America Is Backsliding Toward Its Most Polluted Era

Just a side note, but what happened to "hypocrisy"?

It used to mean having behavior that contradicts your stated beliefs.

Now it seems to mean an apparent contradiction between behavior and belief if you ignore real distinctions.

I don't like because it weakens the word and loses an important concept -- we don't have a good way to express real hypocrisy vs. fallaciously construed hypocrisy.

It's also an important word, albeit not a very useful one in this age:

    For how can you compete,
    Being honor bred, with one
    Who were it proved he lies
    Were neither shamed in his own
    Nor in his neighbors' eyes;

    -- W B Yeats, "To A Friend Whose Work Has Come to Nothing"

I'd argue there is no "hypocrisy" her because it involves politics.

There isn't the option to micromanage gov policies, there are two options taken as package deals - red or blue.

MAGA react to questions like this as Dems react to questions like "what is a woman?".

EDIT: to be clear, they react as if the inconvenient question is in bad faith.

How is that in anyway a comparable example? Do Democrats hold policy positions that would be particularly flummoxed by trans people existing?

No, you can still find hypocrisy in politics.

A person can vote for a party while not agreeing with every one of their platform points. They can also vote for a party and then criticize it later for not following through. As long as they're honest about the divergence and can justify it as an overall better choice, it's not hypocrisy, just being an adult.

The hypocrisy comes in when somebody claims to hold beliefs, votes for a party, and then either ignores a contradiction or spouts the new party line.

I disagree, your publicly stated comments also have political value outside 'safe' discussion groups. There is pressure to maintain a "united front", and to not appear divided, this is a bipartisan strategy and appears at both the individual and group (e.g. international) level.

This has only increased as public discourse is replaced with unyielding rhetoric and asymmetric slogan-flinging.

Yes, and the number of them treating the question as if it's a trick is proof of that. It's also not a question of "trans people existing", so that's a misdirection/straw-man.

Such as? You seem sure these exist, but are refusing to elaborate when the motivating example is quite clear ("I love nature and the outdoors and think protecting it is important... That's why I vote for the party who's platform is to remove those protections").

What exactly is meant to be a similar problem here that exists depending on the answer to that question?

> Such as? You seem sure these exist, but are refusing to elaborate

I don't know what you are asking here.

"What is a woman?" Should be a fair question if "trans women are women" is taken to be true.

> What exactly is meant to be a similar problem here that exists depending on the answer to that question?

The point is the when the question is asked, it isn't answered, and treated as being asked in bad faith.

The reason is any answer given is likely to be a problem (i.e. offend someone) so it's simply avoided.

It's maybe reasonable to avoid "gotcha" questions, but some questions (i.e. on the basic premise of your position) shouldn't be so.

Again, what position? You keep saying "this question needs an answer"...in what context? For example, "we're building a bridge", "but sir, can you define 'what is a woman?'".

"I believe we should protect the environment" "But your supported political candidate wants to rollback legislation which would specifically protect the waterways and forests you claim are important from industrial dumping of toxic chemicals" is rather more relevant. Like that's a question which needs an answer, because the positions are mutually contradictory.

What contradictory position is being not answered by "what is a woman?"

> ...in what context?

"What is a woman?" Should be a fair question if "trans women are women" is taken to be true.

> For example, "we're building a bridge"

This ("What is a woman?") is a famous question, so I thought the context was well known.

Sen. Blackburn asked it of a Supreme Court nominee, and there is a documentary of the same name and topic.

> Like that's a question which needs an answer, because the positions are mutually contradictory.

The positions yes, but to quote myself:

"there are two options taken as package deals - red or blue"

> What contradictory position is being not answered by "what is a woman?"

have you followed the context of why this is brought up?:

> MAGA react to questions like this as Dems react to questions like "what is a woman?".

> EDIT: to be clear, they react as if the inconvenient question is in bad faith.

In other words, they support whatever their candidate does, whether their positions actually agree with it or not.

This is assuming that all regulations are the same though. The Richard Nixon administration made the environment a policy priority in 1969-1971 and created two new agencies, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and EPA. The Clean Air Act was a Republican bill, and was dealing with things like carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. It is the changing nature of the agency that made Republicans lose faith in it. Like how Republicans can like the idea of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, but after seeing scandal after scandal want the VA scaled back or their responsibilities shifted to other departments who still have their confidence.