38 ms·

Excuse me, but let's stop this line of thinking right now. No business has a right to do whatever it thinks it must to survive. Tobacco companies don't get to

Excuse me, but let's stop this line of thinking right now. No business has a right to do whatever it thinks it must to survive. Tobacco companies don't get to do whatever they think they must to survive. If a restaurant is in trouble, it doesn't get to tell its employees to speed up service by not washing their hands, nor does it get to hire employees under the table for cash to avoid payroll taxes or minimum wage, nor does it get to serve slaughtered horse to save money on beef. Companies do not have an inalienable right to existence. If they cannot make money while being good members of society, they must close or be forcibly closed.

ceilingcorner 7y ago
First off, don't start any conversation by telling someone to stop thinking contrarian thoughts. Secondly, the risk of dying from the coronavirus from working at or going into a small video game shop is negligible. You are far more likely to get it at Walmart or a grocery store. Are you calling for the closure of these stores too? Thirdly, you are painting GameStop as some faceless entity. People work there. These people probably rely on their income to survive.
- braythwayt 7y ago
  You think the risk is negligible. The rest of the world does not. Good for you being a "contrarian," but neither you nor Gamestop get to act on each and every one of your contrarian thoughts. Lots of people, if left to decide these matters for themselves, decide that the risks of their behaviour are negligible. That's why Spring Break is crowded. But you aren't even framing this correctly. It is not just about the risk of a 20-something retail employee dying. It's also about the risk of them transmitting it to each other and to customers, who in turn transmit it to people who have a non-negligible risk of dying. Get a grip. This is not an abstract argument, we are watching thousands of people die from this, and we believe that community transmission comes from otherwise healthy people passing it around long before they have any symptoms at all, and those carriers need not die to cause the deaths of others.
  - ceilingcorner 7y ago
    Again, learn how to have a conversation without the condescending attitude. This is a complex issue with multiple variables and costs. You are not automatically right because you agree with the mob. A cursory reading of history should make this obvious, but unfortunately that seems too much to ask of people nowadays. They'd rather spend their time looking down at those with the "wrong" opinion. > You think the risk is negligible. The rest of the world does not. The catch here is that people are really short-sighted evolved primates. While shutting down the entire world will indeed stop the virus, it is already having an innumerable number of unpredictable effects like putting millions out of work, crashing the economy, diverting resources from other medical issues, to name a few. The statistics are pretty unconvincing so far, to me personally, in order to justify a long-term shutdown. > This is not an abstract argument, we are watching thousands of people die from this, and we believe that community transmission comes from otherwise healthy people passing it around long before they have any symptoms at all, and those carriers need not die to cause the deaths of others. Millions die from obesity, car accidents, war, and the regular flu every year. Where's your outrage for that? Why are you not calling for the shutdown of McDonald's? The restriction of car use? These are vastly bigger issues that are actually controllable. As I said above: the actions being taken now will have consequences which have only just begun.
    - dvtrn 7y ago
      Millions die from obesity, car accidents, war, and the regular flu every year. Where's your outrage for that? Does this comparison actually make sense in your mind? Considering the cadre of medical professionals point blank asking us (repeatedly) to stop comparing this to the flu?
      - ceilingcorner 7y ago
        Absolutely. People are using potential death counts as a reason for all these draconian measures. And yet, there are numerous other causes of death with straightforward, clear solutions. But we don't shut down society over them. In my mind, the main reasons that for the coronavirus hysteria are media overreaction, especially social media, and the fact that this "source of death" comes as a fast-acting virus, rather than something long-term and abstract like obesity. The whole "slowly boiling a frog" metaphor is apt here.
throwawaysea 7y ago
“While being good members of society” is an argument often used to justify suppression of free speech and other authoritarian tactics.
- kazagistar 7y ago
  I'm pretty sure free speech being used the justify making society worse is the bigger more real danger we experience in the present day.
  - throwawaysea 7y ago
    I strongly disagree. Free speech is fundamental to any society that respects individuals, their freedoms/agency, and letting ideas compete. If anything, the most alarming trend is people railing against free speech without any understanding of what it's like to live in suppressed societies.
- edmundsauto 7y ago
  Yes, and it is also a pretty good argument used to justify people needing to do things that help society. Especially useful when it's not in your immediate preference or interest to do so. (Tragedy of the commons, fighting for your country, etc.)

ceilingcorner 7y ago

First off, don't start any conversation by telling someone to stop thinking contrarian thoughts. Secondly, the risk of dying from the coronavirus from working at or going into a small video game shop is negligible. You are far more likely to get it at Walmart or a grocery store. Are you calling for the closure of these stores too? Thirdly, you are painting GameStop as some faceless entity. People work there. These people probably rely on their income to survive.

braythwayt 7y ago
You think the risk is negligible. The rest of the world does not. Good for you being a "contrarian," but neither you nor Gamestop get to act on each and every one of your contrarian thoughts. Lots of people, if left to decide these matters for themselves, decide that the risks of their behaviour are negligible. That's why Spring Break is crowded. But you aren't even framing this correctly. It is not just about the risk of a 20-something retail employee dying. It's also about the risk of them transmitting it to each other and to customers, who in turn transmit it to people who have a non-negligible risk of dying. Get a grip. This is not an abstract argument, we are watching thousands of people die from this, and we believe that community transmission comes from otherwise healthy people passing it around long before they have any symptoms at all, and those carriers need not die to cause the deaths of others.
- ceilingcorner 7y ago
  Again, learn how to have a conversation without the condescending attitude. This is a complex issue with multiple variables and costs. You are not automatically right because you agree with the mob. A cursory reading of history should make this obvious, but unfortunately that seems too much to ask of people nowadays. They'd rather spend their time looking down at those with the "wrong" opinion. > You think the risk is negligible. The rest of the world does not. The catch here is that people are really short-sighted evolved primates. While shutting down the entire world will indeed stop the virus, it is already having an innumerable number of unpredictable effects like putting millions out of work, crashing the economy, diverting resources from other medical issues, to name a few. The statistics are pretty unconvincing so far, to me personally, in order to justify a long-term shutdown. > This is not an abstract argument, we are watching thousands of people die from this, and we believe that community transmission comes from otherwise healthy people passing it around long before they have any symptoms at all, and those carriers need not die to cause the deaths of others. Millions die from obesity, car accidents, war, and the regular flu every year. Where's your outrage for that? Why are you not calling for the shutdown of McDonald's? The restriction of car use? These are vastly bigger issues that are actually controllable. As I said above: the actions being taken now will have consequences which have only just begun.
  - dvtrn 7y ago
    Millions die from obesity, car accidents, war, and the regular flu every year. Where's your outrage for that? Does this comparison actually make sense in your mind? Considering the cadre of medical professionals point blank asking us (repeatedly) to stop comparing this to the flu?
    - ceilingcorner 7y ago
      Absolutely. People are using potential death counts as a reason for all these draconian measures. And yet, there are numerous other causes of death with straightforward, clear solutions. But we don't shut down society over them. In my mind, the main reasons that for the coronavirus hysteria are media overreaction, especially social media, and the fact that this "source of death" comes as a fast-acting virus, rather than something long-term and abstract like obesity. The whole "slowly boiling a frog" metaphor is apt here.

throwawaysea 7y ago

“While being good members of society” is an argument often used to justify suppression of free speech and other authoritarian tactics.

kazagistar 7y ago
I'm pretty sure free speech being used the justify making society worse is the bigger more real danger we experience in the present day.
- throwawaysea 7y ago
  I strongly disagree. Free speech is fundamental to any society that respects individuals, their freedoms/agency, and letting ideas compete. If anything, the most alarming trend is people railing against free speech without any understanding of what it's like to live in suppressed societies.
edmundsauto 7y ago
Yes, and it is also a pretty good argument used to justify people needing to do things that help society. Especially useful when it's not in your immediate preference or interest to do so. (Tragedy of the commons, fighting for your country, etc.)