I think there’s a deep fundamental psychosis of the right wing to get the world back to “survival of the fittest”. If you die of PFAs, poverty, other pollution, well then that’s just bad luck for you.

They just don’t believe in a society that cares for the weak and needy.

▲

locococo 21 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Survival of the fittest should apply to businesses above anything. If a business can't handle the regulations to not pollute water then it's a clear cut case.

This is all the symptom of laziness of the mind. There is resistance to change, adapt and make the world a better place not just for this, but future generations.

There is no leadership in the US, no vision, no drive. The excessive wealth has created a leading class that happily rests on the laurels of prior generations while squandering the future.

This problem extends to all citizens, beyond the weak and needy, and permeates all levels of government from small to big.

I live in one of the best school districts in the US, and when I see the food the children are served I am surprised this is acceptable.

But this is what the US is, extract as much money from people while providing sub standard service. All in-the name of the free market and shareholder value.

People are an exploitable reaource.

	▲	nielsbot 17 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Survival of the fittest should apply to businesses above anything. If a business can't handle the regulations to not pollute water then it's a clear cut case. See, there you go again, over regulating free enterprise out of existence. /s To the main point—I guess we agree. Also: the right wing political movement in the US is an amalgam of conservative religiosity and (MFing) libertarianism. It’s frantic and fear-driven.

▲

hollerith 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>They just don’t believe in a society that cares for the weak and needy.

There is some truth to that, but I don't think that explains their position on PFAS because too much PFAS will disable even a strong healthy person. In this particular, it's more that they think that the harm is being exaggerated and that the actual, non-exaggerated degree of harm does not justify putting restrictions on business and commerce.

▲

shigawire 20 hours ago | parent [-]

>that they think that the harm is being exaggerated and that the actual, non-exaggerated degree of harm does not justify putting restrictions on business and commerce

I struggle to find a topic where they don't think this. It seems the burden of "proof" is too high. They don't believe in risks to health, the environment, climate, or even functional democracy itself. They think all are fake and profit is more important.

▲

hollerith 20 hours ago | parent | next [-]

What you say is true in general, but there are execeptions: for example, the Republicans judge the harm done by heroin, fentanyl, amphetamine and cocaine to be very high -- probably higher than the average estimate of the harm as judged by the Democrats. Ditto street crime.

	▲	nielsbot 17 hours ago \| parent [-]
		My understanding (without data, sorry) is that the conservative position blames drug addiction on bad choices and evil, rather than circumstances. As well the focus is on authoritarian policing as opposed to “harm reduction”. These are generalities, sure

▲

SantalBlush 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

They will think this right up until these things affect them or their community. Then it will be someone else's fault--someone outside of their tribe--that it happened.