| ▲ | Forgeties79 2 days ago | ||||||||||||||||
There are well funded agendas behind literally any study that makes it in front of you. An agenda is not inherently bad or corrupt. Even if it works to their advantage, if the health information is accurate, then you need to take it seriously. Your lungs do not care who funded it. I have an agenda to better my life. It’s important context, but it doesn’t make me inherently corrupt or untrustworthy, let alone wrong. To really drive this home: You have an agenda to advance your career and better your life. I would never dismiss you outright simply because of that. TL;DR: “It’s funded by a GROUP with an AGENDA” is a lame, invalid, hand wavy excuse to ignore substance. Context matters, but the substance is ultimately what should be assessed. Edit: I’d also be curious to see sources for “New York can build electric only” and all these bussing claims (mind you bussing protestors is not a bad thing, it depends if they are actually involved or paid actors, which oil and gas companies have no problem using - https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/05/608785751...) | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | Spooky23 2 days ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||
I don’t think that bussing protestors is a problem per se, but it’s useful as an assessment of how much cash is behind an issue. I used to be an officer of a union that did that regularly. It was very obvious what our agenda was and how it was paid for. I don’t like environmental activists in general. They tend to attract well meaning people focused on a narrow aspect of an issue and pivot to a broader or specific policy goal. I resent people in warm and cozy grandfathered in buildings in NYC making engineering decisions for me. Air side heat pumps are not ideal for upstate, and it’s making it impossible to build housing units. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||