5 ms·

It is difficult to believe you are approaching this in good faith when you started with drug testing and background checks, then pivoted to it being about tax b

It is difficult to believe you are approaching this in good faith when you started with drug testing and background checks, then pivoted to it being about tax brackets, are replying to most comments to be sure your perspective always has the last word, are complaining of fraud and people exploiting the system, which happens far more from the wealthy than from those in poverty, and now are resorting to telling people they are breaking the rules when they disagree with you.

GaryBluto 1mo ago
>It is difficult to believe you are approaching this in good faith when you started with drug testing and background checks, then pivoted to it being about tax brackets, I wasn't claiming there needs to be all of those in the first place - I was using it to illustrate how little protections are in place. Nor was tax brackets my proposed solution, just one of many protections that could help. You don't need (or shouldn't be required to) to come up with a perfect solution to alert people to a problem. > are replying to most comments to be sure your perspective always has the last word It's odd to complain about people engaging in discussion on a discussion bulletin board. It's the most recent discussion in my comment history, so when I check my comment history once in a while I see it's updated (often with some type of accusation of cruelty, bad-faith, et cetera). > which happens far more from the wealthy than from those in poverty, We're not really talking about the very wealthy here and it'd be strange to go on an off-topic rant about fraud committed by them. > and now are resorting to telling people they are breaking the rules when they disagree with you. I've only mentioned the Guidelines to someone uncharitably accusing me of "look[ing] for a reason not to help [those who need it]", who then at least attempted to engage further up the thread. It's not against the guidelines to disagree with me, but my interpretation is that it is to automatically assume bad faith if somebody disagrees with you and attack things they didn't say, which numerous people have.

GaryBluto 1mo ago

>It is difficult to believe you are approaching this in good faith when you started with drug testing and background checks, then pivoted to it being about tax brackets, I wasn't claiming there needs to be all of those in the first place - I was using it to illustrate how little protections are in place. Nor was tax brackets my proposed solution, just one of many protections that could help. You don't need (or shouldn't be required to) to come up with a perfect solution to alert people to a problem. > are replying to most comments to be sure your perspective always has the last word It's odd to complain about people engaging in discussion on a discussion bulletin board. It's the most recent discussion in my comment history, so when I check my comment history once in a while I see it's updated (often with some type of accusation of cruelty, bad-faith, et cetera). > which happens far more from the wealthy than from those in poverty, We're not really talking about the very wealthy here and it'd be strange to go on an off-topic rant about fraud committed by them. > and now are resorting to telling people they are breaking the rules when they disagree with you. I've only mentioned the Guidelines to someone uncharitably accusing me of "look[ing] for a reason not to help [those who need it]", who then at least attempted to engage further up the thread. It's not against the guidelines to disagree with me, but my interpretation is that it is to automatically assume bad faith if somebody disagrees with you and attack things they didn't say, which numerous people have.