shmups.system11.org

Shmups Forum
 
* FAQ    * Search
 * Register  * Login 
It is currently Thu May 28, 2020 8:59 pm View unanswered posts
View active topics



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 645 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 18, 19, 20, 21, 22  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: COVID-19 in your part of the world
PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2020 2:57 pm 


User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2005
Posts: 14582
Location: Chicago
vol.2 wrote:
They are doing what they think is going to save lives, and you are acting like a selfish child. I don't blame you though. Selfishness is the American Dream after all.


And what will get them votes, to be fair... which is what Fat Donny is doing now as well.
_________________
RegalSin wrote:
New PowerPuff Girls. They all have evil pornstart eyelashes.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: COVID-19 in your part of the world
PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2020 3:58 pm 


User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2005
Posts: 1464
Location: USH
BulletMagnet wrote:
As has been mentioned before, both disease experts and economists fear that if we loosen restrictions too soon and/or by too much we risk a resurgence of the disease, possibly more intense than the current wave, and thus both health and economic repercussions even worse than we're facing now. Whether or not those fears prove well-founded to any extent, of course, remains to be seen.

Experts are afraid. Great, but this doesn't answer the question of how allowing government entities to continue to overstep their authority helps us or what the end goal is. And rather than debating the policy details, which was not my purpose, it doesn't explain why the corporate media and so many other people are damn sure that you need to do what you're told (and don't question it or you'll be censored by big tech brother), even as they are still making up their minds on what that is exactly.

Nobody is saying we should immediately jetison every precaution. But some seem to be stonewalling with a 'the beatings will continue until morale improves' type message.
Quote:
Question for you: pretty much since the outbreak began, scientists and economists alike have emphasized that a major part of a successful reopening involves a massive increase in testing and tracing, so we can figure out which people are most likely to be safe resuming their "normal" routines

First of all, you can save yourself the trouble of having to keep typing 'economists' since the ones allowed to speak on corporate media have zero credibility with me and have nothing to say to 'Main Street' anyway. Like I said before, billionaires have already been bailed out, non-billionaires will face the consequences.
Second, you said something interesting here: "which people are most likely to be safe resuming"

One's risk level ultimately comes down to demographic factors. The current policy of dividing people into essential and non-essential does not take this into account at all. You could be an old fart with diabetes and asthma and tennis elbow and if your job was deemed essential then you are still showing up to work everyday with your fingers crossed. But if you're a 20-year-old body builder you're not allowed to use the gym. And people aren't allowed to assess their own risk and exercise their own judgment. (And in case anyone is thinking about saying "people can't be trusted to use their own judgment" let us remember that democracy is founded on just that.)
Quote:
as well as get a better idea of how the virus has behaved these past few months; as such, you'd figure that the "liberate" crowd would be particularly eager to hang their hat on this, and demand that every level of government was on the same page, but instead we've only learned that testing is, y'know, overrated. If you're as raring to get things moving again as you say

It's not that I'm raring to get things moving. Again, I want to know why there is a concerted effort to stifle debate and rally around 'temporary' power grabs that keep being extended. (BTW, did I mention that the billionaires just bailed themselves out again?)
If you believe that testing capability has been crippled by government ineptitude or whatever, feel free to champion that cause. I have no personal knowledge of, or stake in that issue.
Quote:
have you directed a fraction as much vitriol towards the "testing is someone else's problem" parts of TPTB as you have towards the ones who want to err on the side of caution until said expansion actually happens?

The only 'vitriol' I have is directed at the corporate media and big tech brother for being lying, hypocritical shitbags. I don't know what "testing is someone else's problem" is supposed to mean. As for erring on the side of caution, that is fine when you're making your own choices. When you're appropriating the decision making ability for everyone else, be prepared to justify it.
Quote:
As far as opportunities for government malfeasance are concerned, personally I'm most worried about more de facto voter suppression

OK, but this attempt at partisan derailment isn't even related to the topic ;)

No one has anything to say about The Atlantic wanting to emulate Chinese state censorship?


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: COVID-19 in your part of the world
PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2020 7:59 pm 



Joined: 17 Feb 2007
Posts: 198
Quote:
No one has anything to say about The Atlantic wanting to emulate Chinese state censorship?


That article was shocking, frankly.

Reclaiming free speech is going to take a movement on par with the civil rights movement. We as a people better get on that.

I don't know why people tolerated google and facebook this long. (By the way, I know of some decent alternatives if anyone here is looking to make google less a part of their lives.)


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: COVID-19 in your part of the world
PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2020 8:04 pm 


User avatar

Joined: 26 Jan 2005
Posts: 12523
Location: Wherever.
ED-057 wrote:
First of all, you can save yourself the trouble of having to keep typing 'economists' since the ones allowed to speak on corporate media have zero credibility with me and have nothing to say to 'Main Street' anyway.

Time to ask you the same question I've asked previously on here: if you truly want to make your own decision when it comes to how to handle this situation, hopefully you want it to be a reasonably informed decision. Now, if most every single "mainstream" medical professional, government official, and/or economist, not to mention every media figure reporting on them, is just trying to screw you over, and you don't have firsthand expertise in medicine, economics or policy, who do you listen to? Being skeptical and asking questions is one thing, but at some point you've got to make some manner of decision; if pretty much everyone who actually earns a living studying and acting on this stuff is a predatory fraud, what exactly is the reasonable course of action to take?

Quote:
I don't know what "testing is someone else's problem" is supposed to mean.

If you truly need me to spell it out for you, I'm referring primarily to the federal government's near-complete refusal to use its authority to make sure the country at large has access to both testing and protective equipment, with priority given to those most in need, as opposed to passing the buck on to the governors who are now competing and bidding against each other, not to mention issuing guidelines that it itself declines to follow (and phasing out the half-hearted efforts it has made as it insists we've basically already won against the disease). You've expressed outrage at the states for "overstepping their boundaries", but in lieu of any meaningful guidance or assistance from those who should presumably be making these sorts of decisions, what are they supposed to do aside from taking the "screw it, let God sort 'em out" non-approach?

Quote:
If you believe that testing capability has been crippled by government ineptitude or whatever, feel free to champion that cause. I have no personal knowledge of, or stake in that issue.

I'm afraid you do, whether you like it or not. As you say, the current method of deciding who goes back to work doesn't consider who's at risk, and the only way to determine who is at risk is to drastically expand testing and tracing; even if you favor a limited approach to government, if it's not the one who should be spearheading such an effort, who is? And if it botches such an effort - or, more accurately, outright refuses to engage at all - how should its citizens react?

Quote:
OK, but this attempt at partisan derailment isn't even related to the topic

Sorry, but just like aforementioned efforts to kill the Postal Service, legally shield companies that refuse to protect employees from the outbreak, repeal environmental regulations and appoint judges at warp speed while declining to consider further aid to "Main Street", among other things, it is very much related. Moreover, criticizing a specific person or group for inexcusable behavior is not inherently "partisan"; neglecting to do so for fear of being shouted down as "unbalanced" even when there's no "balancing" to be had is nothing short of acquiescence by another name.

Quote:
No one has anything to say about The Atlantic wanting to emulate Chinese state censorship?

I can't say I'm particularly comfortable myself with granting any authority, public or private, wide ability to decide what gets published, as even if the person currently in charge tries to do the job honestly there's no guarantee his successor will do the same, but the only alternative without half-measures is to basically become the Steam store and hope that customer reviewers are able to pick up all the slack and weed out the "it's just the common cold renamed" and "cell phone towers did it" and "this silver toothpaste will protect you" from the crowd. I can't say I have a particular catch-all solution in mind, but I also can't say I'm much more comfortable with the laissez-faire approach when it comes to vital information.
_________________
"Fight me IRL if you want to man up so badly."
Glossary / Discussion / The Bizaar / Vasara HS


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: COVID-19 in your part of the world
PostPosted: Sun May 17, 2020 5:04 pm 


User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2005
Posts: 1464
Location: USH
Quote:
Time to ask you the same question I've asked previously on here: if you truly want to make your own decision when it comes to how to handle this situation, hopefully you want it to be a reasonably informed decision. Now, if most every single "mainstream" medical professional, government official, and/or economist

Economists and politicians are in their own class of unreliable-ness. Don't conflate them with doctors.

Now, making public policy and making individual policy are two different things. If in doubt, consulting with your own doctor should be more useful than going by a TV talking head. But I think we already know everything that we need to know. 1) It's a respiratory virus you can catch from other people. 2) You can be carrying and spreading it without having any symptoms for a substantial period of roughly 2 weeks. 3) For the young and healthy it is generally not a big deal, for the old and infirm it is often fatal.

Does that not inform people how and how not to behave?
Quote:
If you truly need me to spell it out for you, I'm referring primarily to the federal government's near-complete refusal to use its authority to make sure the country at large has access to both testing and protective equipment, with priority given to those most in need, as opposed to passing the buck on to the governors who are now competing and bidding against each other, not to mention issuing guidelines that it itself declines to follow (and phasing out the half-hearted efforts it has made as it insists we've basically already won against the disease). You've expressed outrage at the states for "overstepping their boundaries", but in lieu of any meaningful guidance or assistance from those who should presumably be making these sorts of decisions, what are they supposed to do aside from taking the "screw it, let God sort 'em out" non-approach?

When you're not prepared, because nobody stocked PPE, and tests for covid-19 didn't exist before covid-19 did, then a certain coordination and mobilization of resources becomes necessary. In this profit-driven and deeply politicized environment, we reap what we sow.

But I am not expressing outrage at states. For one thing, they aren't all doing the same things (which is the best and most important reason that we have states). My problem is with the would-be gatekeepers of correct thought. For some reason (I suspect it may not be random chance) they have chosen to smear or silence a whole sea of opinions so that they can back one which is on ever-shakier legal ground.
Quote:
I'm afraid you do, whether you like it or not. As you say, the current method of deciding who goes back to work doesn't consider who's at risk, and the only way to determine who is at risk is to drastically expand testing and tracing;

That will tell you who is at risk of exposure, not who will be hospitalized or killed by it. There is a vulnerable population and then there is the vast majority for which the virus is not a threat. Here comes my opinion: Why isn't that former group isolated, with testing and tracing reserved for people who come into contact with them? Isn't that where the attention should be concentrated, instead of the general population where literally millions have already been infected? Trying to isolate, test, and trace everybody is trying to clean fish poop out of the ocean.
Quote:
Sorry, but just like aforementioned efforts to kill the Postal Service, legally shield companies that refuse to protect employees from the outbreak, repeal environmental regulations and appoint judges at warp speed while declining to consider further aid to "Main Street", among other things, it is very much related.

All kinds of bad stuff is in the works. That's why I'm saying unchecked power shouldn't get a free pass. And their friends and underlings shouldn't control the debate.

Employer liability is going to be an interesting test of this country's "everyone is responsible except me" cultural and legal phenomenon. Can you imagine if every employee who gets sick can just sue their employer for "not protecting" them? Maybe you think that sounds good, but think about what the alternative is. If employers have to face that liability then they will instantly come out with new rules that say every employee has to wash their hands every 5 seconds, wear 6 masks, and 7 hazmat suits, and don't come within 8 kilometers of anybody. Then if they get sick, it is their own fault for not following the rules. Oh and BTW, we expect you to get just as much work done as before under these conditions. Maybe a little extra, because the company is facing tough times, you know...
Quote:
I can't say I'm particularly comfortable myself with granting any authority, public or private, wide ability to decide what gets published, as even if the person currently in charge tries to do the job honestly there's no guarantee his successor will do the same, but the only alternative without half-measures is to basically become the Steam store and hope that customer reviewers are able to pick up all the slack and weed out the "it's just the common cold renamed" and "cell phone towers did it" and "this silver toothpaste will protect you" from the crowd. I can't say I have a particular catch-all solution in mind, but I also can't say I'm much more comfortable with the laissez-faire approach to vital information.

Weak sauce, dude. It's ironic that you use Steam as a counter example. Steam is a DRM platform which is a whole other category of evil. And the scourge of kusoge is not the greatest analogy for "speech that the government doesn't approve" either.

At least people have a choice on whether to use Steam though. Try browsing the web without goog and fb sucking your data in the process. I'm not saying it's impossible. But does average Joe really have a choice? The answer to the most immediate problem is to bust some trusts.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: COVID-19 in your part of the world
PostPosted: Sun May 17, 2020 8:07 pm 


User avatar

Joined: 26 Jan 2005
Posts: 12523
Location: Wherever.
ED-057 wrote:
Does that not inform people how and how not to behave?

Considering how varied reactions have been thus far, even with this general knowledge out there - some stores won't let you in without a mask, others refuse to allow their employees to wear them, and a handful won't let masked customers in (for "security reasons" :roll:) - it would appear that folks either 1) Aren't aware of "the basics", or 2) Are consciously not heeding them, though I'm sure there's plenty of disagreement on which ones are acting "reasonably" in the face of the facts we have and which ones aren't...and as you've said, there's surely some room for variance therein depending on the circumstances.

Quote:
My problem is with the would-be gatekeepers of correct thought.

I've honestly had quite a time attempting to pin this down: you say you're not particularly bothered by the way the states have acted (though if memory serves your original post centered around a court decision which overturned a state ordinance), aren't particularly inclined to blame the current federal administration for the overall situation (and there's certainly truth to that, but if you'll Pardon My Partisanship once more, a large portion of the much-ballyhooed lack of preparedness during the previous administration can be placed squarely where logic would dictate), and don't want to lump the doctors in with the economists (though apparently Peter Navarro, among numerous others, doesn't have much of a problem with that), how many "authority figures", especially ones with direct influence over policy, remain in the running who are acting badly enough that one should feel an alarming degree of need to question their motives and resist their dictates?

So when you talk of contrary opinions being "silenced" - and I frankly dunno, as I said in the first part of my post the debate seems plenty healthy (in a manner of speaking) to me - 1) Which "PTB", exactly, are being so very naughty, 2) What "thought crimes" are their detractors being accused of, 3) Who are their "friends and underlings" acting as enforcers, and 4) On the flipside, is what the self-proclaimed "free thinkers" are practicing (and/or peddling) best defined as "healthy skepticism" or "showy contrarianism for its own sake regardless of circumstances"?

(Personally, I'm waiting for the "I'm being thought-policed" variation of Godwin's law to once again kick in - the longer a conversation about free speech being violated goes on, the probability of a handful of no-name YouTubers with thick glasses and funny haircuts being painted as a bigger threat than Hitler approaches 1. :lol:)

Quote:
Why isn't that former group isolated, with testing and tracing reserved for people who come into contact with them?

I seem to recall that Sweden's approach works something like this; I also recall that their death rate is currently considerably higher than that of neighboring nations that have taken more of a lockdown approach, though only time will tell if they end up ahead in the long run. As for the overall idea, I don't disagree that focusing the testing on the likely-vulnerable is at the very least a sensible starting point, but I'd also figure that's the sort of initiative that would really need to come from the top down to take root, and if there's been talk of such a focus I haven't gleaned it.

Quote:
Can you imagine if every employee who gets sick can just sue their employer for "not protecting" them?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong on this, but if memory serves under current law the burden of proof for this type of lawsuit is already quite high; as long as an employer makes so much as a cursory effort to ensure employee safety they'll almost certainly prevail in court. McConnell and company are proposing to make such cases even more difficult to prosecute, to the point that most anything short of deliberate endangerment on the part of an employer would be perfectly kosher; I'd frankly love to hear anyone argue that this, as with the environmental deregulation and everything else, is being done purely - or even primarily - with response to the outbreak in mind.

Quote:
And the scourge of kusoge is not the greatest analogy for "speech that the government doesn't approve" either.

No, but if you don't want any gatekeepers at work even when it comes to highly important and influential information you're granting the same carte blanche to the toothpaste peddlers as to the developers of Stolen Deviantart Hentai Sliding Block Puzzle XVII...and as Steam has so aptly demonstrated, trash can be churned out a lot faster than something tested for reliability, and will easily drown out and overwhelm the stuff actually released in good faith. As Twain put it, a lie can get halfway around the world while the truth's still putting on its shoes.

Again, granting authority of this magnitude to anyone is undeniably a risk, but methinks it's a very open question if the alternative, especially the absolutist alternative, is an improvement.
_________________
"Fight me IRL if you want to man up so badly."
Glossary / Discussion / The Bizaar / Vasara HS


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: COVID-19 in your part of the world
PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2020 10:01 pm 


User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2005
Posts: 1464
Location: USH
Quote:
I've honestly had quite a time attempting to pin this down

My task is to raise the alarm. A crisis happens, governments have knee-jerk reactions, they make some good calls and some bad ones, unleash the spin, etc. All of that is pretty much expected, along with the bailouts and the insider trading too, sadly.

But at some point, people have to start pressing for results and answers. The court ruling should have been a wake up call. The time for knee-jerk has passed and if states want to continue with heavy-handed policies then they need to present a solid case and get people on board. Waving around a bunch of statistics is probably not the best way to earn the trust of laymen, especially when their concerns are likely to center around more specific things like "why is this activity allowed and not that one?"

There needs to be a dialog. And to some extent this is happening. Some widely publicized SNAFUs have been corrected. Police in NYC were filling the jails with people for minor transgressions but now the mayor is backing away from that and even the police union said they would like to have a more "focused" response.

But then you have the other side, where there can be only One Correct Policy and questioning it is the same as condemning millions of people to death. A couple choice quotes from the article I linked:

"Today, the platforms are proudly collaborating with one another, and following government guidance, to censor harmful information related to the coronavirus."

"Significant monitoring and speech control are inevitable components of a mature and flourishing internet, and governments must play a large role in these practices to ensure that the internet is compatible with a society’s norms and values."

I don't see the point in jumping into a debate about what states are doing when the policies in question don't actually apply to me. But when I see protestors and other people trying to assert their basic rights and being dismissed or smeared, at the same time that there is a call to do away with the first ammendment, then I have to jump in.

I know there is ridiculous nonsense about poisonous vaccines and miracle cures and bioweapons that has been taken down, and people will always argue about what to do with that stuff. But there is a bigger trend here, and now the intentions are being spelled out. Trillion-dollar corporations joining together to monitor and control, at the behest of government. It's pure 1984. Everyone needs to pay attention to this regardless of which position they are backing with regard to other issues.

While you have legitimate points about aspects of the response that have been bungled, it's somewhat outside the scope of what I wanted to discuss. I am slow at writing you know. Everytime I click submit, my login has timed out and I have to login again and sometimes the message content has disappeared so I have to save it somewhere else first in anticipation of this possibility...
Quote:
Someone correct me if I'm wrong on this, but if memory serves under current law the burden of proof for this type of lawsuit is already quite high

This must depend on a lot of factors like OSHA regs and worker's compensation law and whatnot. I happen to know that some states have "strict liability" where for instance, if a construction worker is injured in a fall, the employer automatically pays 100% of the damages unless they can prove substantial misconduct by another party. No doubt there are different situations where plaintiffs would be the ones with the larger burden.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: COVID-19 in your part of the world
PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2020 10:06 pm 


User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2007
Posts: 12597
Location: SODOM
ED-057 wrote:
I am slow at writing you know. Everytime I click submit, my login has timed out and I have to login again and sometimes the message content has disappeared so I have to save it somewhere else first in anticipation of this possibility...


Nothing worse. :sad: If it's of any help, Notepad++ is pretty dependable. I write all my effortposts in there then CTRL+V 'em into the browser.
_________________
Image
STOMP EM IN THE NUTS
[THE MIRAGE OF MIND] Metal Black ST [THE MASSACRE] Gun.Smoke ST [TRAGEDY FLAME]


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: COVID-19 in your part of the world
PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2020 10:44 pm 


User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2006
Posts: 535
Location: Queens NY
ED-057 wrote:
I don't see the point in jumping into a debate about what states are doing when the policies in question don't actually apply to me. But when I see protestors and other people trying to assert their basic rights and being dismissed or smeared, at the same time that there is a call to do away with the first ammendment, then I have to jump in.


They apply to you because you have a human body. We're dealing with a microscopic biohazard here. Our senses cannot detect it.

If you get infected, it's not just YOU, but all the people you then infect in turn. People you will never even meet or hear about. Over a year, this could be hundreds or thousands of people as the chain continues down each infected person in kind. Eventually, that infection will wind up in a person that can't handle it, and that person will succumb. That's what we're trying to prevent, here, because the number of people who 'can't handle it' is higher this time. This is what we made civilization for—a place to be safe and to build up on ourselves.

I mean, it's obvious that you have concerns about civil liberties. We see that. Big corporations are moving. They're doing things with their resources that single human beings can't do. But this is a natural disaster that is unfolding in real time. And it's slow. Slower than we're used to dealing with. Right now, we're trying to contain it. That's priority number ONE. Everything else can wait, because every time we DON'T wait, and get together again and start socializing again... It's not like a normal natural disaster, where it will just go away. This is how this particular natural disaster perpetuates itself.

Big corporations and other large entities are moving in order to do what they can with the greater powers that they have. A great example of that, is how that wifi thermometer predicted CoViD-19 hotspots because it would register peoples' taken temperatures en masse to a database at the manufacturer's HQ. It had a few weeks' lead on the actual governmental reporting, and that kind of information was really crucial in a time-sensitive environment like this. (Nobody even paid attention to them at first, because their claim was unbelievable. But the data ended up being very helpful.)

Civil liberties are important, but this time, they might be damaging people and putting people in harm's way. For example, if a state opens up too soon, an employer would not be able to sustain his or her employees using crisis insurance because the crisis has officially ended. In that case, the business would actually take a hit, because the customer confidence has not been reestablished. (Because, the disease is still out there. It's not gone yet, and we don't know where it will pop up next. This is why we needed the initiative to test: to figure out where it is.) Protesters seem to be missing the bigger picture here. I mean, sure, they can protest, but it's not like they're just protesting lower wages or something. There are big consequences this time if we "just" relax our guard.

This is the first time in a long time that a plague of sorts has swept the nation, so, we have a lot of things to get used to. We have better technology now. Better telemetry. And even, possibly, a better means to retard a disease's spread. So, we have to use these new tools at our disposal, because they're effective like never before. IF... we allow them to work.

P.S. Personal freedoms are NOT like trademark law. You do not have to exercise them at every available opportunity or else they get repealed. They are writ. They won't go away—they will be there for you when you need them. Now is NOT the time to be exercising them, because of the nature of what we're dealing with. As intelligent creatures (relatively speaking), we have a responsibility to use that insight to take extraordinary measures. A lot of our behavior is still straight out of the jungle, so we can't just leave it up to our guts, especially when dealing with complicated and inhuman situations like this.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: COVID-19 in your part of the world
PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2020 1:53 am 


User avatar

Joined: 08 Dec 2005
Posts: 18368
Location: uoıʇɐɹnƃıɟuoɔ ɯǝʇsʎs
I should say I'm surprised this has to be a lengthy debate, but history has taught us this is more of the same when the ly'naticks run the asylum. If you look at the circumstances behind the US Supreme Court decision on mandatory vaccinations (Jacobson from 1905) there was a decent argument to be made that vaccines were often dangerous back then - but times have changed and this certainly isn't just a flu. There will be a lengthy process of months to safety test vaccines (or at least there should be), and it's not clear we will even get one that works.

Mr. Wartime President "Bill Pullman's body double" Trump is promising a vaccine right on the eve of the election, or by January (I guess it depends). His son Junior says the disease will disappear "like a miracle." Trump and many of his followers want to put their belief in medicines that haven't had good reviews...and the confusion of thinking behind leader-following vs. hating on Bill Gates and vax is amazing too. Ditto Elon Musk and the occasional tech bro or pollster who want to "ackshually" the experts with laughable garbage that a clever undergrad can debunk. Double ditto the shitty bot campaigns and their enablers. NONE of that is worth a shit, guys.

The media has spent an awful lot of time covering laughable astroturf protests with a few hundred "working class" guys who drive expensive pickups, carry expensive rifles, and were organized by DeVos and groups with links to nationalist terrorism. But people still turned out in good enough numbers to vote a right-wing sumbitch off of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. That was an exercise of freedom.

Thankfully most people are still listening to the doctors with relevant skills. There are no shortcuts to keeping the virus contained, but it's also not a big deal: Limit your nonessential outings and wear protection when you have to. Stop blaming Obama for not having a good COVID-19 test in '16.

Nobody sane wants to keep the economy closed, but we also have to consider the economy doesn't do so well if everybody's dead, dying, or sick. And nobody wants to be dead-dying-sick so they aren't going to fill restaurants to the necessary capacity for turning profits. NY Governor Cuomo is talking about cautious reopenings. In a sane world we would have a government that gave appropriate help to individuals and businesses, but apparently the GOP can only give assistance to the 1%, and in non-pandemic years. The only conspiracy we should be boosting is one to keep the pandemic contained, like virtually every other nation has done - not just China. Sorry also to our friends in Brazil, home of one of the biggest hotspots and also one of the biggest Trump-lites, Bolonsaro.

All you have to do is limit your nonessential outings and wear protection when you do have to, and stop listening to conspiracy theories about chemtrails and promoting them. 90,000 people are dead in the US because of this nonsense and the number is going to keep climbing rapidly.

tl;dr Stop arguing that other people should be sacrificed to prop up your stocks / "small business." Nobody cares. The economy opens when the experts and the people say it does.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: COVID-19 in your part of the world
PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2020 2:16 am 


User avatar

Joined: 26 Jan 2005
Posts: 12523
Location: Wherever.
Speaking for myself, I can't reasonably call taking a generally skeptical attitude and/or seeking additional relevant information beyond the pale, nor can I begrudge anyone, especially those forced to essentially put their entire existence on hold, their frustration with the current situation - frankly, I doubt most anyone, regardless of their own viewpoint, could find it within themselves to outright "dismiss or smear" people just for that, to the point that labeling the tiny handful who do (again, I can't say I've really seen it myself, but I'm sure there are always a few) "the other side" is a gross exaggeration.

As Zach noted, however, once matters go beyond debate to openly flouting the medical community's guidelines and thus putting other people at risk, those pesky questions of "where do your freedoms end and mine begin?" and "at what point does the privilege of possessing a freedom entail knowing when to decline to exploit it to its fullest extent?" pop up yet again, and in my experience the crowd that shouts loudest about rights and freedoms are the least willing to view either through a prism of the mildest nuance.

Quote:
While you have legitimate points about aspects of the response that have been bungled, it's somewhat outside the scope of what I wanted to discuss.

It's more than a little disingenuous to keep it very far off to the side, on two fronts: the obvious one is how the response and/or lack thereof have, according to disease experts, pushed back the timeline for a reasonably "safe" reopening and thus prolonged and/or intensified all of its ill effects, but I think the other ought to be of even greater concern to you, in light of your previous posts.

One could, if they were feeling generous, almost give the federal government some slack on the previous front, since the response to a pandemic wouldn't be easy to get "right" under the best of circumstances, and to some extent every country tried to downplay the crisis before getting serious, but this administration has set itself apart from the pack in the worst possible way, by not only refusing to own up to any of its errors in judgement and focusing primarily on objectives with little to nothing to do with recovery, but in openly sabotaging the advice of its own experts and shouting down any and all criticism as not only bad-faith but essentially treasonous, i.e. "they'd rather see the country fail than me succeed".

As someone who still vividly remembers when Dick Cheney accused millions of his own citizens of sympathizing with terrorists - then, as now, with pretty much zero pushback from anywhere within his party - I find this the worst possible kind of throwback; if you care as much as you say about people being able to make their own decisions based on accurate information and within an environment built on tolerance for dissent, then the current state of affairs, albeit viewed from the opposite vantage point to the one you've taken up until now, should absolutely terrify you. Of course, the outbreak is only the very latest opportunity the administration has taken to insist that everyone and everything is out to get them, and that those who say otherwise out themselves as the enemy...again, though, the folks supposedly ringing the alarm bells when it comes to "thought policing" have been dead quiet the entire time.

Oh, and as far as mass surveillance goes, have you by any chance seen this?
_________________
"Fight me IRL if you want to man up so badly."
Glossary / Discussion / The Bizaar / Vasara HS


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: COVID-19 in your part of the world
PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2020 2:30 am 


User avatar

Joined: 08 Dec 2005
Posts: 18368
Location: uoıʇɐɹnƃıɟuoɔ ɯǝʇsʎs
History emphasizes that people want answers during epidemics, and conspiracy theories flourish in those times. These are naturally not good to believe.

I definitely agree with emphasizing that essentially nobody wanted to put the economy on hold "to own" anybody. That kind of meme seems to come more or less from the right, maybe also from some people who are still holding out hopes for the Return of the Jedi in the Dem Primary.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: COVID-19 in your part of the world
PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2020 10:35 pm 


User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2005
Posts: 1464
Location: USH
ZacharyB wrote:
They apply to you because you have a human body.

I'm not trying to say that I'm above having to participate in measures meant to deal with the virus. What I am saying is that I would like to avoid getting dragged into debates about what is happening in states that I don't live in.
Quote:
Right now, we're trying to contain it. That's priority number ONE. Everything else can wait, because every time we DON'T wait, and get together again and start socializing again... It's not like a normal natural disaster, where it will just go away. This is how this particular natural disaster perpetuates itself.

This is one of the puzzling aspects. Even in 'lockdown' areas large numbers of people are still going about their business (a lot of work has been deemed essential). Can it be contained under these circumstances? Or at all?
Quote:
Civil liberties are important, but this time, they might be damaging people and putting people in harm's way.

That is always true.
Quote:
Protesters seem to be missing the bigger picture here. I mean, sure, they can protest, but it's not like they're just protesting lower wages or something.

Truckers and bus drivers had to clog up the capital because they are going bankrupt and they don't have their own lobbyists to send there and beg for bailout money on their behalf. If they had had assurances prior to that, that they would be getting a certain measure of assistance, then maybe they wouldn't have had to protest. But there is a lot of uncertainty and we all know that in the end some people will make out like bandits while others get the shaft.
Quote:
P.S. Personal freedoms are NOT like trademark law. You do not have to exercise them at every available opportunity or else they get repealed. They are writ. They won't go away—they will be there for you when you need them.

Yes and no. Every person gets to be the final arbiter of their own behavior by virtue of being born with a brain and nervous system. You can always tell that authority figure to GTFO if you have to. Whether others respect your rights and don't try to retaliate against you for exercising them is a different question. There are times when compromise benefits everyone involved, but there are also slippery slopes and camels that want to stick their noses into the tent. Trademark law is actually a good analogy, because if you stay silent for too long then the next thing you know, a court will rule that you don't have that right anymore.

Historical trends paint a dismal picture. We are still stuck with the Patriot Act. We are still stuck with mass surveillance. BulletMagnet has linked to an article about yet another watchlist with continuously expanding scope. It's almost certain that the current crisis will also lead to expansion of government power. It's almost certain that corporate power will be further consolidated. Frankly, it would be a miracle if civil liberties come out of this unscathed.
BulletMagnet wrote:
I doubt most anyone, regardless of their own viewpoint, could find it within themselves to outright "dismiss or smear" people just for that

Really? Because what I have read right here in this thread is that:
It's only the selfish
It's only the right wingers
It's only astroturf linked to someone we don't like and terrorists
and "Nobody cares."
Quote:
As Zach noted, however, once matters go beyond debate to openly flouting the medical community's guidelines and thus putting other people at risk, those pesky questions of "where do your freedoms end and mine begin?"

Quote:
disease experts, pushed back the timeline for a reasonably "safe" reopening

You and others seem to be implying that stay-at-home orders are a response to people acting irresponsibly and not following guidelines. If so I would argue that this is akin to collective punishment. People who are perfectly willing to follow guidelines are caught up in it for no reason.
Quote:
As someone who still vividly remembers when Dick Cheney accused millions of his own citizens of sympathizing with terrorists

And was the problem that Dick Cheney, one person, said a retarded thing? Or that few people were willing to call him out on it?

The solution to people saying ridiculous garbage is more speech, not to control speech. It's regrettable that the current political discourse involves accusations of treason all over the place, but that is a different thing than not being able to complain about it on the internet.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: COVID-19 in your part of the world
PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2020 11:53 pm 


User avatar

Joined: 26 Jan 2005
Posts: 12523
Location: Wherever.
ED-057 wrote:
Really? Because what I have read right here in this thread is that: [snip]

I think you're conflating people who ask for better/clearer explanations from the authorities and those who don't bother waiting for (or, much of the time even genuinely seeking) any explanation whatsoever, dismissing any and all guidelines they don't feel like following as "hoaxes" or the like, and acting like they believe it, to everyone else's detriment; the former I can sympathize with, the latter not so much.

Quote:
You and others seem to be implying that stay-at-home orders are a response to people acting irresponsibly and not following guidelines.

Speaking only for myself I certainly never intended to do so; off the cuff that frankly wouldn't make much sense, as most such orders that I'm aware of were the initial response to the crisis, made in order to slow the spread down enough for the experts to make up for lost time and figure out what to do next, not as a response to any specific thing people had been doing. Moving forward that may well change to some degree, but as of yet I'm pretty sure that hasn't been the case.

Quote:
And was the problem that Dick Cheney, one person, said a retarded thing? Or that few people were willing to call him out on it?

The latter was easily the bigger problem, and still is, since many - I'm frankly tempted to guess "pretty much all" - of the same people who freaked out at the notion that they'd have to ask for plastic straws at restaurants instead of getting them automatically have expressed zero misgivings about the type of rhetoric you and I both decry on here, and I'm not holding my breath for them to suddenly place their crosshairs where they actually belong now.

Quote:
The solution to people saying ridiculous garbage is more speech, not to control speech.

Kind of getting into a separate thread here, but I find that logic somewhat difficult to parse, since even in the "physical" marketplace, as opposed to the even less-predictable "marketplace of ideas", it strikes me as unlikely that the solution to unsafe buildings is simply to construct more and more houses, and simultaneously expect everyone in need of housing (i.e. everyone, period) to either become a construction expert or get screwed, rather than put some manner of proven guidelines in place for building them; you know, the more I think about this, the more tempted I am to commit a "thought crime" of my own.

As summarized earlier, giving any entity the authority to police any information risks abuse, but the absence of said authority allows nonsense, dangerous and non-, to flourish all but completely unchecked; that being said, especially if genuine efforts are made to keep the former sufficiently independent, then at least some of the time its work will serve the public interest, but if you remove it entirely the advantage will always shift to the quicker-moving liars and swindlers, who are never working in the public interest. As such, when viewed exclusively through a cold, mathematical lens, divorced from any "uncomfortable feelings", "bad precedents", etc. that would result, instituting some form of check on at least some information would seem to be the technically sounder choice.

In case it wasn't obvious, huge for-profit corporations are not what I would consider ideal candidates for such a job, but either way, thoughts? Guess I just want to stir the pot a bit.
_________________
"Fight me IRL if you want to man up so badly."
Glossary / Discussion / The Bizaar / Vasara HS


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: COVID-19 in your part of the world
PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2020 1:35 am 



Joined: 17 Feb 2007
Posts: 198
Quote:
giving any entity the authority to police any information risks abuse, but the absence of said authority allows nonsense,


Is this a liberal / conservative thing?  ie, should I vote for a conservative if I think people should be allowed to make up their own minds about stuff and express opinions and a liberal if I think some information should be suppressed to pacify the masses like in china?


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: COVID-19 in your part of the world
PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2020 1:47 am 


User avatar

Joined: 26 Jan 2005
Posts: 12523
Location: Wherever.
Troll harder. 8)
_________________
"Fight me IRL if you want to man up so badly."
Glossary / Discussion / The Bizaar / Vasara HS


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: COVID-19 in your part of the world
PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2020 8:35 am 


User avatar

Joined: 25 Jun 2010
Posts: 3519
God wrote:
should I vote

No


Top
 Online Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: COVID-19 in your part of the world
PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2020 8:47 pm 


User avatar

Joined: 26 Jan 2005
Posts: 12523
Location: Wherever.
My fault for asking, I suppose...it's like summoning Beetlejuice. :lol:
_________________
"Fight me IRL if you want to man up so badly."
Glossary / Discussion / The Bizaar / Vasara HS


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: COVID-19 in your part of the world
PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2020 11:32 pm 


User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2005
Posts: 1464
Location: USH
BulletMagnet wrote:
I think you're conflating people who ask for better/clearer explanations from the authorities and those who don't bother waiting for (or, much of the time even genuinely seeking) any explanation whatsoever, dismissing any and all guidelines they don't feel like following

I wouldn't automatically separate them, no, because ignoring guidelines can be part of civil disobedience, or it can be a simple matter of "choosing your battles". If every person had time to call a government office and pester somebody about every word of legalese that might apply to them then the world would be a very different place, but that isn't realistic. There is also the legal argument that an unconstitutional law is null and void.

Whereever you may want to draw the line at what constitutes 'legitimate' resistance, it has nothing to do with suppression of speech anyway. Facehook isn't stamping out discussions because people protested, they're stamping them out because people talked about protesting.
Quote:
The latter was easily the bigger problem, and still is, since many - I'm frankly tempted to guess "pretty much all" - of the same people who freaked out at the notion that they'd have to ask for plastic straws at restaurants instead of getting them automatically have expressed zero misgivings about the type of rhetoric you and I both decry on here, and I'm not holding my breath for them to suddenly place their crosshairs where they actually belong now.

Of course not, the bar is getting lower all the time. But I don't know how anyone can ever find common ground if random 'transgressions' of ill-defined groups keep getting dropped into a discussion about something else.
Quote:
it strikes me as unlikely that the solution to unsafe buildings is simply to construct more and more houses

bad analogy is bad.
Quote:
nonsense, dangerous and non-, to flourish all but completely unchecked

It's not unchecked. We already have legal remedies for fraud, false advertising, libel, slander, and other things. There isn't a law against saying "2+2=3" but there is still a way of dealing with this. You just respond with "2+2=4" and ideally with some explanation of how you arrived at that answer which doesn't rely on appeals to authority or other fallacies.
Quote:
huge for-profit corporations are not what I would consider ideal candidates for such a job

There is no ideal candidate. That's why the job shouldn't exist. We already decided that we don't want kings, even if we would have gotten a good one every once in a while.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: COVID-19 in your part of the world
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2020 3:08 am 


User avatar

Joined: 20 Aug 2016
Posts: 1614
ED-057 wrote:
It's not unchecked. We already have legal remedies for fraud, false advertising, libel, slander, and other things.


LMAO!

Naivity knows no bounds. ;)
_________________
We apologise for the inconvenience


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: COVID-19 in your part of the world
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2020 4:30 am 


User avatar

Joined: 20 Aug 2016
Posts: 1614
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... index.html

That's not a plan, it's a wishlist. We don't have the infrastructure to roll that out and we can't build it in time. Furthermore, we have millions of ED-057's that won't allow it because freedumbz.

Specific
Measurable
Attainable!
Relevent
Time Bound

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMART_criteria
_________________
We apologise for the inconvenience


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: COVID-19 in your part of the world
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2020 6:38 pm 



Joined: 14 Jun 2019
Posts: 31
Live free or die!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: COVID-19 in your part of the world
PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2020 12:29 am 


User avatar

Joined: 26 Jan 2005
Posts: 12523
Location: Wherever.
ED-057 wrote:
Whereever you may want to draw the line at what constitutes 'legitimate' resistance

That "line" is, as far as I'm concerned, found right in the Constitution itself, which guarantees a right to peaceful assembly. Disagree as you will, but myself, I'm not particularly inclined to label attendees, say, brandishing loaded assault weapons as practicing a particularly "civil" brand of disobedience, and no more predisposed to appoint the label on those willfully and unapologetically putting the public health at risk, and thus showing, if anything, even less regard for the well-being of their fellow citizens than the armed-to-the-teeth set.

Moreover, while somewhat tangential, I can't help but feel the need to note that when Civil Rights activists walked to work instead of taking the bus and Gandhi's crowd marched to the sea, they were willing to take a degree of hardship onto themselves to demonstrate how serious they were about the rights they demanded; the Applebees or Death cadre is not only up in arms because it refuses to take on any personal inconvenience for the public good (as statistics show, the people protesting the loudest are not the ones out of work, but the ones who want to party), but is actively working to shift hardship away from itself and onto others who are less likely to endure the disease unscathed, thus revealing how unseriously they're approaching the dilemma we're in.

One additional note: the other day there was an op-ed in the paper criticizing several states for prohibiting all protests, even those whose participants agreed to use social distancing and masks; off the cuff I'm inclined to agree with the author's sentiment.

Quote:
it has nothing to do with suppression of speech anyway. Facehook isn't stamping out discussions because people protested, they're stamping them out because people talked about protesting.

Um...would someone tell me what I'm missing here? Off the cuff this statement doesn't seem to make sense.

Quote:
But I don't know how anyone can ever find common ground if random 'transgressions' of ill-defined groups keep getting dropped into a discussion about something else.

I think I've been pretty damn clear when it comes to defining groups I'd accuse of "transgressions" during the pandemic- 1) The current administration (which, in its latest master stroke, said that even if a second outbreak occurs it will refuse to impose any additional restrictions, thus shifting even more responsibility, and more importantly blame, onto the states), 2) Officials and citizens who, whether via open support or obedient silence, are unfailingly willing to provide cover for Group 1, no matter how directly opposed to available medical expertise its actions are, and 3) People openly flouting said expertise and willfully, and sometimes downright gleefully, putting others at risk. And yes, I am quite willing to assume that there is a great deal of overlap between the latter two groups.

That being said, considering how you've wavered more than once between "don't lump the doctors in with the politicians" and "ignoring guidelines can be part of civil disobedience", I'm inclined to say that your precise position on what's going on is considerably hazier than mine.

EDIT: Just read that President Trump has ordered houses of worship opened across the country, and threatened, without detailing on what grounds, to "overrule" states that don't comply. Putting aside Constitutional issues for a moment (feel free to weigh in if you want, though), I can guarantee you how this will go: both religious (the President says I can go back to church, so what right do you have to stop me?) and non-religious (the White House still isn't open for tours, how could he possibly justify this?) people will get riled up, Trump will wail about the "war against faith" and urge his followers to both turn out on election day and support his full agenda because he's got their back, and do exactly nothing else, because he'll already have what he wanted out of the mess he made. Moreover, you will not hear a peep from the "skeptics" on this, either. Feel free to bet against me.

Quote:
bad analogy is bad.

How so? According to your own "2+2=3" analogy the "good" builders would just build their own places and explain why they're better, and would eventually drive the "bad" ones out of business...my question is, unless you possess considerable architectural expertise (which, like pandemic medicine, is significantly more complicated and less commonly known than basic arithmetic) or have someone in your employ who does, how much of any such explanation would you be able to understand, much less take to heart, especially when the competition is quicker, cheaper, comes in a million varieties and is willing (and, of course, completely within its legal rights) to say absolutely anything as long as it gets a good reaction from you? Not to mention simply reorganize under a different name and keep going even if it does manage to garner a bad reputation.

Moreover, let me remind you that the "houses" example is just that - a simplified stand-in for the even more perilous realm of information and ideas, where people can not only be deceived or misinformed the old-fashioned way but can willingly adopt something dubious as a symbol for something else only tangentially related ("I support this candidate because he'd probably be fun to have a beer with") or, to call back to my Steam Store analogy, "ironically" (rally attendees doing the Heil Hitler salute because "if they're gonna call us fascists we might as well look the part lol"). Or, for that matter, be willing to take on something openly self-destructive because it makes someone they dislike upset (aka yeeeeahhh fuck yooouuu yeeaahhh)...like, oh, I don't know, "Coronavirus parties" and the like. But hey, I'm sure if someone just explained to them why they're not necessarily the best idea they'd be receptive, right?

Quote:
It's not unchecked. We already have legal remedies for fraud, false advertising, libel, slander, and other things.

Now this response I find especially interesting: not long ago, you expressed, if not open support for McConnell's proposal to make it harder to sue negligent employers whose workers contract Covid-19 on their watch, a palpable measure of solidarity with his, and his party's, underlying notion that ours is a "lawsuit-happy" nation full of idle nitpickers and greedy lawyers (how the former pay the latter for repeatedly arguing flimsy cases they're almost sure to lose, I'm not sure) who are just itching to take honest businesspeople doing their level best to the cleaners on any meaningless technicality they can wrap their grubby claws around.

Feel free to point out where I might have gone wrong in this assumption, but if I'm somewhere in the ballpark, what about current corporate law strikes you as "excessive" in a way that fraud, slander, et al do not? And just to dollop a bit of extra partisanship on top, I'd be quite curious to hear your thoughts - and those of other "wary, wide-awake skeptics" - on President Trump's open and repeated threats to overhaul libel laws to be more easily able to sue or otherwise punish news outlets that have been critical of him.

Quote:
There is no ideal candidate. That's why the job shouldn't exist. We already decided that we don't want kings, even if we would have gotten a good one every once in a while.

The thing is, we didn't eliminate the job, we made it more accountable. In any event, my little thought experiment wasn't intended to sing the praises of granting some degree of authority to supervise certain types of information, but to ask whether the ideological alternative might be even worse, and the more I turn it over in my head the more I wish others wouldn't consider the mere act of asking such a thing borderline blasphemous...dare I say, a "thought crime".
_________________
"Fight me IRL if you want to man up so badly."
Glossary / Discussion / The Bizaar / Vasara HS


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: COVID-19 in your part of the world
PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2020 6:24 am 


User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2005
Posts: 1464
Location: USH
Quote:
That "line" is, as far as I'm concerned, found right in the Constitution itself, which guarantees a right to peaceful assembly. Disagree as you will, but myself, I'm not particularly inclined to label attendees, say, brandishing loaded assault weapons

1st amendment + 2nd amendment. Not mutually exclusive.
Quote:
Moreover, while somewhat tangential, I can't help but feel the need to note that when Civil Rights activists walked to work instead of taking the bus and Gandhi's crowd marched to the sea, they were willing to take a degree of hardship onto themselves

1st amendment also does not hinge on how victim-y the person is.
Quote:
Um...would someone tell me what I'm missing here? Off the cuff this statement doesn't seem to make sense.

You tried to separate people into an 'acceptable' group that only voices their concerns by going through proper channels, etc. and a 'naughty' group that just disregards what the authorities have told them. But as censorship grows, this distinction disappears. There won't be an avenue for dissent, speaking against authority will be a rule violation on its own.
Quote:
And yes, I am quite willing to assume that there is a great deal of overlap between the latter two groups.

Doesn't matter. Is it possible to discuss individual issues or not?
Quote:
EDIT: Just read that President Trump has ordered houses of worship opened across the country, and threatened, without detailing on what grounds, to "overrule" states that don't comply. Putting aside Constitutional issues for a moment (feel free to weigh in if you want, though), I can guarantee you how this will go: both religious (the President says I can go back to church, so what right do you have to stop me?) and non-religious (the White House still isn't open for tours, how could he possibly justify this?) people will get riled up, Trump will wail about the "war against faith" and urge his followers to both turn out on election day and support his full agenda because he's got their back, and do exactly nothing else, because he'll already have what he wanted out of the mess he made. Moreover, you will not hear a peep from the "skeptics" on this, either. Feel free to bet against me.

If other governors are smart, they'll go along with it like Cuomo did. Making a stink wins them nothing, and would give Trump political ammo just like you said.
Quote:
How so? According to your own "2+2=3" analogy the "good" builders would just build their own places and explain why they're better, and would eventually drive the "bad" ones out of business...my question is, unless you possess considerable architectural expertise (which, like pandemic medicine, is significantly more complicated and less commonly known than basic arithmetic) or have someone in your employ who does, how much of any such explanation would you be able to understand

1) Buildings are expensive/scarce. Speech is cheap/renewable.
2) You are this close to asking "why are people who don't know anything about governing allowed to vote?"
Quote:
But hey, I'm sure if someone just explained to them why they're not necessarily the best idea they'd be receptive, right?

Depends. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
Quote:
notion that ours is a "lawsuit-happy" nation

It is lawsuit-happy, and this has consequences. It also has nothing to do with the section you quoted. You said people posting things online would be "unchecked" speech. This is wrong, it isn't unchecked. How good or not good the legal system is irrelevant.
Quote:
President Trump's open and repeated threats to overhaul libel laws to be more easily able to sue or otherwise punish news outlets that have been critical of him.

No, I don't agree with that. Best thing to do about the corporate media is stop giving them money or eyeballs.
Quote:
The thing is, we didn't eliminate the job, we made it more accountable.

Who is "we"? And in what way are too-big-to-fail, monopoly-abusing corporations with censorship power accountable?
Quote:
In any event, my little thought experiment wasn't intended to sing the praises of granting some degree of authority to supervise certain types of information, but to ask whether the ideological alternative might be even worse, and the more I turn it over in my head the more I wish others wouldn't consider the mere act of asking such a thing borderline blasphemous...dare I say, a "thought crime".

You are questioning one of the founding principles of the nation. But nobody said you shouldn't be allowed to.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: COVID-19 in your part of the world
PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2020 6:32 pm 


User avatar

Joined: 20 Aug 2016
Posts: 1614
Godwin's Law wins again. :)

Good work, BulletMagnet!
_________________
We apologise for the inconvenience


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: COVID-19 in your part of the world
PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2020 9:32 pm 


User avatar

Joined: 26 Jan 2005
Posts: 12523
Location: Wherever.
ED-057 wrote:
1st amendment + 2nd amendment. Not mutually exclusive.

I've spoken at length about my grave misgivings when it comes to absolutist and near-absolutist interpretations of the Second Amendment - which, somehow, almost never seem to extend to any other part of the Constitution - and it's not exactly a central facet of the current discussion...though I do occasionally get a sig quote out of the deal. :lol: If you really want to delve into this one, I am always eager to know how you view "Antifa" type groups which like to "peaceably assemble" with billy clubs and other "arms"; if nothing else, both they and the 2A diehards (who, for some reason, frequently show up packing heat at events which have nothing whatsoever to do with the 2A...heck, they might make an appearance right at the polls in November) both claim that they only do what they do because they're "defending themselves".

Quote:
1st amendment also does not hinge on how victim-y the person is.

No, but outside of their right to say what they please (though of course you know there are exceptions to that, which happen to hinge on the question of public safety, but never mind), it does give the rest of us a helpful window into how much actual thought they've put into any of it, and how deep their motivations actually go.

Quote:
But as censorship grows, this distinction disappears. There won't be an avenue for dissent, speaking against authority will be a rule violation on its own.

Y'know what, I'm just going to sit back a minute and ask what you think of this.

Quote:
Doesn't matter. Is it possible to discuss individual issues or not?

Yes, but any remotely meaningful discussion of any issue, particularly one as far-reaching and complex as this one, pivots on the ability to acknowledge and take into consideration how individual issues are inextricably linked with and profoundly affect one another, even if that makes it more difficult to boil the whole thing down into a bumper sticker-sized catch-all or two. And yes, sometimes - especially these days, and by design, I'd posit -some manner of partisanship is pretty much bound to make an appearance at some point. Speaking of which...

Quote:
If other governors are smart, they'll go along with it like Cuomo did. Making a stink wins them nothing, and would give Trump political ammo just like you said.

Going along with it would also 1) Cede an even greater degree of authority (but, again, zero blame if anything goes wrong :roll:) to the federal government, on shaky Constitutional grounds at that, and 2) Almost certainly expose more citizens to the virus, which, as we all sit here attempting to figure out who has the right to do what when, seems to have fallen largely by the wayside as a consideration.

Honestly, I'm sure most religious folks are attempting to be reasonable about the situation just as much as most non-religious ones are, but the extremists (and, of course, the obvious swindlers) will get a fresh blast of wind in their sails once again, which is, of course, just what we need at the moment. It really would be nice if this administration got some legitimate pushback from people (rank-and-file voters included) it might actually listen to when it sticks its head so far up its own ass in the middle of a health crisis, but I guess that's too much to ask.

Quote:
1) Buildings are expensive/scarce. Speech is cheap/renewable.

Knowledge of complex and vital issues - pandemic response included - is destined to be scarce, and available only from a small handful of resources, which are ideally working in tandem with each other (as opposed to being constantly kneecapped by the folks they work for). And, as previously mentioned, knockoffs and outright sabotages of what they're trying to accomplish face none of their restraints in needing to hold up under scrutiny, and can and will proliferate to a far greater extent when given the chance. I guess in some people's minds that's what a "healthy discourse" looks like?

Quote:
2) You are this close to asking "why are people who don't know anything about governing allowed to vote?"

No, what I'm asking is "Should we as a society really take zero interest in attempting to give people some degree of confidence in the accuracy of the information they're using to make incredibly important decisions?" At the very least are we willing to question the notion that no action to this end should ever be taken under any circumstances?

Quote:
Depends. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Considering how much good it's done with these folks for the past several months on end - all the medical expertise in the world is "fake news" to them - I have literally no idea where you get that notion.

Quote:
It is lawsuit-happy, and this has consequences. It also has nothing to do with the section you quoted.

Yes it does - you insinuated (and here confirmed) that you think it's too easy for bad actors to take advantage of the law when it comes to suing businesses, but that this is not the case for corresponding legal measures concerning libel/slander/etc., and that thus no additional action is needed to weed out bad and/or dangerous information from the discourse; as I asked before, what specific distinction do you draw between the current state of the two, because you obviously believe that there is one.

Quote:
No, I don't agree with that.

Assuming that other "free speech watchdogs" feel the same way as you do, do you happen to have any thoughts as to why your post here is literally the first statement I've heard on the matter (among countless others like it, a small portion of which I've brought up here) from anyone who so proudly wears that label?

Quote:
Who is "we"? And in what way are too-big-to-fail, monopoly-abusing corporations with censorship power accountable?

:roll: If you really need it spelled out for you, I refer to the folks who decided, some time back, that no, we didn't need a king, but did need a President (and a Legislature, and a Judiciary, and others to assist them), i.e. that for certain things a degree of accountable authority is still needed to have a functioning country, especially a democracy built on people making sound decisions for themselves, as opposed to just throwing our hands up in the air Gabe Newell-style and hoping that from chaos emerges order. I'm not questioning any of the nation's founding principles here; if anything I'm attempting to reassert them in a time that many of "TPTB" are, in the name of their own short-term self-interest, abandoning them with all available speed.

Moreover, if you want to gripe about unchecked corporate power over the country's goings-on you should direct your complaints to the folks who insist that they be given a degree of extremely direct access and influence, in any and all forms and degrees, including those that nobody else in the nation possesses, to those in power, because they doubly count as people and not doing so would be a violation of their free speech.
_________________
"Fight me IRL if you want to man up so badly."
Glossary / Discussion / The Bizaar / Vasara HS


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: COVID-19 in your part of the world
PostPosted: Sun May 24, 2020 5:19 am 



Joined: 17 Feb 2007
Posts: 198
Quote:
I'm not questioning any of the nation's founding principles here


That's a bald-faced lie.

Quote:
Again, granting authority of this magnitude to anyone is undeniably a risk, but methinks it's a very open question


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: COVID-19 in your part of the world
PostPosted: Sun May 24, 2020 5:32 am 


User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Posts: 3832
Location: Chicago, IL
My work's been more or less shutdown in the city thru the end of August. I hope that changes as the situation develops, but that doesn't leave me with a whole lot of hope for my future (hopefully I can look back on this as overly worrying). I'm getting paid now, but for five months on 'sabbatical'? How long can the money keep coming?

All for a virus with an estimated survivability for those under 65 of roughly 99.91%.

Good to know that millenials can count on something happening every few years to completely fuck them over, whether it's housing crashes, debt crises, recessions, pandemics, or resulting lockdown-induced depressions.
_________________
Image
DEMON'S TILT [bullet hell pinball] - Music Composer || EC2151 ~ My FM/YM2612 music & more! || 1CC List || PCE-CD: The Search for Quality


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: COVID-19 in your part of the world
PostPosted: Sun May 24, 2020 10:43 am 


User avatar

Joined: 26 Jan 2005
Posts: 12523
Location: Wherever.
God wrote:
That's a bald-faced lie.

As I noted in my most recent post, the government already has the authority to outlaw certain types of speech (inciting a riot, the old "'fire' in a crowded theater" example) which are considered a threat to public safety; whether misinformation which encourages unsafe behavior during a pandemic or other emergency might qualify as such is an open question, but there's no way it's not a legitimate question, let alone a "treasonous" one or whatever you'd care to call it.
_________________
"Fight me IRL if you want to man up so badly."
Glossary / Discussion / The Bizaar / Vasara HS


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: COVID-19 in your part of the world
PostPosted: Sun May 24, 2020 11:48 pm 


User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2005
Posts: 1464
Location: USH
Quote:
I am always eager to know how you view "Antifa" type groups which like to "peaceably assemble" with billy clubs

Posessing a billy club and using it are two different things.
Quote:
a helpful window into how much actual thought they've put into any of it

So you imagine the people who you favor to be more thoughtful than the ones you don't favor. A helpful window into the psychology of BulletMagnet.
Quote:
Y'know what, I'm just going to sit back a minute and ask what you think of this.

Trump is considering something. Not much to be said without knowing what that 'something' is.
Quote:
Yes, but any remotely meaningful discussion of any issue, particularly one as far-reaching and complex as this one, pivots on the ability to acknowledge and take into consideration how individual issues are inextricably linked

So your answer is no then, which was already obvious based on your repeated attempts to have me answer for random positions which I never advocated. Before you bring up yet more of these, maybe you could explain how these issues are genuinely "inextricably linked" in a way that doesn't involve "somebody, somewhere, who commented X also commented Y"
Quote:
Going along with it would also 1) Cede an even greater degree of authority

They never had this authority.
Quote:
Knowledge of complex and vital issues - pandemic response included - is destined to be scarce

It's shocking that at this point I should even have to say this: knowledge and speech are two different things!
Quote:
No, what I'm asking is "Should we as a society really take zero interest in attempting to give people some degree of confidence in the accuracy of the information they're using

There are many ways to build confidence, censoring dissent is not one of them. The assertions made by the author of 'Plandemic' are laughable to the vast majority of people, but after goog decided to censor her she is now a best-seller.
Quote:
Considering how much good it's done with these folks for the past several months on end - all the medical expertise in the world is "fake news" to them - I have literally no idea where you get that notion.

As soon as you turn it into a partisan food fight then you will never convince anyone of anything. When you've constructed a "these folks" and put them in a box and put words in their mouths then a partisan food fight is exactly what you have.

Are doctors that disagree fake news?
Quote:
Yes it does - you insinuated (and here confirmed) that you think it's too easy for bad actors to take advantage of the law when it comes to suing businesses

No, I just pointed out how you were wrong to say that there are no checks on online speech. Is it too easy for bad actors to take advantage of litigation? I would say it's not so much about being a 'bad actor' but about who has a pile of money. My point was also not how this would be bad for businesses, but how it could have unintended blowback on workers.
Quote:
but that this is not the case for corresponding legal measures concerning libel/slander/etc., and that thus no additional action is needed to weed out bad and/or dangerous information from the discourse

Existing means of legal recourse against libel and slander are not perfect, but I'd say they are about as effective as the legal system generally. Other areas are much more problematic, like copyright infringement. People have their stuff taken down from social media constantly based on ambiguous standards or even automated processes that don't answer to any standard whatsoever, in many cases based on 'allegations' that are clearly wrong to any human observer. There is no accountability except trying to cause a large enough ruckus about it through other channels that it gets the attention of somebody in bowels of MegaCorp who may or may not decide to reverse it. This is essentially what you are wishing for more of. There is no reason to expect anything different, until we've caught up with China to the extent that you might also win a free trip to a re-education camp.
Quote:
If you really need it spelled out for you, I refer to the folks who decided, some time back, that no, we didn't need a king, but did need a President (and a Legislature, and a Judiciary, and others to assist them), i.e. that for certain things a degree of accountable authority is still needed to have a functioning country

They defined government powers and put limits on those powers. If you want to remove those limits then feel free to organize your Constitutional Convention. I'll wait.
Quote:
Moreover, if you want to gripe about unchecked corporate power over the country's goings-on you should direct your complaints to the folks who insist that they be given a degree of extremely direct access and influence, in any and all forms and degrees, including those that nobody else in the nation possesses, to those in power, because they doubly count as people and not doing so would be a violation of their free speech.

Yes, I do want to gripe about corporate power, which is why I oppose allowing megacorps to control the online space.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 645 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 18, 19, 20, 21, 22  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bananamatic, Google [Bot], Immryr, Sir Ilpalazzo and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Space Pilot 3K template by Jakob Persson
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group