this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2025
637 points (100.0% liked)
/r/50501 Mirror
984 readers
1043 users here now
Mirrored /r/50501 Popular Posts
founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
context?
Its Senator Chris Larson speaking (tweeting? tooting?)?
no. context for the rest of your comment. what does the second sentence refer to?
so you wrote all that to just jerk off instead of simply answer the plainly asked question. you are part of the problem.
edit: you know i made a point when they go and downvote things i've said in complete other locations.
If he had phrased it as "aren't an example of waste, fraud, or abuse" then your long point might have some substance. That's not what he said - he specifically and only says that protecting kids isn't wasteful. You might want to step back and consider you might be trying to see more than what's there for your own biases.
And all the sentences matter. Without context few would understand what he was talking about. The first describes the problem initially as presented to the CDC. The second is the CDC's response in light of admin cuts to every damn thing they can. The last is simply stating that once again money is favored over public safety, even kids' safety.
Btw, there always has been waste, fraud, and abuse in lots of places, including the government. How you determine what is and isn't such things and do something about them is key to whether it improves or worsens things. And DOGE is neither of these, it's an absolute money grabbing with no plan or structure. Hence the point of this tweet.
So it's framing if he doesn't include in a tweet specific about the CDC and leave a side note that all of the efforts to find waste and such is a sham. Which would remove the focus on the topic about the kids, and isn't necessary because most anyone is going to know he's talking about the subject of the CDC being cut and how it affects this singular issue.
Not everything can include all subjects, that's almost a form of Gish Galloping where everything is mentioned but nothing is talked about enough to matter.
Which he did.
I honestly reread it a few times before I replied to you, just to make sure I didn't miss something. Since I'm sure we both agree that the cuts to the CDC that caused this denial of help is a travesty, how would you suggest he had worded things to both keep the attention on the danger to the kids while also "framing" it correctly to avoid what was clearly confusion to a few readers who apparently read between lines and saw his endorsement(???) of DOGE.
Except you're not being direct in who is the problem. The second sentence doesn't tell why the team is gone. The last part says "they" with the assumption the reader knows. I still don't see the implicit allowance of DOGE actions that you do in the original, in fact using your reasoning your rewrite also allows the assumptions to creep in because it also doesn't say other DOGE eliminations aren't valid, it just says this part of the CDC was broken.
I do agree the tone of the rewrite is different. Whether or not it's better is debatable, his last line plays the actions done as an absurdity in reality (which is what it is).
Congratulations, that was the most insufferable comment I've seen all week.
Same. In a good way. Lots of jargon(god I hope that was jargon) and was a challenge.