I genuinely do not understand what this person believes is happening here. The Guardian is part of some mass-conspiracy to attack the FDA in order to...achieve what? Prevent unnecessary and potentially harmful chemicals from being introduced into the food supply? What sort of mindset must you have to believe this is a bad thing?
No one benefits from PFAS being unregulated in food, other than stockholders, C-suites and the politicians who accept money from lobbyists that represent them.
Some random group files a petition, and the FDA should be sworn to follow whatever it says? That's nonsensical. The FDA is already working on this as per the link I sent. They already agree that PFAS in food would be bad and they are looking into it. Don't you think they should do studies to understand the scope of the problem, or should they just shoot first and ask questions later? The latter would be anti-science.
You guys are legit crazy. I post a comment that you disagree with and somehow you're thinking I'm part of some astroturfing conspiracy? And then my comments get flagged?
@dang you need to do something about how easy it is to flag and silence respectful comments that hive-minded HN readers ideologically disagree with, just because agreeing with it has a dotted line to support Trump. It's truly deranging for people to think that any opinion that agrees with something the government is doing is morally wrong. It's turning HN into a hyper-political echo chamber with no ability of diversity of thought and it's only gotten more intense in the last few years.
You're getting flagged (at least in part) because your comments are breaking the site guidelines. For example:
> You got tricked [...] You need to do deeper research and not get manipulated by the first article you read.
That crosses into personal attack and flamewar. Since you thought you were posting respectfully, I assume that is your intention, but there's a big gap here between intention and effect. The burden is on you, the commenter, to disambiguate this (see https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...).
When it comes to expressing a minority or contrarian view, there's a considerable additional burden. This may not be fair, but it's real, and it's a skill that needs to be learned. See here for past explanations: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que....
No, friend, I was pointing out that this criminal kleptocracy administration of pathetic self-dealing imbeciles is so indefensible that even its biggest supporters -- I mean, imagine still being gullible enough to think these clowns are on your side -- resort to these sorts of anonymous sneak attack comments. Hence the fresh new account to drop a little FUD.
And I mean, in isolation it might work. Sure, they're "studying the data" and making a concrete plan. Only in the face of the enormous environmental damage they're doing -- gestures broadly at everything -- it rings a bit untrue, and the most cynical takes need to get the most weighting. At this point it's clear it's all criminal delay tactics, almost certainly because the right bribes were paid.
I genuinely do not understand what this person believes is happening here. The Guardian is part of some mass-conspiracy to attack the FDA in order to...achieve what? Prevent unnecessary and potentially harmful chemicals from being introduced into the food supply? What sort of mindset must you have to believe this is a bad thing?
No one benefits from PFAS being unregulated in food, other than stockholders, C-suites and the politicians who accept money from lobbyists that represent them.
Some random group files a petition, and the FDA should be sworn to follow whatever it says? That's nonsensical. The FDA is already working on this as per the link I sent. They already agree that PFAS in food would be bad and they are looking into it. Don't you think they should do studies to understand the scope of the problem, or should they just shoot first and ask questions later? The latter would be anti-science.
You guys are legit crazy. I post a comment that you disagree with and somehow you're thinking I'm part of some astroturfing conspiracy? And then my comments get flagged?
@dang you need to do something about how easy it is to flag and silence respectful comments that hive-minded HN readers ideologically disagree with, just because agreeing with it has a dotted line to support Trump. It's truly deranging for people to think that any opinion that agrees with something the government is doing is morally wrong. It's turning HN into a hyper-political echo chamber with no ability of diversity of thought and it's only gotten more intense in the last few years.
You're getting flagged (at least in part) because your comments are breaking the site guidelines. For example:
> You got tricked [...] You need to do deeper research and not get manipulated by the first article you read.
That crosses into personal attack and flamewar. Since you thought you were posting respectfully, I assume that is your intention, but there's a big gap here between intention and effect. The burden is on you, the commenter, to disambiguate this (see https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...).
When it comes to expressing a minority or contrarian view, there's a considerable additional burden. This may not be fair, but it's real, and it's a skill that needs to be learned. See here for past explanations: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que....
Astroturfing conspiracy? What a weird comment.
No, friend, I was pointing out that this criminal kleptocracy administration of pathetic self-dealing imbeciles is so indefensible that even its biggest supporters -- I mean, imagine still being gullible enough to think these clowns are on your side -- resort to these sorts of anonymous sneak attack comments. Hence the fresh new account to drop a little FUD.
And I mean, in isolation it might work. Sure, they're "studying the data" and making a concrete plan. Only in the face of the enormous environmental damage they're doing -- gestures broadly at everything -- it rings a bit untrue, and the most cynical takes need to get the most weighting. At this point it's clear it's all criminal delay tactics, almost certainly because the right bribes were paid.