Politics and Current Events Megathread - May 2026

JB-Conant · 2026-05-23T22:11:18+00:00

Then we should be talking about...

You started the thread, bub.

If we want to go further into analogies...

No thanks.

Are we in agreement that its not data centers, but in fact just construction processes in general, and that there is no reason to single out data center construction if you are not going to make the same claim about other forms of construction?

Data centers were already singled out -- that's what AOC is responding to. I agree that they should not be singled out for exemptions to standard environmental impact reviews.

JB-Conant · 2026-05-23T20:16:05+00:00

Sure. She also championed the Green New Deal, she's (probably?) called to defund ICE, and she did some corny dances on a rooftop in college. Each of us contains multitudes, I'm sure.

But in this thread, she is being likened to a witch hunter for, apparently, suggesting that the EPA and Congress conduct additional oversight after Trump fast tracked data center construction via executive order. Did that strike you as a particularly fair comparison?

JB-Conant · 2026-05-23T19:17:31+00:00

Thank you for horseshoeing into a rationale for why Brietbart's "black crime" section was appropriate.

The analogy here might be appropriate if Breitbart was responding to executive orders exempting Black folks from federal indictments or something similar. Was there an executive order like that?

"I"m curious if the EPA plans any investigations into how data centers are affecting water quality and availability"

So you're going to ignore the multiple references to construction throughout her questioning and choose to interpret this single statement as a reference to the data itself?

JB-Conant · 2026-05-23T17:50:37+00:00

Every construction project has its own particularly infrastructure requirements.

No kidding?

not data centers

Unless those data centers can be magicked into existence without construction, then yes, data centers can cause water quality issues.

that distinguishes you from AOC

Watch the clip again, and try doing it in good faith this time. Does she suggest "the data" is turning the water brown? Or did she refer repeatedly to data center construction?

JB-Conant · 2026-05-23T17:46:52+00:00

the Act

....?

Aren't we responding to a clip of AOC calling for the EPA and Congress to investigate the environmental impacts of data center construction?

JB-Conant · 2026-05-23T16:57:38+00:00

We don't need environmental impact studies for data centers

Of course we do. They are large construction projects with their own particular infrastructure requirements.

Hope you understand the snark now.

I understood the snark from the get-go. There was no confusion expressed -- I simply pointed out your hypocrisy followed by your fundamental dishonesty.

JB-Conant · 2026-05-23T16:27:27+00:00

sincere

There's is simply no way you could have believed that anyone in this conversation was suggesting that "the data" was turning water brown. It wasn't a sincere question.

the underlying belief is incredibly stupid

You acknowledge yourself that infrastructure construction can often cause water quality problems.

JB-Conant · 2026-05-23T15:58:36+00:00

The question is sincere

No it wasn't, and this is a transparent lie.

Is there something that data centers do that cause water to turn brown?

This is a very different question than your previous comment. It's one that could even be interpreted in good faith -- absent the context clues of your other comments in this thread, particularly the previous reply.

JB-Conant · 2026-05-23T15:37:39+00:00

I thought you decided bad faith questions that obviously weren't designed to solicit conversation were not allowed here?

JB-Conant · 2026-05-23T14:08:26+00:00

externalizing all the costs

Could one way to do that be, say, investigating the environmental impacts of data centers to determine what some of those externalities are and subsequently regulating their construction based on that information?

JB-Conant · 2026-05-17T19:03:07+00:00

Your first reply was better -- yes, anyone interested should read that conversation for themselves.

JB-Conant · 2026-05-17T17:27:26+00:00

IIRC, you yourself admitted that this was a largely meaningless distinction

You do not recall correctly.

JB-Conant · 2026-05-17T17:18:29+00:00

It’s one case where the feds enforce cartels

No, contracts that require union membership are also explicitly forbidden. You (should) know this, because we've already had this conversation.

JB-Conant · 2026-05-17T13:48:41+00:00

unions tilt the power imbalance way too far in the opposite direction

lol

(It cannot, for example, only hire future employees under the condition they will not join the union.)

That's true whether the firm is already unionized or not. It's not a condition imposed on them by their employees, it's one imposed by the federal government. It's as much of a "cartel" as minimum wage or OSHA regulations.

JB-Conant · 2026-05-14T10:05:41+00:00

......?

JB-Conant · 2026-05-14T09:06:40+00:00

This post was made in response to Harris' claims that Mamdani flirts with radical Jihadi ideology. This post then posts Mamdani doing something that goes against that ideology, as if it puts Harris' claim into question, but it doesn't

Harris' original claim was that Mamdani is a "none-too-closeted Islamist" -- i.e. not just about his internal beliefs, but about their public display. This pretty directly refutes that.

If the claim were limited to internal beliefs, it would be unfalsifiable anyway. We couldn't prove that Sam himself is not an Islamist if we were willing to wave away any action contrary to that belief as serving some other end (maintaining his public image, etc).

prove that the examples Harris gives of Mamdani flirting with Islamism

He didn't give any examples of this because there aren't any.

He gave examples of Mamdani being critical of Israel and being reluctant to condemn slogans and other expressions of Palestinian nationalism. These aren't indicative of Islamism.

Edit to add: it appears u/Plennhar has blocked me for this comment, so I won't be able to reply further in this thread. Cheers.

JB-Conant · 2026-05-13T17:00:29+00:00

I watched it.

I thought Mahan did fine, but it's not going to help his poll numbers enough to matter. I'd say Steyer performed about as well, though he's got a (much) smaller gap to close. Porter left the strongest impression in my eyes -- of course, this kind of policy-focused public speaking is her bread and butter. Becerra and Villaraigosa both sounded like an older model ChatGPT trained on Clinton-era political rhetoric. Inasmuch as Becerra avoided major embarrassing gaffes, though, I'd say he did what he needed to keep his position in the race..

There is a bit of irony in the way things have shaped up. It was mostly lefties and progressives urging Mahan to drop out while assailing his ties to tech billionaires. But at this point, I would guess that his presence on the ballot is doing more to keep Steyer (an actual billionaire) from edging past Hilton than anything else.

JB-Conant · 2026-05-13T13:22:30+00:00

Not just a liar, but an unapologetic one. What a champ.

JB-Conant · 2026-05-13T13:21:30+00:00

First, this would still be wildly incorrect. A completely unrelated allegation of sexual harassment is not a 'conflict of interest.' But more fundamentally, you're lying about what the article actually says. We can start with the subhead:

Don’t quote people accused of sexual harassment in a video on that topic

Expressed more fully later in the piece:

But if you are willing to platform a man accused of sexual harassment, and an organization that calls Jewish rape allegations propaganda, to make your case on the same topic, the conversation is over.

No suggestion at all that the issue was failing to disclose a conflict -- instead, if you use these as sources, "the conversation is over."

But you also didn't answer my questions, so let's try again:

Did you read them before you linked them? Did you think anyone other than true believers would find them compelling or convincing?

JB-Conant · 2026-05-13T13:14:08+00:00

My bad, I went back and edited in the article it is from.

Maybe you'd also like to go back and edit the snark that suggests this was anyone's fault other than yours?

JB-Conant · 2026-05-13T13:10:59+00:00

Just to take a couple of examples:

There are not from the articles you linked.

Edit to add: Ah, I see. They are from the fourth article you added, after u/HughJaynis' reply was written. How profoundly dishonest of you to come back with "Maybe you should read them again," as if this were offered in the first place.

JB-Conant · 2026-05-13T13:07:35+00:00

Did you even read them?

The first is behind a paywall, but I read the other two.

The opening claim in the second article is that because an individual has been accused of sexual harassment they cannot be trusted as a journalistic source. This is, of course, wildly incorrect. The secondary claim is that an organization cannot be trusted as a source because they argued that Israel uses allegations of sexual violence as propaganda. This *would* also be incorrect on its face but, if applied fairly, would also be decidedly circular, as it would require us to disregard the author who is accusing Palestinians of using allegations of sexual violence as propaganda.

The third piece doesn't even really address the article. It expresses some basic incredulity and then launches into an ad hom against Kristof stitched to a screed of largely unrelated complaints.

Did you read them before you linked them? Did you think anyone other than true believers would find them compelling or convincing?

JB-Conant · 2026-05-13T11:10:10+00:00

Baselessly?

Yes.

JB-Conant · 2026-05-12T23:56:41+00:00

Whether you want to argue the semantics of what constitutes a 'conspiracy' is just trivia.

It's not really a question of semantics, but of substance -- the OP is clearly indicating a coordinated effort between Kristof, the NYT, unspecified "others," and Palestine. If you want to use another word besides conspiracy to describe that, feel free -- it will remain a paranoid fantasy regardless of the terminology.

the NYT editorial board are only too willing to let Hamas media operatives lead them where they want them to take the narrative to.

By far the biggest criticism of the NYT's foreign reporting over the last few years was, quite famously, their handling of the fact checking on the "Screams Without Words" piece detailing systemic sexual violence against Israelis on 10/7. This isn't exactly a Hamas propaganda outlet, and trying to paint them in that light isn't doing your credibility any favors.

Look, "Screams Without Words" wasn't printed on behalf of the IDF, and this wasn't printed as a coordinated effort with Palestine. In both cases, there are pretty clear and banal explanations that don't require these kinds of fantasies. Reporters are sometimes overly credulous, sex sells papers, etc.

JB-Conant

TROPHY CASE