6 ms·

> If instead of saying "I want a haircut.", they would say like Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary S

> If instead of saying "I want a haircut.", they would say like Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." would they be taken more seriously? Most people sound more like the latter than the former. If people were saying "We have a need for haircuts etc, this is serious", they'd get a lot more consideration than some appeal to "but our freedoms". Most people sensibly realize that a lock-down in the face of a pandemic is not a regression in our fundamental rights as US citizens, but just a temporary measure to save lives. If instead you argue that you're legitimately going to see more harm done due to closures, and you back that up sensibly, people will care a lot more. You'll probably be wrong, but people might listen and take that seriously. In fact, they very obviously already are listening to this feedback, and it's a huge part of the communications from govt officials right now - how we are balancing saving lives via lockin vs dealing with the fallout of that exact policy. They're hardly ignoring the issue! > Could facebook sensor this movie since it pictures the lockdown as a evil action? Sure they could take it down, it's their platform. Would they? No, probably not, that would be really silly? > Now, the government should inform people with data, and let them take a decision. The role of our government is not to provide data but then otherwise let people do whatever. You say "People should be able to take a calculated risk." - how would they calculate it? Most are not capable of making an informed decision like that, and likening this situation to driving is just ridiculous (and ironic, given that car safety was heavily regulated due to huge numbers of people dying while car manufacturers were left unaccountable. The government stepped in with license requirements, manufacturing requirements, etc.).

abnry 6y ago
> Most people sensibly realize that a lock-down in the face of a pandemic is not a regression in our fundamental rights as US citizens, but just a temporary measure to save lives. The problem is that it may not be temporary due to legal creep. See: U.S. Patriot Act.
- staticassertion 6y ago
  Very little about this feels like the Patriot Act. I also don't really see why the government would want to tank its economy. I mean, I can think of some really out there reasons, but I don't really feel it's worth entertaining given the far more reasonable reason for lock-in during a pandemic. edit: When I say 'this' I mean enforced lock in, specifically.
  - kfrzcode 6y ago
    What feelings did you feel in October 2001?
    - staticassertion 6y ago
      Not much, I was a child. I think it would be sort of a waste of time to compare 9/11 to Covid with regards to government overreach. Off the bat, the threat is of a completely different nature, we understand the threat in a completely different way, the threat is taking place within our borders and, of course, globally. The measures are not broad, relatively. They are explicitly intended to be short term. They are being discussed out in the open. I don't know, I could probably spend the whole night listing differences but it's so obvious I really don't think I will. Unless you're simple enough to boil both responses to "well it's a thing that a government did", idk, the similarities end super quickly.
      - kfrzcode 6y ago
        You'll have to excuse my skepticism. My government has a pretty poor history when it comes to the interests of its people, having sent yet another generation of its children to war on the other side of the planet based on false statements...I'm jaded, I'm biased and I'm most likely ignorant-as-fuck. Please, forgive my doubt. It's seeded in deep levels of trauma. I even bought into the whole "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" meme, thinking I was clever. > measures are not broad I would call trillions of dollars of stimulus injections and virtual lockdowns quite broad. However my point is more that while a panicked, fearful public is distracted with the News of the Day, governmental agencies, lobbyists and others will play. "You never want to let a serious crisis go to waste." To be fair there are many on the 'net who are die-hard and staunchly rooted in the anti-governmental camp. I'm rational and seeking discourse to expand my knowledge and evolve a complex, multi-faceted worldview; many others are not.
kfrzcode 6y ago
Who do we trust, when everyone is pointing fingers at each other?
- staticassertion 6y ago
  Ah, I skimmed your comment history. I'm opting out of this conversation. I think we disagree too much to find common ground here.
  - kfrzcode 6y ago
    Unfortunate for me. :( I'm sincerely uncertain. I'm probably closer to the middle of the Bell-curve of smarts than the majority of this board, which is why it's the only community I try to engage with. I don't know how to filter the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, when it comes to the online fire-hose of (what seems to be) an increasingly loud amount of ignorance, vitriol, panic-porn, condescension and misinformation. I sincerely ask "who do we trust, and why," because I'm simply exhausted. Maybe HN has a solution that's not overly taxing on my mental energy? Do we vet every single argument, by every news outlet or institutional press release? Do we all become epidemiologists? Am I missing a fundamental life-skill? Maybe another commentor can help placate my (certainly over-inflated) discomfort of existing in the modern info-sphere.
    - gglon 6y ago
      The discomfort is probably the one and only thing you should really trust.
    - mindslight 6y ago
      IMO, fall back on first principles. Trust no one and err on the side of caution. Weigh your actions as if you will be turned away at the hospital if you do get sick. Trying to choose between one size fits all top down solutions is the path to madness. State shutdown orders are really just a crude response to an economic treadmill meant to push everyone into working. They're imperfect, as all one size fits all solutions are. If you do need to continue to come into contact with others to take care of yourself and family, consciously accept the risk and do the prep work to minimize it rather than going full cognitive dissonance and backfitting justifications as to why it's perfectly safe. We've seen enough twitboast->obituary pairings.
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> Most people sensibly realize that a lock-down in the face of a pandemic is not a regression in our fundamental rights as US citizens, but just a temporary measure to save lives. But that's not what we're talking about here. Facebook isn't going to an event and shutting it down, they're preventing people from discussing having an event. There is also a bit of a different trouble with the government shutting down the event itself: > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances Going to a public event right now is dumb. But some of the things people have a right to do are dumb and they still have a right to do them. And this is unusually problematic when the purpose of the event is to discuss the lockdown. It's like saying you can't have a public debate on something because the thing you're debating has already been decided against you before you get a chance to make your case. How are you supposed to organize the movement against that decision then? Maybe they have a point and the only reason we don't agree is that they haven't been able to organize into a group that can effectively convey their message. > The role of our government is not to provide data but then otherwise let people do whatever. They should try it sometime. Most of the evils they aim to prevent come from people not having the right information to make a good decision. Just having a strong record of making good recommendations that people can trust would cause nearly everyone to follow them, since people would learn that following them is easier and leads to better outcomes than not. Whereas if they have a record of making bad decisions then how is it better for those bad decisions to have the force of law? > The government stepped in with license requirements, manufacturing requirements, etc. There is some evidence that this has caused the rate of improvement of vehicle safety to slow because they basically hard-coded a lot of 1970s-era technology which is now required even if incompatible with something better, and license plates have turned out to be a mass location privacy violation as a result of ALPR. Now compare this to the alternative where they don't mandate anything but still publish vehicle safety ratings so that customers know which vehicles do the best in crashes and making a safe car is thereby something manufacturers have to compete on to win customers.
- NotSammyHagar 6y ago
  fb is a private company and can do whatever they want. their job is to make money. so many people are swayed by lies and propaganda.
projektfu 6y ago
I just learned that Facebook censors gifs from Team America World Police, so I’m not sure that it should be relied on for a conversation about anything critical.
- fragmede 6y ago
  America is strange. The idea of censorship seems to rile up more than the practicalities of it. Facebook is hugely censored, and has been for years. There's a distinct lack of gore, of child porn, or even just porn in general. There aren't torrent links to download the latest TV show or video game. And, dare I say it, it's better for it.
  - orbifold 6y ago
    That is not censorship but removal of illegal content (with the exception of non-child porn)
- NotSammyHagar 6y ago
  Really, you mean I can't post an "America, Fuck Yeah" gif, but it's not because of the language? FB usually has a rationale for something, do you know the reasoning here?
  - projektfu 6y ago
    It was an “I’m ronery” gif. It claimed it was spam but ... really?
AdrianB1 6y ago
> Most people sensibly realize that a lock-down in the face of a pandemic is not a regression in our fundamental rights as US citizens, but just a temporary measure to save lives. This way many of the rights in the Constitution and Amendments were slowly eroded (reduced), permanently. Technically, it is a slippery slope even if it is driven by good intentions. One day there will be nothing left, because this is how lives were saved, think of the children, etc. The only thing that I can think of in this context is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  > think of the children, How is this any different than "think of our freedoms!" which has been used endlessly to oppress other nations and peoples, and, ironically, our own.
  - AdrianB1 6y ago
    Can you please provide a such example? I really have no idea what you are talking about.
    - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
      Operation Enduring Freedom, the Iraq War, the Patriot act, etc, were all based on the premise of defending our freedom, when the reality is Iraq nor Al-Qaeda posed any existential threat to it. The reason freedoms are often infringed upon in times of crisis are because it is often pragmatic to do so. Also, most of these protestors have little to any idea how the US government works, let alone how its founding father's intended it to. Many would probably be upset at what they read.
      - AdrianB1 6y ago
        No, they are not. Maybe someone said that, but it is quite obvious you don't go to fight in Afghanistan to protect your free speech or the right to bear arms, is it?

abnry 6y ago

> Most people sensibly realize that a lock-down in the face of a pandemic is not a regression in our fundamental rights as US citizens, but just a temporary measure to save lives. The problem is that it may not be temporary due to legal creep. See: U.S. Patriot Act.

staticassertion 6y ago
Very little about this feels like the Patriot Act. I also don't really see why the government would want to tank its economy. I mean, I can think of some really out there reasons, but I don't really feel it's worth entertaining given the far more reasonable reason for lock-in during a pandemic. edit: When I say 'this' I mean enforced lock in, specifically.
- kfrzcode 6y ago
  What feelings did you feel in October 2001?
  - staticassertion 6y ago
    Not much, I was a child. I think it would be sort of a waste of time to compare 9/11 to Covid with regards to government overreach. Off the bat, the threat is of a completely different nature, we understand the threat in a completely different way, the threat is taking place within our borders and, of course, globally. The measures are not broad, relatively. They are explicitly intended to be short term. They are being discussed out in the open. I don't know, I could probably spend the whole night listing differences but it's so obvious I really don't think I will. Unless you're simple enough to boil both responses to "well it's a thing that a government did", idk, the similarities end super quickly.
    - kfrzcode 6y ago
      You'll have to excuse my skepticism. My government has a pretty poor history when it comes to the interests of its people, having sent yet another generation of its children to war on the other side of the planet based on false statements...I'm jaded, I'm biased and I'm most likely ignorant-as-fuck. Please, forgive my doubt. It's seeded in deep levels of trauma. I even bought into the whole "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" meme, thinking I was clever. > measures are not broad I would call trillions of dollars of stimulus injections and virtual lockdowns quite broad. However my point is more that while a panicked, fearful public is distracted with the News of the Day, governmental agencies, lobbyists and others will play. "You never want to let a serious crisis go to waste." To be fair there are many on the 'net who are die-hard and staunchly rooted in the anti-governmental camp. I'm rational and seeking discourse to expand my knowledge and evolve a complex, multi-faceted worldview; many others are not.

kfrzcode 6y ago

Who do we trust, when everyone is pointing fingers at each other?

staticassertion 6y ago
Ah, I skimmed your comment history. I'm opting out of this conversation. I think we disagree too much to find common ground here.
- kfrzcode 6y ago
  Unfortunate for me. :( I'm sincerely uncertain. I'm probably closer to the middle of the Bell-curve of smarts than the majority of this board, which is why it's the only community I try to engage with. I don't know how to filter the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, when it comes to the online fire-hose of (what seems to be) an increasingly loud amount of ignorance, vitriol, panic-porn, condescension and misinformation. I sincerely ask "who do we trust, and why," because I'm simply exhausted. Maybe HN has a solution that's not overly taxing on my mental energy? Do we vet every single argument, by every news outlet or institutional press release? Do we all become epidemiologists? Am I missing a fundamental life-skill? Maybe another commentor can help placate my (certainly over-inflated) discomfort of existing in the modern info-sphere.
  - gglon 6y ago
    The discomfort is probably the one and only thing you should really trust.
  - mindslight 6y ago
    IMO, fall back on first principles. Trust no one and err on the side of caution. Weigh your actions as if you will be turned away at the hospital if you do get sick. Trying to choose between one size fits all top down solutions is the path to madness. State shutdown orders are really just a crude response to an economic treadmill meant to push everyone into working. They're imperfect, as all one size fits all solutions are. If you do need to continue to come into contact with others to take care of yourself and family, consciously accept the risk and do the prep work to minimize it rather than going full cognitive dissonance and backfitting justifications as to why it's perfectly safe. We've seen enough twitboast->obituary pairings.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

> Most people sensibly realize that a lock-down in the face of a pandemic is not a regression in our fundamental rights as US citizens, but just a temporary measure to save lives. But that's not what we're talking about here. Facebook isn't going to an event and shutting it down, they're preventing people from discussing having an event. There is also a bit of a different trouble with the government shutting down the event itself: > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances Going to a public event right now is dumb. But some of the things people have a right to do are dumb and they still have a right to do them. And this is unusually problematic when the purpose of the event is to discuss the lockdown. It's like saying you can't have a public debate on something because the thing you're debating has already been decided against you before you get a chance to make your case. How are you supposed to organize the movement against that decision then? Maybe they have a point and the only reason we don't agree is that they haven't been able to organize into a group that can effectively convey their message. > The role of our government is not to provide data but then otherwise let people do whatever. They should try it sometime. Most of the evils they aim to prevent come from people not having the right information to make a good decision. Just having a strong record of making good recommendations that people can trust would cause nearly everyone to follow them, since people would learn that following them is easier and leads to better outcomes than not. Whereas if they have a record of making bad decisions then how is it better for those bad decisions to have the force of law? > The government stepped in with license requirements, manufacturing requirements, etc. There is some evidence that this has caused the rate of improvement of vehicle safety to slow because they basically hard-coded a lot of 1970s-era technology which is now required even if incompatible with something better, and license plates have turned out to be a mass location privacy violation as a result of ALPR. Now compare this to the alternative where they don't mandate anything but still publish vehicle safety ratings so that customers know which vehicles do the best in crashes and making a safe car is thereby something manufacturers have to compete on to win customers.

NotSammyHagar 6y ago
fb is a private company and can do whatever they want. their job is to make money. so many people are swayed by lies and propaganda.

projektfu 6y ago

I just learned that Facebook censors gifs from Team America World Police, so I’m not sure that it should be relied on for a conversation about anything critical.

fragmede 6y ago
America is strange. The idea of censorship seems to rile up more than the practicalities of it. Facebook is hugely censored, and has been for years. There's a distinct lack of gore, of child porn, or even just porn in general. There aren't torrent links to download the latest TV show or video game. And, dare I say it, it's better for it.
- orbifold 6y ago
  That is not censorship but removal of illegal content (with the exception of non-child porn)
NotSammyHagar 6y ago
Really, you mean I can't post an "America, Fuck Yeah" gif, but it's not because of the language? FB usually has a rationale for something, do you know the reasoning here?
- projektfu 6y ago
  It was an “I’m ronery” gif. It claimed it was spam but ... really?

AdrianB1 6y ago

> Most people sensibly realize that a lock-down in the face of a pandemic is not a regression in our fundamental rights as US citizens, but just a temporary measure to save lives. This way many of the rights in the Constitution and Amendments were slowly eroded (reduced), permanently. Technically, it is a slippery slope even if it is driven by good intentions. One day there will be nothing left, because this is how lives were saved, think of the children, etc. The only thing that I can think of in this context is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

ntsplnkv2 6y ago
> think of the children, How is this any different than "think of our freedoms!" which has been used endlessly to oppress other nations and peoples, and, ironically, our own.
- AdrianB1 6y ago
  Can you please provide a such example? I really have no idea what you are talking about.
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    Operation Enduring Freedom, the Iraq War, the Patriot act, etc, were all based on the premise of defending our freedom, when the reality is Iraq nor Al-Qaeda posed any existential threat to it. The reason freedoms are often infringed upon in times of crisis are because it is often pragmatic to do so. Also, most of these protestors have little to any idea how the US government works, let alone how its founding father's intended it to. Many would probably be upset at what they read.
    - AdrianB1 6y ago
      No, they are not. Maybe someone said that, but it is quite obvious you don't go to fight in Afghanistan to protect your free speech or the right to bear arms, is it?