Re: Anybody want a Corona?
Posted: Sat April 23, 2022 3:17 am
This thread is still going, huh
This is my last chance to have a thread hit 1,000, so shut up and digBammer wrote:This thread is still going, huh
Don’t act like you didn’t keep this one cookin while your fellow patriot was gone.Bammer wrote:This thread is still going, huh
I took like a 3 week break and you posted about me dozens of timesspike wrote:Don’t act like you didn’t keep this one cookin while your fellow patriot was gone.Bammer wrote:This thread is still going, huh
Could be, but also irrelevant.Bammer wrote:I took like a 3 week break and you posted about me dozens of timesspike wrote:Don’t act like you didn’t keep this one cookin while your fellow patriot was gone.Bammer wrote:This thread is still going, huh
Loved your last response to 4/5, and the debate you guys are having.McParadigm wrote:This is my last chance to have a thread hit 1,000, so shut up and digBammer wrote:This thread is still going, huh
You're right.I mean, he used the word in a mocking way. He didn’t employ the word ‘tyranny’ to illustrate a point about B's explanation, or to expand on an idea of his own. He used it in a sentence expressing scorn. “Do you learn anything in a MPH program other than petty tyranny 101” isn't an argument, it's just an insult.
This is probably true, but all the more reason why it's important to have people constantly banging the drum for civil liberties since in times of crisis majorities often beg governments to take their rights from them in the name of safety and protection. We have a Bill of Rights to remove certain things from majoritarian control for exactly that reason. For the most part, though, I'm willing to forgive overly cautious policies in March and April 2020 because nobody knew anything yet. I'm not willing to forgive the pivot to lockdowns, though. (And yes I agree that lockdowns in the U.S. even at their most stringent were less than lots of other places. Thankfully for us, sadly for them.)Can you think of a crisis on the level of a global pandemic that America was forced to react to in the past, where there weren't some temporary oversteps of civil authority or control? Our history seems to be that of a sine wave of liberty, rather than of a charted course. From the yellow fever outbreak to journalism rights during the Civil War to our domestic reaction to 9/11, we do our sloppy best to navigate these questions...we are guaranteed to get a lot wrong, because perfection is a fantasy, and then we do our best to clean it up afterwards.
Well, the government still hasn't returned airport-related freedoms 20 years later so I don't think it is/was an unreasonable thing to say that kind of stuff especially when Fauci was saying stuff like he thinks that handshaking shouldn't ever come back and that we should keep mask mandates on planes permanently. Ultimately though, a lot of these policies need public backing to continue because thankfully even the most strict states didn't go full China and really enforce state at home orders or the like. But this is probably a good example of your earlier point about Americans' attitudes towards restrictions and the like being a reason why they're unlikely to become permanent.I remember when this thread was regularly falling into "the government never returns the freedoms it takes away, you sheep" territory. I don't know what to tell you. I won't be wearing a mask when I fly home in June, though I will still have to take my shoes off at security (). Other people will wear their masks, I'm sure. Who cares? It's their business now, and hardly worth noticing.
I think that's a pretty good way to look at it, I think I'm the opposite: I tend to get frustrated/annoyed by one line assertions much more than posts that engage in the debate even if I disagree. For the most part, anyway. I appreciate posts like yours where I can learn something or be presented with something that I maybe haven't thought of.I think you and Bi_3 are some of the only posters here who I've ever felt real frustration towards, but that's because our differences of opinion are occasionally matched to actual debate. Frustration is a healthy part of a debate. It means you care about the outcome.
But I can't pretend to carry the same level of interest in people who post flat assertions with dismissive tones as I have in those who make the effort to articulate and defend a position. That stuff is just noise to me. How can an opinion that even the opinion holder doesn't value enough to advocate for be frustrating to me? I can't be more passionate about your ideas than you are.
I don't really have time to flesh this out right now but I think you probably have a good idea what I mean. I obviously don't think freedom/liberty is the problem but rather something sacred to be cherished and preserved and defended. I don’t think that spike or people who respond to the macphistos and verbs and schoolboys of the world with "TyRaNNy” or something like that are actually anti-freedom. But I think it’s troubling when rhetoric battle lines shift and mocking climate denial or anti-vax or anti-mandate or whatever becomes interchangeable with mocking freedom itself or people who are overly concerned with freedom. Like I said before, I totally get why it happens. If it feels like the people constantly bringing up freedom are also the people with the worst takes it starts to look like "freedom" is just an excuse for a Randian selfishness, but that attitude feels dangerous to me. It frames freedom as if it’s an obstacle to progress and if that’s the case then over time that can grow and may make it easier to curb freedoms in the future. Maybe with proximate justifications flimsier than a terrorist attack or a pandemic next time.I think I know what you mean by this, but I'd appreciate any expansion you have to offer.
Thanks. Yeah I was very pro-vax, now I'm disappointed they didn't turn out to be what we hoped but still think the vaccines have been extremely helpful and saved lots of lives. So I'm still pro-vax but more quietly than before. I was very ambivalent about vaccine mandates initially. It obviously goes against my beliefs about individual rights but when there was a case to be made that those mandates would make others much safer I was conflicted because that's one of the times when restricting individual rights is okay. But since the evidence appears to indicate that the overwhelming benefit of being vaccinated accrues to the person vaccinated and that it doesn't do much in the way of stopping infection or transmission, that case becomes much weaker. It doesn't go to zero, but it becomes clear to me that the benefits of such a possible don't outweigh the tremendous costs.washing machine wrote:Your takes on the last few pages have been great. This one cuts to the chase in a particular good way.4/5 wrote:It's astounding and disheartening how popular mocking freedom and liberty has become.
I've personally never been anti-mask or anti-vax, but the last two years have really helped me understand the inefficiency of government on a number of policies and I think also I'm understanding human nature in a different way as well. I am very much anti-mandate now, but it's easy to say that in hindsight.
Dude just canceldoug rr wrote:so my wife scheduled our 2nd booster shots today at 4pm..i'll report back
i have to go to cvs anyway to get prilosec so i may as well get a free shotverb_to_trust wrote:Dude just canceldoug rr wrote:so my wife scheduled our 2nd booster shots today at 4pm..i'll report back
Lolspike wrote:This has really been ripping around the area since masks became optional. Funny that.