• @deadbeef79000
    cake
    link
    19 months ago

    Not giving a fuck about actual people. Out in broad daylight too.

  • @Ilovethebomb
    link
    -49 months ago

    My, what an unbiased headline and article. 🙄

    • @Rangelus
      link
      09 months ago

      In what way is the article biased? Can you point out inaccuracies or invalid conclusions in it?

      • @Ilovethebomb
        link
        09 months ago

        Do you really need me to explain how “in the shadows” in the headline could possibly be a tad biased?

        • @Rangelus
          link
          09 months ago

          That’s up to you, but since I asked about the article can I assume you haven’t read it and just assumed it’s inaccurate in a knee-jerk reaction based on the title?

          • @Ilovethebomb
            link
            09 months ago

            can I assume

            I’m not going to stop you.

            • @Rangelus
              link
              09 months ago

              So what is the point of going “so biased” and dismissing the article if you haven’t read it? If you want to add meaningful discussion about the article, why not point out what’s wrong with it, instead of flippantly dismissing it? It makes you look like you don’t know what you’re talking about.

              • @Ilovethebomb
                link
                09 months ago

                I did actually skim through it, it was pretty light on detail. About what you’d expect from a headline like that.

                • @Rangelus
                  link
                  39 months ago

                  I disagree. It specifically outlines the changes National and Act are likely to, or have confirmed they will, bring about regarding water regulations, and how it will remove many protections that are currently in place.

                  It also explains the “in the shadows” point by pointing out how the indicated changes are buried deep in agricultural documents from the Nats.

                  Seems like the title, and the article, are as accurate as expected from an Op Ed.

                  Perhaps it would help if you read the article and argue it’s points, rather than jerking that knee?