Drinking lead can damage people’s brains, but Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach opposes a plan to remove lead water pipes.

In their letter, the attorneys general wrote, “[The plan] sets an almost impossible timeline, will cost billions and will infringe on the rights of the States and their residents – all for benefits that may be entirely speculative.”

Kobach repeated this nearly verbatim in a March 7 post on X (formerly Twitter).

Buttigieg responded by writing, “The benefit of not being lead poisoned is not speculative. It is enormous. And because lead poisoning leads to irreversible cognitive harm, massive economic loss, and even higher crime rates, this work represents one of the best returns on public investment ever observed.”

  • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    261
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 years ago

    To be fair, it’s harder to understand the negative consequences of lead poisoning if you suffer from lead poisoning.

  • snekerpimp@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    188
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    “But if my constituents stop drinking lead, they will become woke and will stop believing the bullshit I’m pouring down their throats”

  • elbucho@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    144
    ·
    2 years ago

    So, Kobach et al’s complaint is that the plan to replace lead pipes is underfunded and so probably won’t cause enough of an impact on lead levels in drinking water to even bother, and yet the reason it’s underfunded is because Republicans specifically voted to not fund it properly. So instead of funding it 100% (or close to 100%), they chose to only fund about 1/3rd of what it would cost to replace all of the lead pipes.

    It almost seems like Republicans want potential voters to imbibe neurotoxins that will negatively impact their IQ, harm their ability to concentrate, and make them more easily swayed by emotional appeals. I wonder why that could be?

    • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      55
      ·
      2 years ago

      Since they were only given 1/3 of the budget, they should announce that they’ll only be removing lead from low income districts (which the Republicans have red-lined into being largely black neighborhoods). See if fomo changes their minds.

      • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        2 years ago

        It won’t change their minds, because they already think it’s not their problem. Their water doesn’t have lead, they presume.

    • OccamsTeapot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      2 years ago

      It almost seems like Republicans want potential voters to imbibe neurotoxins that will negatively impact their IQ, harm their ability to concentrate, and make them more easily swayed by emotional appeals. I wonder why that could be?

      This is my tin foil hat explanation. Also poor areas with more black and ethnic minority people are more likely to have lead pipes and it leads to increased crime and violence, thus further stoking racial tensions and increasing support for racist policy and therefore republicans

      • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        Recognizing that Republicans are monsters who will do literally anything for power doesn’t require any paranoia, just observation.

    • Olivia@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 years ago

      It almost seems like Republicans want potential voters to imbibe neurotoxins that will negatively impact their IQ, harm their ability to concentrate, and make them more easily swayed by emotional appeals.

      It’s probably that they’re reaching for straws on anything they can complain about. Which works when their lower iq voters see that there is controversy.

  • xantoxis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    108
    ·
    2 years ago

    One of the problems with lead poisoning is you end up too stupid to know what lead poisoning is

    • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      I love how they say it could cost 47 billion dollars and this was only for 15 billion so they fight to say replacing the pipes is highly underfunded. The request was for 45 billion and his party demanded lower amounts and only allotted 15 then went on to call it underfunded now to try to get it canceled.

      They say it could take years to get inner city places like Chicago all taken care of… So let me guess, their plan is to wait longer and hurt us more, doesn’t that usually mean you would start immediately?

  • Ekybio@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    70
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    He makes a logical argument with sound reasoning, logical conclusions and a definitive solution. The facts are clear and there is no ambiguity.

    No wonder they dont understand, because its not the immigrants, trans- or black-people at fault here.

    Fitting how the average republican consistently behaves exactly like a person suffering from lead-poisoning…

    • NovaPrime@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      2 years ago

      Should have led with “lead is woke” and they’d be tripping over themselves to ban it

    • ringwraithfish
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 years ago

      Of course they then argue “You’re not doing enough, so you shouldn’t do anything”

    • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 years ago

      Their version of rationality is adherence to an ideology and that is how they interpret the beliefs motives of others.

      Motives is a better word than beliefs. Other than that I’ve come to the same conclusion.

      Conservatives deeply depend on ideology. This is why they say everything is a slippery slope, because their own plan is to keep going with their ideology. They can’t understand that others want to do one action, without some secret grand plan to ____.

      • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        I came oh-so-close to moderating a conservative community and I am quite vocally opposed to conservatism.

        I’m hoping that maybe some conservative communities on Lemmy are moderated by normal (non-conservative) people who can keep the conservatives within the bounds of their instance’s guidelines. Perhaps this is one such moderator. That would certainly be better than letting conservatives moderate a community. We’ve seen how that turns out.

          • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            2 years ago

            Moderating herein means kicking and banning people whose behavior is unacceptable or locking and removing individual posts and comments that are unacceptable. For instance a conservative sub may have threads on the virtues of tax cuts for the rich by relatively normal folks and threads calling for lynching black folks for imaginary crimes.

            I believe the rich should pay their fair share but I sure hope someone normal is willing to allow the former and ban the latter even if the would be lynch mobs threads are couched in polite and indefinite language while they spread their lies and hate. I feel like a normal fellow might be better situated to make such a distinction than someone of a conservative bent who is looking to follow the bare letter of the law so to speak.

    • LeadersAtWork@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 years ago

      In other words, for those that tldr: Conservatives could be incredibly kind and might often actually do the right thing, if they weren’t total idiots. Problem is: They believe too hard literally all the time and base their self off an ideology built on narratives, true or false.

        • RGB3x3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          2 years ago

          Actions speak louder than words. If you say you love and support children, but vote to take away their rights to be who they are and read what they want, you’re a bad person. If you say you support women, but vote to take away their bodily autonomy and voice, you’re a bad person. If you say you support helping the poor, but vote to decrease or eliminate social programs meant to help the poor, you’re a bad person.

          But they’ll never realize that.

      • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Problem is: They believe too hard literally all the time and base their self off an ideology built on narratives, true or false.

        I don’t think that’s a conservative specific thing there, and if you do odds are you’re doing the same thing but privileging the ideologies and narratives you are using in a way that you don’t think they count as narratives or ideologies but as either facts, justice or something along those lines.

        To put it another way, I suspect if I asked for a list of your ten mostly firmly held and allegedly defensible political beliefs and we really drilled down to the bedrock on them we’d hit some bits that are more ideology or narrative than you’d be readily comfortable to admit. Or cases where you built the position around a principle that only applies when it otherwise neatly aligns with your preferred ideologies and narratives.

        For example, pro-choice people tend to be able to invoke one or more general principles that they often claim being pro-choice is an example or expression of (bodily autonomy is a popular one), but it’s shockingly common for nearly the only controversial case where they’ll apply those principles to be abortion (and I say this as someone who is pro-choice).

        Kelly Oliver (philosophy professor at Vanderbilt specializing in feminism among a few other topics, ironically including ethics) once argued that feminist theory isn’t about producing true theories or false theories but rather strategic theories - in other words it’s not about whether or not it’s true but whether or not it is useful for activism. This sounds shockingly like something conservatives might say about some of their hot button claims of the moment if they were being unusually honest.

  • Ultraviolet@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    ·
    2 years ago

    My conspiracy theory is on some level, conservatives are aware that their worldview is at least in part a symptom of lead poisoning induced brain damage, so they rely on lead poisoning for votes.

    • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Those people coming to read you water meter, nope, that’s just a cover! They’re actually putting lead pellets into a secret chamber to contaminate your water so all the tests upstream of you show its safe!

    • fidodo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 years ago

      Considering all the conspiracy theories involving fluoride in the water supply, you’d think they’d catch on to the actually dangerous lead in the water supply and come up with conspiracies involving that instead.

      • kralk@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        The weird thing about conspiracy theorist types is they never want to talk about real conspiracies, just shit about how they faked the moon landing with 5g chips

    • Tinidril@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 years ago

      I don’t think it’s exactly a conspiracy, but I have little doubt that a whole lot of Republican politicians are thinking exactly that.

  • NutWrench@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    ·
    2 years ago

    Lead paint was banned in the U.S. in 1978 because of its toxicity. This stuff can and will kill you.

    Conservatives need to stop treating every deadly poison like a “who can chug the most beer contest.” This isn’t a game (unless you’re a company seeking to bypass lead restrictions, in which case it’s totally a game to YOU).

    • SoleInvictus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      2 years ago

      Here’s something wild: it was only banned for residential use. As long as the paint is labeled ‘for industrial use only’, manufacturers can go crazy with the lead. Despite the common misconception of lead exposure via paint being primarily due to “eating paint chips”, it’s mostly due to the inhalation and ingestion of the dust formed by friction and the gradual breakdown of lead paint. To get to the point, living downwind of any business that still utilizes legal lead paint means you may be exposed to lead.

      • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 years ago

        To get to the point, living downwind of any business that still utilizes legal lead paint means you may be exposed to lead.

        I wonder if there’s any way to find out if you live near one of these businesses?

        • SoleInvictus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          2 years ago

          There’s an easy, not very legal way. Head to the Home Depot and buy some lead test strips, then take them and a pocketknife for some DIY paint sampling at the facility in question.

          If the police find you, make sure you’re white and aren’t near any oak trees.

          • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            I wonder if there’s any way to find out if you live near one of these businesses?

            There’s an easy, not very legal way. Head to the Home Depot and buy some lead test strips, then take them and a pocketknife for some DIY paint sampling at the facility in question.

            Well I was thinking more along some kind of governmental website with a search ability, but sure I guess that would work too.

            • SoleInvictus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              2 years ago

              Well I was thinking more along some kind of governmental website with a search ability

              I wish! There’s no registration required for industrial use, so there’s no registry to search.

            • Clent@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 years ago

              I quick search turned up some accredited labs that will send you an at home collection kit for air sampling.

              It doesn’t seen particular cheap; $100 per kit, minimum order three kits

              I’m not going to link to them since this was a really quick search and do not want to come across as vouching for any particular lab.

              If you’re concerned, I suggest doing some indecent research on your options. Perhaps your state or locality has programs for testing.

      • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        I’m sure there are legitimate needs for leaded paint. Probably for environments where containing RFI or radiation are a concern.

        I’d also think that it’s such a niche need that it probably has a cost premium and not something anybody would willingly choose to use over latex or oil paints.

        • SoleInvictus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          2 years ago

          Lead paint doesn’t contain enough lead to significantly control radiation of any type. You need a sizable amount to block x-ray radiation: think about the thickness and weight of the vests radiation techs use as protection.

          The lead is used as a pigment and helps to decrease dry time and to increase its durability, corrosion resistance, and fungicidal properties. Lead paint is quite cheap and is still used on outdoor structures like bridges, road markings, storage tanks, building exteriors, etc. Lead-free alternatives exist but aren’t always as durable or are comparably durable but often more expensive. There are no applications of which I am aware that require lead paint. It’s 100% a cost and convenience issue.

          Only Nepal and the Philippines have enacted any meaningful control of industrial lead paint. The US reduced the allowed lead content about 15 years ago but lead based paint is still actively used.

          P.s. I’m not just a crazy paint fanatic, I’m a paid, crazy paint fanatic - it’s part of my job. Welcome to the EPA in the United States - better than nothing, but still industry’s bitch.

    • ggBarabajagal@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 years ago

      Ingesting lead can and will kill you, and it will impair your cognitive functioning in the meantime. Lead was banned from automobile gasoline in 1975, but it was too late. There are small amounts of lead in the air and water, almost everywhere, that will remain for centuries and that were not there before cars,

    • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      2 years ago

      Yeah but the market provides a solution! If you don’t want lead in your water, just buy bottled water, silly!

    • GroundedGator@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 years ago

      Reminds me of a movie scene where they trick some capitalist into thinking he drank water that he was responsible for contaminating but swore it was safe.

      Need to get this fool to believe he’s affected by the lead. Not a far leap for the way he is talking.

  • derf82@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 years ago

    As an actual water service professional, I kind of get it. If you control pH and add corrosion inhibitors like orthophosphate, lead pipe are not a problem. Flint fiscal managers decided to skip this to save money.

    Unfortunately the plan is a largely unfounded mandate ($15B won’t even cover 10% of lead lines) with a timeline that will further jack up the price due to everyone competing for materials and contractors.

    The vast majority of lead poisoning comes from old paint, not lead water pipes (and leaded gasoline before that … or now if you live downwind from a general aviation airport as piston aircraft STILL use leaded gas. Yet we won’t ban that ‘cause rich people own those planes).

    Not that it isn’t good to remove lead. It’s just the aggressive timeline. It would be smarter to have a longer timeline where it is paired with replacing the main as well, as it is a smaller marginal cost to do both at the same time. The corrosion control can buy us plenty of time. I personally have a lead connection and a state licensed lab detected zero lead in my water.

    But to phrase it as a state’s rights issue and claim the benefits are speculative is stupid.

      • derf82@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        Rich people have prop planes. You don’t have to be Elon Musk private jet rich to be rich. If you own even a 1960s Cessna 172 costs tens of thousands, not to mention thousands a year in maintenance to keep it airworthy, with regular inspections and overhalls, not to mention storage costs as you will need a hanger or at least a tie-down at some airfield. If you own an airworthy aircraft, you are well within the top 10% at least, and likely in the top 1%. I really am tired of people who act like because there are people far richer than them that it somehow means they cannot be rich. There are degrees of being rich.

        Yes, planes last a long time. So what? Is that an excuse to poison people with lead? The fact is, children who live close to airports have higher lead levels..

        If you want to talk about lasting a long time, try houses. My utility banned lead as a connection material in 1953. But there are 140,000 that were installed before then that are still active. We are not getting a pass on it in 2024 like aviation does.

        Led gasoline was banned in 1996. The EPA started to phase it out in 1973. Aviation has had plenty of time to get moving on alternatives, but they have drug their feet. They don’t get kudos for doing something about lead now.

          • derf82@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            Your definition of middle class is very different than mine. The middle class can’t be 90% of people. It takes less than you might think to fall in the top 10 and 20 percent, and I’d call being in that upper quintile being rich.

            And I never said “30 years ago or never.” But aviation needed to start 40+ years ago. All the more reason to have done so since you say it is a monumental task. Instead, the aviation community continues to drag its feet. Had we done something earlier, perhaps we would have had better means to train people today.

            And there absolutely have been new engines developed since lead gas was banned for cars. The Lycoming IO-390 came out in 2002, was certified in 2009, and was STILL designed to take leaded gas and only leaded gas!

            That’s besides the fact that building a world that relies on just-in-time deliveries flown around the globe was monumentally stupid.

            Also, aviation is for profit. I don’t believe in socializing the losses and privatizing the profits. Water utilities are almost entirely nonprofit, and we don’t get near enough funding.

            But I would bet that will the tools we have in water to control lead leaching that aviation poisons more with lead than water. It’s time aviation be forced to change at least as much as water is.

              • derf82@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 years ago

                So you want society to pay those costs in air fares.

                Yes, that’s how capitalism works. You want the government to pay, the industry should be nationalized. When other industries pollute, we don’t expect the government to pay to help them fix their issues.

                You want to throw away a lot of the GA fleet, including a vast majority of the trainer aircraft in service.

                Yes BECAUSE YOU ARE POISONING CHILDREN WITH LEAD, a fact you continue to ignore. You just want to keep doing what you are doing and say in the back of your mind “fuck them kids.”

                As, as you keep missing the point, had aviation been working on the problem sooner, perhaps it wouldn’t be such an issue now.

                And, yes, I grabbed an example that demonstrated the issue. Lycoming, on of the largest piston aircraft manufacturers, was still pushing forward with tetraethyl lead decades after we knew the dangers of tetraethyl lead. I know certification is time consuming and expensive, but no one tries for a long time. If aviation didn’t drag its feet, they should have been working on the issue since the early 90s at least. Saying “in 2004” proves my point. They are only doing it because they finally see that their hand will be forced. Once lead pipes are gone and lead paint is abated, when kids keep showing up with high blood levels of lead, they will know it’s from the only industry that still uses lead.

                And before you blame the FAA, 2 words: regulatory capture. Just so happens they are staffed with people from the aviation industry.

                The fact is, the claim is always about safety. Can’t leave 100LL, other fuels are too dangerous. But why isn’t it EVERYONE’S safety? Lead poisoning is a serious issue that has been glossed over in aviation. And the victims are innocent, often poor people (because who else is forced to live in cheaper land near airports), and especially their children. For a supposedly safety focused industry, y’all seem to not give a shit about the people on the ground.

      • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        First of all, rich people own jets, which don’t burn leaded gasoline.

        I can’t speak to the rest of your post, but if you own and maintain even the smallest Cessna for personal use, you are rich to me, and you are rich to anyone I’ve ever known personally, and you are rich to most people. That’s like saying owning a Ferrari doesn’t make you rich.

        • turmacar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          Partial and group ownership is incredibly common now because everything is so expensive. I’m making ~$60k and ‘own’ 1/20th of a plane (Cessna 177) that none of us could reasonably afford alone. Admittedly that’s not struggling, but it’s not a ton of money in my part of the country either. It’s just prioritizing spending on getting to fly instead of other hobbies.

          Most flight instructors / people going for the airlines are in similar partnerships or at a flight school using those small planes to eventually get enough hours to go to the airlines. They’re usually making less than I am.

        • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.worldBanned from community
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          Nah owning a Ferrari or airplane doesn’t mean you’re rich. Keeping one running in the long term probably does, more so.

          I can tell you that at least some of the people you see driving around in Ferraris just won a six figure personal injury settlement and spent all the money in the course of days or weeks. I would say even if you had one million in the bank, that isn’t rich. It will certainly provide a great deal of comfort and options, or one Ferrari and some options, and will open some doors, but it’s much closer to abject poverty and homelessness than having like a $1 billion, or even $100,000,000.

  • Nudding@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    The Brookings Institution, a social policy think tank, noted that the actual cost of replacing all of the nation’s lead pipes is closer to $47 billion. The Biden administration originally requested $45 billion for the project, but congressional Republicans negotiated the amount down to $15 billion. The institute also noted that replacing pipes in crowded urban cities like Chicago could take 40 to 50 years.

    • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      2 years ago

      So it is underfunded, because Republicans didn’t want to fully fund the effort.

      Also, when they talk about “homeowners” replacing their lead pipes, what they really mean is “landlords.” Homeowners have an interest in replacing lead pipes because there will be an ROI when they sell, and also the improved quality of life (not spending money on lead filters or bottled water, no cognitive impairment, etc).

      The losers in this situation are the corportate slumlords for whom it will cost more to replace water pipes, and who will not see most of the benefit. They’ll have a hard time justifying raising the rent by saying “now the water is no longer toxic.”

    • madcaesar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      46
      ·
      2 years ago

      First time?

      There was a republican senator who once brought a snowball into Congress to prove climate change is a hoax.

      There was once a republican congressman who claimed a woman’s body would self abort the fetus if it was a rape.

      I don’t remember their names, nor do I care to.

      • scoobford@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        2 years ago

        And another that was worried the island of Guam would tip over if overpopulated.

        And MTGs secret Jewish space lasers thing.

        Congresspeople have shockingly little oversight from their constituents.

      • cybersandwich@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        2 years ago

        There was also a congressman that asked an admiral if he was worried that the island would tip over if they put a navy base on it.

        You know because that happens sometimes.

          • cybersandwich@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 years ago

            I just googled it again. Apparently it was Democrat rep from Georgia. Hank Johnson.

            I’m glad we have these bastions of intellect and wisdom passing laws for the rest of us.

            • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              Neoliberals are conservatives. Unfortunately, we don’t have a progressive party in the U.S. We have a conservative party and a more conservative party.

      • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 years ago

        Don’t forget about Congressman Hank Johnson who was concerned about Marines being stationed in Guam because of his fear that “the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize.”

      • livus@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        To be fair to those weirdos - I think only the second one made international news - at least those were adjacent to contentious issues.

        There’s normally nothing contentious about lead poisoning being a bad thing.

        It really feels like the West is on the brink of another Dark Age.

    • littleblue✨@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Kansas (and even worse Arkansas), Alabama, Missouri, et al, are real in this timeline. It’s not good.

      • dimeslime@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        I think this (well, Community) gives people hope that there are better versions in different timelines. Dash those hopes, there is only one reality, this is where they are. No rolling dice out of this one.

        • littleblue✨@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 years ago

          I will trust my shiny math rocks over the words of some alleged human online, thankyouverymuch. These polyhedral gems truly love me, and will always see me through. my precious

          • dimeslime@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 years ago

            Human? I’m just a lead induced hallucination. In reality you’ve been chewing on your gems, which coincidentally are made of lead, and talking to the wall.

  • Hikermick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 years ago

    After removing lead from gasoline, crime statistics declined years later. This happened in multiple countries