Comment by galkk
14 days ago
At this moment I just assume by default that those “watchdogs”, “environmentalists”, “nonprofits” are mix of nimby-ists and/or thinly veiled attempts of extracting money
(it’s a nice things you got here. It would be a shame if some rare species of a frog would be found here. A small donation for the great cause/good, of course, would help us to work on ensuring that nobody gets in harms way).
>I just assume by default
Gitmo couldn't get me to admit to this degree of intellectual cowardice
Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.
Based on your original comment it would seem that this is aimed at yourself?
1 reply →
It's so refreshing to see someone fully disclose their ignorance in a comment, rather than pretend they're arguing in good faith.
Nah. I pretty much said my option about types of organizations who were mentioned in the article, and the herd immediately assumed that I’m pro-corpo or whatever (enough to see in answers to my comments). Logic isn’t strong suit for many people, I accept that.
So it's okay for you to assume the motives of environmentalists you know nothing about, but you get your knickers in a bunch because you think others assume you're pro-corpo?
[flagged]
There are multiple documentations where people have problems with their water level due to data centres [0]. It's also no longer news that data centres are planned/run in arid/desert areas [1]. Scepticism to Google's intentions before the damage is done should be allowed.
[0] https://youtu.be/RfzwLtWkVjg?si=OTjSgW6kBDR3-0So
[1] https://youtu.be/Mn5ttoXxAe8?si=EvN2jnIkA9yRAvJb
This comment made me curious is such a thing actually happens.
As it turns out "greenmailing" is a thing, but not from environmental groups. Here's what claude found for me:
<ai> The concern isn't baseless—there are documented cases of parties using environmental law as leverage, particularly California's CEQA. But empirical studies show only ~13% of such lawsuits actually come from environmental groups; the majority come from labor unions, business competitors, and NIMBYs hijacking environmental review for unrelated purposes. In this specific case, WaterWatch has a 40-year track record on Oregon water issues and the concerns about fish habitat are supported by the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs—so the 'thinly veiled shakedown' framing doesn't really fit </ai>
I hope doing that research didn't spend too much water!
Do you still work for Google?
No. Any other questions?
Spoken like someone who hasn't interacted with the real world in quite some time. There are plenty of third world countries you can have a look at to see how it's going without those pesky rules.
Projecting much?
Where did I say that rules do not apply/shouldn’t apply? I specifically stated my opinion about many types of activists. I’ll repeat my other comment - article quotes only activists/enviromentalists/watchdogs, without any mention of their qualifications in the subject matter. Executive director at Bark, conservation director for environmental group (wtf does it even mean?) are not qualifications
Since when are job titles qualifications?