It didn’t come across as provocative to me. It would be a snowflake reaction to get indignant at such a small amount of “provocative” language.

The essence of the question is why do people who love the outdoors vote for politicians who want to repeal laws to protect the outdoors?

I presume that a reasonable person can easily answer this question and defend their position. I can think of several reasonable explanations and I’m opposed to hunting and am in favor of strong environmental regulations.

> The essence of the question is why do people who love the outdoors vote for politicians who want to repeal laws to protect the outdoors?

Because they don't believe that most of those laws are having meaningful benefits. The law of diminishing returns applies to everything, including ever-increasing regulations.

I would actually wager that benefits dont matter to them anymore. If it's government, it's bad. Full stop. Conservatives don't really have any real stances. They are obstructionists at this point. They anti-. That's it. If someone proposes something they will obstruct and disagree because they didn't come up with it.

There are clear benefits. They just refuse to see them. You can show a mountain of evidence based on peer reviewed research and they'll hand waive it away and say "Private enterprise could do it better" or some nonsense.

> I would actually wager that benefits dont matter to them anymore. If it's government, it's bad. Full stop. Conservatives don't really have any real stances. They are obstructionists at this point. They anti-. That's it. If someone proposes something they will obstruct and disagree because they didn't come up with it.

The Trump GOP has no reflexive opposition to government. Trump won the nomination in 2016 because he abandoned the GOP orthodoxy on free markets and declared there would be no cuts to Medicare or Social Security benefits. https://www.vox.com/2015/8/15/9159117/donald-trump-moderate

Tariffs are government. Border security is government. Police are government. The Trump GOP supports all those things.

On the environment, Trump is an incrementalist. He’s not proposing on repealing the Clean Air Act or Clean Water Act. But in the 50-60 years since those laws, we have adopted numerous rules and regulations that don’t provide the same level of benefit. In his first term, he was focused on rolling back those regulations.

He doesn't need to repeal the Clean Air Act when his EPA conveniently changes how they interpret it. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/epa-clean-air-policy-trump-admi...

Sure he does. You can only tweak around the edges of a law by changing interpretations like that, especially after Loper Bright. That is all he’s trying to do on the environmental front, mostly repealing g regulations the Obama administration adopted in its last year.

This is not a president that’s afraid of blowing things up. If he wanted to defund the EPA he would.

Just like Obama didn't need to add to the Clean Water Act, just conveniently change how they interpreted "Navigable Waters"

As I stated I know some reasonable answers to the question. The point made was not about answering the question or doubting that there were plausible answers. Clearly the point was that the original phrasing ought not cause someone to think of it as provocative.

You don’t understand why people changed the subject rather than address an incurious question — and immediately resort to calling them “snowflakes” for doing so?

I think you’re answering your own question about why people don’t engage in discussions with you.

But I’m not the one who posed the question originally so your observation about me being unworthy of discussing things with isn’t pertinent. It’s easy to miss that I’m not the OP so if you did think I was OP then I understand your point.

Also I didn’t call anyone a snowflake. I said the response was a snowflake reaction. I used that term deliberately since it was in fashion for some time for conservatives to use it.

Lastly, it’s a bad look for you to engage with me while pointing out why people don’t engage with me. I think it would be better to just move on and ignore what I said.

My language was anything but extreme. I would make the case based on your response that you would jump to some assumptions:

> You don’t consider the two obvious answers, in that they see it differently or they have higher priorities, and are using extreme language.

Rather than asking the question. It's deeply curious how making assumptions instead of asking questions is called out as incurious. If you were motivated to inquire, how would you approach it?