem meant the problem seemed to go away. The evidence that she claims demonstrates there was no unresolved issue during the reduced period was no increase in the substantiated allegation rate when reporting resumed, which...isn't how that works. It's a bit like the food industry claiming that the FDA is poisoning the food supply because when they were unable to do manufacturing inspections during the pandemic, the number of food facility violations dropped. See also: the gun industry and NIH funding on gun violence.

# ¿ Apr 8, 2022 00:14

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Heck Yes! Loam! posted:

I didn't see this posted today.

https://twitter.com/billybinion/status/1513995427669897218

The judicial branch of the government is so broken that it is very difficult to fathom. Kafka would be jealous and horrified.

It shouldn't be posted today, because it's a story from more than a year ago.

Always look for an alternate source when you see something covered in Reason...and consider how the author's account was crossing your feed in the first place.

edit: ah, it's doing promo for a follow-on IFJ suit. That's where all this is coming from.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 05:14 on Apr 13, 2022

# ¿ Apr 13, 2022 05:04

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Koos Group posted:

It's for the best in practical terms but I must admit I've grown fond of the Iowa fair pageantry. It's been happening since I was old enough to vote, and feels like something of an American election tradition now. Hopefully the state that replaces Iowa will have a state fair right before the primaries start instead.

Whichever state it is, I demand that whatever commodities the state is known for be deep fried and eaten by candidates as part of the festivities.

# ¿ Apr 14, 2022 05:29

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Willa Rogers posted:

Can't Biden deschedule weed on his own, without Congress?

No. At most he can ask the agencies involved to consider moving it to a different schedule under the CSA. The agencies, which are supposed to aply congressional language and interact with entities like NIDA in the scheduling consultation and rulemaking process, are not likely to unilaterally move cannabis.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Apr 14, 2022

# ¿ Apr 14, 2022 16:45

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Fritz the Horse posted:

Going to quote myself from yesterday afternoon. If posters would rather spend their Sunday afternoon arguing broad ideology and hypotheticals about US balkanization instead of current events, fine I guess. As long as it doesn't devolve into sniping, gotchas, insinuations that people who disagree with you are fascists etc. Thanks.

Why is it fine that a group of users get to derail the thread with a counterfactual hostile to all discussion of current events?

# ¿ Apr 17, 2022 22:28

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

"It's a slow sunday" if you have no sources of information other than your personal twitter feed and the forums. Literally open any newspaper and there are things actually happening in the world that are more relevant than the fifteenth autocratic fantasy fanfiction festival. Off the top of my head,

A hit piece was deployed in Politico with the backing of the food industry to reorganize the FDA. This is a really loving big deal, and a bunch of senators from both parties are making noise about restructuring the agency (or even splitting part of it off) before the end of the year.

The Washington Post employee union released a report alleging, among other things, a systematic failure to protect minority employees.

Puerto Rico(perhaps you have forgotten them) has just formally exited bankruptcy....and there is now a massive, unexplained power outage affecting large parts of the island, as its electric utility enters separate bankruptcy negotiations.

There have been multiple mass shootings over the weekend in South Carolina.

I think there was a single post about the SC shootings. Otherwise, none of the above was discussed, because the people who want to discuss things that are actually happening correctly view this as the thread where toxic assholes promote their balkanization fantasies. People post about other stories and it is immediately drowned out by the thousandth iteration of the same conflict-seeking bullshit.

# ¿ Apr 17, 2022 23:16

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Srice posted:

Was this passive aggressive preamble really needed when you could have just linked some current events you wanted to talk about in the first place? What's the deal?

It's necessary because

Discendo Vox posted:

People post about other stories and it is immediately drowned out by the thousandth iteration of the same conflict-seeking bullshit.

# ¿ Apr 17, 2022 23:35

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Srice posted:

I'm afraid I just don't get how being passive aggressive over how folks aren't discussing the exact stuff you want discussed fixes that!

Good thing I wasn't asking for folks to discuss the "exact stuff I want", so much as literally any actual current events, as opposed to broad ideology and hypotheticals about US balkanization!

# ¿ Apr 17, 2022 23:54

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Oracle posted:

Would love to see the textbook makers push back and make public the reasons Florida gave them for rejecting including examples. I'm sure they'd be quite illuminating, like 'why is the kid in this question's name Jamal? Why not Johnny? What are you trying to push here?'

As someone mentioned earlier, the actual reason for many of the removals are more likely to be tied to common core.

# ¿ Apr 18, 2022 17:47

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

As with most politico pieces of this sort, the article:

1. Leverages accurate information (the FDA is massively behind schedule on a bunch of FSMA rulemakings, there's a siloing problem and a turf war between programs, and the food safety monitoring apparatus is fragmented),
2. Minimizes other less useful explanations that it can't completely ignore (FDA is catastrophically underfunded and, in particular, is hampered by relying on contracts with the states for large parts of its inspection activities), and
3. Misrepresents whatever it can (FDA's released a large number of FSMA rules and, in particular, a massive food traceability rule, and a lot of the delays that do exist have been caused by industry)

The article then reassigns blame for all of these back, exclusively, to the agency, and presents them as a litany to justify a realignment that is favored by industry - which is why the quotes are, in fact, so heavily from people who left the agency for industry.

I'll provide some examples of how politico manipulates some of this language:

quote:

In that time, FDA has failed to put in place safety standards for the water used to grow fresh produce, as mandated by that law, despite knowing that water is one of the main ways fresh fruits and vegetables become contaminated with deadly pathogens.

This is brought up several times in different sections as if it's different issues, but they're all referring to the same In reality, FDA put out rule on all produce safety in 2015, including the so-called agricultural water rule(which is only mentioned in one place), which industry is threatening to sue over. FDA's second version is much less specific so it can't be blocked as easily. Another lawsuit is probably pending on the resulting rule. Meanwhile, the Environmental Working Group that's quoted saying the new rule is a "complete surrender" are notorious cranks. Similarly, in all its discussion of lax outbreak responses, the article is pretending the burgeoning new food tracing regime that FDA is setting just...doesn't exist.

quote:

For example, FDA has spent the better part of a decade working on voluntary sodium reduction goals for food companies while many other countries moved ahead with their own years ago.

FDA released this last year. The first version was released in like 2016. The article is pretending it didn't happen.

On heavy metal limits in baby foods, the article combines accurate problems with FDA (they should have set heavy metal limits a long time ago, presuming they had the funding to do so) with inaccurate comparatives (it's not realistically feasible to have zero levels of some heavy metals in any kind of food, including baby foods- comparisons to levels so low they can't be measured in reporting aren't feasible, especially with lead). The article also minimizes agency regulatory actions that have occurred on the issue.

So what makes it a hit piece? As usual with big "investigative" work from politico, someone fed it to them with an agenda. This editorial was timed to follow the "investigation":
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/04/11/fix-fda-break-it-up-00024423

The underlying goal is to centralize authority under a particular exec and basically purge a lot of existing personnel. This is why the article has a glowing minibio of him and frames him as the solution with his corporate experience and accountability reputation (which isn't based on anything). This exec had been planning to privatize inspection authority and shift to poo poo like "AI-based" inspection prioritization and food tracing on the blockchain. He was isolated and position was removed from any direct authority immediately after he was hired (which contributing to the fragmentation of authority in the division) - but he's got tenure and industry ties and if he regains power there will be a further regulatory retreat, so he's stuck around waiting for this push to happen.

FDA has serious issues in all of its divisions, and the food division needs a reorg, but a lot of its problems have to do with decades of insufficient funding normalizing triage-level regulatory practices and reliance on state or industry sources.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 07:04 on May 13, 2022

# ¿ Apr 18, 2022 21:40

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

eviltastic posted:

I remember coming across these guys when researching water quality and water filtration, and chalking them up as a fake advocacy group meant to generate demand for the water filter industry. Is it more insidious than that?

It's been awhile since I last read up on them, but they're one of the ur-chemophobia groups. iirc they're mercenary and are used by various actors in industry to attack others to get leverage for e.g. "purer" or organic products.

# ¿ Apr 18, 2022 23:55

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Archonex posted:

And yeah, i've been using bottled water for years now since I discovered what a borderline poo poo show the water is around here, along with the regulations around it. Haven't had any problems with it yet thankfully. Though given that the brands around here all have PFA's and other potentially harmful chemicals in them due to their own loose regulations i'm probably being forced to trade one problem for another.

To the best of my knowledge PFAS aren't used in any process that would put them in bottled water. The extent and degree of actual harms caused by PFAS aren't well-known and are likely overstated by interested parties, and are also likely specific to individual compounds.

# ¿ Apr 19, 2022 00:55

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 13, 2024 19:45

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Yawgmoft posted:

Can someone explain to me, after Citizens United, how directly and purposefully punishing Disney for saying they disagreed with a bill isn't an infringement on free speech? Or how the government retaliating isn't cancel culture?

Or is the answer just Republican hypocrisy doesn't matter.

At a minimum, they have the pretext that the text of the bill doesn't mention anything about retaliation. CU's also a pretty different context and case specific to campaign spending, iirc. I don't know what sort of posture would come into play with a free speech infringement argument on this set of facts.

edit: Fall Down Terror's explanation gives better legal color.

# ¿ Apr 21, 2022 19:50

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > US CE Spring 2022: I'm convinced it's useless which is why I argue about it all day every day

«‹›4 »