My issue is that there is a group trying to use the accident as political leverage, which is totally fine, except that they are being completely dishonest about the magnitude of the disaster.
That's almost certainly why the original post got pulled, there is a focused campaign on blowing up this event to "great 21st century national tragedy" when in reality there are hundreds of environmental disasters on this scale annually, and you don't hear about it because the actual environmental impact isn't that large and it's not a politically charged event.
I want you to hear your argument from the outside. Maybe that will help you understand why people seem to be disagreeing with you.
What I'm reading: This is a disaster, but it's not as bad as what some people are saying online. We shouldn't really worry about it, because releasing this small amount of this chemical isn't really as bad of a problem as a nuclear power plant melting down. This disaster isn't special, it's just one of many, and it upsets me that people are treating it like it's special.
That's how your arguments seem to be structured, and to be honest, I don't really understand what you're trying to get at. That would be why the person who you're responding to asked how many accidents like this are acceptable. Because you seem to be hand-waving and saying, this isn't that bad. It's very confusing.
You forgot to include "the people who are responsible for the train derailment and the people who decided to release the chemicals into the atmosphere told us there is nothing to worry about, so you should believe them."
People on reddit were talking about abandoning their home to head out west in order to avoid the "fallout" of the disaster. Uproot your family and say goodbye to home, it's now lost.
The group pushing this is stoking maximum fear and panic, and it's just not warranted. So the heart of my argument is "There is a lot of misinformation being peddled around this disaster, be vigilant." There are real people who will make real decisions based on what they know. It's best they know the truth, rather than be a pawn in some political game.
Also the original reason I replied was to point out that the post was almost certainly removed because it tripped bot alarms.
You seem to understand a lot about how much "velocity" impacts HN front page. You posted many times indicating this is some kind of operation and used single person comments from Reddit as your proof. That's obviously not proof of anything. It also got on fire here, and nobody made such a claim about moving away.
One thing to note however is that your replies are clearly upsetting people who believe this is a problem. You don't get to decide what real problems are, we all do. You have also oddly suggested this is an operation. Given the direction of your posts, one could conclude you are engaged in a counter operation. Further, you note your own success in the manner twice in this very topic.
Can you perhaps share insight using some facts you are basing your claims on so we can see what you see?
If the policy goal is zero accidents, and that policy goal isn't being reached, then this is a political discussion.
Using the negative consequences of current policy as political leverage to advocate for a different policy is what the political system is for.
We're talking about a fairly major chemical spill that appears to have killed all the pets in a small town and is likely to have ongoing health consequences, and was likely brought about by a negligent approach to running a multi-billion dollar industrial enterprise.
The only thing I would be confused about is why all the other disasters of this scale (which, I would argue, there actually aren't hundreds of) aren't also becoming well-publicized inputs into our political discussion.
My issue isn't about the accident.
My issue is that there is a group trying to use the accident as political leverage, which is totally fine, except that they are being completely dishonest about the magnitude of the disaster.
That's almost certainly why the original post got pulled, there is a focused campaign on blowing up this event to "great 21st century national tragedy" when in reality there are hundreds of environmental disasters on this scale annually, and you don't hear about it because the actual environmental impact isn't that large and it's not a politically charged event.