I understand and totally support that in general. I’m gonna try to explain my point of view.
In this case we don’t exactly look at policy-making. Between stating that a majority supports governmental action to ban one use plastics and actual policy is a process.
This process will “forge” the outcome. In it, several conflicting interests will meet/clash and according to the power relations between them, they will be able to enforce their respective will.
Since the power relations are, let’s say, fucked up, we are constantly seeing how profit of few overrule need of many and overall rational solutions.
Thats why the criterion “clearness” seems out of place for me at this point.
Certanly, before it comes to the actual policy-making, things like the washabillity of surgical equipment will be processed. You will certanly not end up with a dirty scalpel in your body.
That’s why the scepticism of your initial comment seemed odd to me.
Don’t know if this should be seen as a given standard, or if we (“average lemmy users”) should disclaim it more often, but I don’t mean to be offensive (even though this format of short message discourse provoces a certain sass). I mean to have meaningful conversation about each others POV’s. That’s somewhat the point of lemmy, imo.
My lived experience, is that shorthand phrases tend to Trump reality when it comes to implementation, and setting policy. Especially in bureaucratic structures.
Because of my experience, I’m always going to rally against statements that are factually incorrect, there is a place in society for single-use plastics. There is a place in an ecologically minded, and green society, for a single-use plastics.
The fact that this phrase, came from a poll, means there’s an agenda at play. Fair enough, but the people with the agenda should do some work to come up with more accurate freezing. Zero plastic waste, and needless plastic, etc.
I have the same criticism for the " fuck cars" community. I have the same criticism for the chemical-free labeling.
I want people and policy makes to be clear about what they mean, intentions, and language.
I understand and totally support that in general. I’m gonna try to explain my point of view.
In this case we don’t exactly look at policy-making. Between stating that a majority supports governmental action to ban one use plastics and actual policy is a process.
This process will “forge” the outcome. In it, several conflicting interests will meet/clash and according to the power relations between them, they will be able to enforce their respective will.
Since the power relations are, let’s say, fucked up, we are constantly seeing how profit of few overrule need of many and overall rational solutions.
Thats why the criterion “clearness” seems out of place for me at this point. Certanly, before it comes to the actual policy-making, things like the washabillity of surgical equipment will be processed. You will certanly not end up with a dirty scalpel in your body.
That’s why the scepticism of your initial comment seemed odd to me.
Don’t know if this should be seen as a given standard, or if we (“average lemmy users”) should disclaim it more often, but I don’t mean to be offensive (even though this format of short message discourse provoces a certain sass). I mean to have meaningful conversation about each others POV’s. That’s somewhat the point of lemmy, imo.
My lived experience, is that shorthand phrases tend to Trump reality when it comes to implementation, and setting policy. Especially in bureaucratic structures.
Because of my experience, I’m always going to rally against statements that are factually incorrect, there is a place in society for single-use plastics. There is a place in an ecologically minded, and green society, for a single-use plastics.
The fact that this phrase, came from a poll, means there’s an agenda at play. Fair enough, but the people with the agenda should do some work to come up with more accurate freezing. Zero plastic waste, and needless plastic, etc.
I have the same criticism for the " fuck cars" community. I have the same criticism for the chemical-free labeling.