Agreed, it can. And by reserving that argument for when it is an actual problem, it strengths the overall position

> There have been quite a lot of extremely-drawn-out lawsuits about them drawing more than claimed, dumping hot water into streams and damaging the ecosystem, and polluting other water sources by dumping dirty water into drinking water affecting areas.

And I support strict EPA guidelines and heavy fees for violators! I just think that we should keep the conversation clear and not introduce facts that can be easily overturned as it moves the conversation away from impact and to the argument being made

▲

Ydarbleoj 28 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Let's say a DC is being built in my area and I read how in some locations tap water is being polluted by these DCs. Wouldn't it be better to address that before it's built rather than after?

	▲	duplessitous 4 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Supporting strict Zoning/EPA guidelines is me supporting the ability to address it before it is built. If you local tap water is being polluted by a data center, then we did not have strict Zoning/EPA guidelines. The fines exist because big corporations routinely lie and screw us. They are large penalties, not the way we prevent it from happening. I am in full support to address it ahead of time and nothing I have said goes against this.

▲

Groxx 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

By then it is too late, plus they never pay enough in damages. And the EPA does not have teeth currently, and damage will be done while fixing that too.

So people fight by pattern recognition: abnormally incentivized and extremely large? Kill it with fire immediately. It's mostly reasonable and more effective than anything else at the moment.

▲

duplessitous 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Right, but misinformation is ineffective as it forces the conversation to revolve around the misinformation and not the topic we were attempting to discuss. If we need an example, we need look no further than this thread

Beyond this, it is my opinion that people are cowards. The few who care about this issue enough to perform terroristic actions won't spur any sort of meaningful change in the general population because the general population is not made up of extremists. The general population will not do anything that endangers their lives no matter how much they praise another for doing so

Luigi kills a healthcare CEO. Endless chatter about how this is the end for big pharma, the people are rising up, they better count their days because the people are paying attention. Nothing has happened since but more dead people due to denied insurance claims. But there sure are a lot of people talking about how another Luigi will show up sometime soon

An arsonist burned down a large warehouse. Endless chatter about how this is the end for big corporations screwing us at the register, how workers will rise up and burn even MORE if they don't get treated better. Nothing has happened since to these big businesses. There is no tiktok trend for large scale arson, no worker unionization. Nothing changed but boy do people talk about i

I would rather solve it politically by strengthening the EPA. We may just disagree here and that is fine.

	▲	Groxx 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Honestly, anything that gets people paying attention to stuff that has been building for decades is good in my book. I agree that'll be a much better end-state to be in, but is it the best right now? ... idk. We're in an increasingly blatant "smash and grab" phase for major corporations right now, and they need to be stopped quickly.