7 ms·

I agree that public assembly is essential regardless of what is going on. But why were the people protesting the lock downs and business shutdowns and the limi

I agree that public assembly is essential regardless of what is going on. But why were the people protesting the lock downs and business shutdowns and the limiting of freedoms the yahoos and crazy murderers? Why did nurses block them from protesting but not one would block someone now?

nr2x 6y ago
Not getting a haircut won't kill you, the police will. Also, for the most part, anti-racism protestors are wearing masks, anti-lockdown people, for the most part, are not.
- alchemyromcom 6y ago
  Losing your livelihood can kill you, however. If you are a small business owner, for example, and it's illegal to operate that business, your life is also in danger and your situation deserves empathy. Empathy is not finite resource. We can extend it to all people in bad situations, not just people we prefer.
  - thethethethe 6y ago
    > If you are a small business owner, for example, and it's illegal to operate that business, your life is also in danger and your situation deserves empathy This is a false dichotomy. Sure, these people (and their workers) deserve empathy and support, but that doesn’t mean they should be allowed to reopen. You can support business owners via financial aid or other measures while their business is closed.
    - glofish 6y ago
      no, this is not about empathy but personal autonomy and sovereignity and autocracy. Why not allow someone to do something if they are willing to take the risk, why treat them as criminals? If you believe that you get infected at a store, don't go to the store ... case closed. On what basis is the state "protecting" someone that does not want to be protected? On what basis is someone considered a criminal when a crime could only potentially be committed? what if the person is immune to the disease, already had the disease, or does not mind getting infected?
      - thethethethe 6y ago
        > Why not allow someone to do something if they are willing to take the risk, why treat them as criminals? Because we live in a society and our actions affect others. When you take this argument to an extreme it becomes pretty obvious that it is fallacious. For example, do you think it is okay for someone to actively burn their garbage, venting toxic smoke into their neighborhood because they are “willing to take the risk” of developing health complications? > If you believe that you get infected at a store, don't go to the store It would really nice if this worked but it strikes me as a grand oversimplification of how society operates and diseases spread. > what if the person is immune to the disease, already had the disease, or does not mind getting infected? These people still risk infecting others and perpetuating the pandemic, which is why you shouldn’t do it, even if you aren’t afraid for yourself.
      - mindslight 6y ago
        Much of that purported "willing" is driven by an involuntary need to service debt. Without acknowledging this, it's disingenuous to talk about the shutdowns in terms of autonomy. I'd wager that the shutdowns actually allowed more people to act with their desires than they prevented. For example had the shutdowns not occurred, how many companies that are pure WFH right now would have just continued telling everyone to come into the office?
      - dageshi 6y ago
        Presumably said people would be willing to forfeit medical treatment and quietly die at home if they did catch it?
        caseysoftware 6y ago
        I've been considering this line of reasoning for a while: if opening your business disqualifies you from medical treatment, what else does? Being obese? Smoking? After all, both of those are the direct result of your choices and less dependent on other people than getting a virus. Most people say "Oh, that would never happen!" but if we have a time where rationing healthcare becomes the norm or even just vital, it will just as it did in Italy a few months back.
    - DennisAleynikov 6y ago
      you could make the same case for the current wave of protests 'you should support blm and adjacent causes from home through donating without putting more people and lives at risk'
  - bsder 6y ago
    > Losing your livelihood can kill you, however. Why is "Reopen all the things!" the only solution, though? Part of the reason why people got angry is because none of the people involved around the cosplaytriots wanted to consider any other options, and there are many. 1) The fact that losing your job costs you your healthcare is a political problem. The government can decide to extend healthcare by fiat, expand access, or several other choices. 2) The fact that people weren't getting paid unemployment that they filed for is a problem. 3) If you really believed in choice, give people $2,000 per month unconditionally but allow them to choose whether they wish to go back to work. Now we can see the free market in action. Instead, the only thing on the cosplaytriot protest agenda was "Stay home and die or get back to work and possibly die". That's not exactly a protest sentiment that's going to get much grass roots support. Putting a gun to people's heads is going to make them angry.
  - nr2x 6y ago
    What exactly do you mean by "people we prefer"? I am unclear on the meaning and motive of your language.
  - CameronNemo 6y ago
    Which is why the federal government passed a never-before-seen stimulus package that included forgivable small business loans and expanded unemployment income. There is no equivalent safety net for people who are victims of positional asphyxia.
    - sethammons 6y ago
      I know several small businesses that are closed forever despite that bill. Many reasons why, I’m sure; however, the most cited one I’ve heard is that the monies had too many strings tied to uncertain outcomes whereby the business owner could end up still out there f business but also with debt that they wont be able to service.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
gdubs 6y ago
There was a lot of science denialism in those protests, conspiracy theories, and (based anecdotally on photos which are the best we have to go on) mask usage seemed a lot lower.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- notahacker 6y ago
  Also, whilst mass gatherings themselves can act as a vector for disease transmission regardless of what the cause is and despite some forms of masks, the objection to the lockdown protests wasn't that participants might put themselves and their immediate families at risk so much as their stated goal was to end the lockdown, and thus see millions of people not involved in the protest expected to go back to work and encouraged to socialise.
- thu2111 6y ago
  But now we're seeing science denialism on a whole other scale. Over a thousand "scientists" signed a document that says protests for their preferred causes aren't risky, but protests against their policies are. Why should anyone be criticised for denying this so-called "science" when the people who made it are now openly denying it as well?
redisman 6y ago
What ever the answer is (and I don’t think there’s a non-partisan one), we’re screwed. Hopefully we’ll get new data on masks giving us a 80/20 solution since I don’t think either side of the political divide is going to buy the stay-at-home order much longer. “How come they can break it but we can’t?”
- pstuart 6y ago
  We are screwed. Partisanship has been extended to such a degree that it guarantees that "both sides" remain opposed. Science should not be a partisan topic. Mistakes get made, but those should be learning opportunities rather than a chance to discredit your "opponent".
  - jdsully 6y ago
    Science is partisan because its being misapplied. It cannot tell you what you should do, that is the realm of leadership. All it can say is whether a course of action may lead to a certain outcome. Whether such outcome is desirable vs the trade-offs is not a scientific fact as desirability only exists in the minds of each individual.
    - jtbayly 6y ago
      Your comment seems to actually mean that “science is partisan the moment it is being applied at all.”
      - jdsully 6y ago
        No, and this is core to the point: Science has found no universal "utility" function that applies to all humans. As such its impossible for science to maximize utility, or in laymens terms "outcomes" globally for all humans. We must choose what we find important and there is no scientific tool to do so. Once you've decided what's important sure you can apply science to help you make the best decisions to achieve that outcome.
      - marcosdumay 6y ago
cma 6y ago
First I'll say I think a lot more distancing should be in place at these recent protests and even with high mask usage it is taking a huge risk with the elderly and vulnerable. > Why did nurses block them from protesting but not one would block someone now? I think the reason would be something like: the first group was protesting not being able to go to Applebee's, the second group is protesting systemic racism and police brutality.
- jtbayly 6y ago
  > the first group was protesting not being able to go to Applebee's This is such a terribly uncharitable assumption and ruins any sort of ability to have reasoned discourse. Are you aware how many people are unemployed in this nation right now because of the lockdown? Are you aware how many people’s businesses are destroyed, shut down permanently? And your assumption is that the only reason anybody could be upset is because they can’t go to their favorite restaurant!?
  - cma 6y ago
    Yes, and I think they should support subsidies for the affected, rent and mortgage moratoriums, etc., not support spreading a serious disease to reopen Applebee’s and other indoor dining.
thethethethe 6y ago
> why were the people protesting the lock downs and business shutdowns and the limiting of freedoms the yahoos and crazy murderers? People denounced those protesters because they were protesting because many of them thought the virus was a hoax or because they couldn’t get a hair cut or buy lawn fertilizer. The current protests are addressing systemic racism black people have faced in America for hundreds of years and the terrifying, autocratic police response to the initial unrest. Once more unrest was met with brutal state violence, more people showed up because they don’t want this country to devolve into an uncontrollable autocracy. I think it’s pretty clear what the difference is here
- DennisAleynikov 6y ago
  there is no difference to covid, it doesn't ask 'oh were you protesting the right thing?'
  - mrcorona 6y ago
    5 Plain clothed police officers break into your house and execute your wife or daughter in their bed, then say it was a mistake and walk away scott-free (no charges)... Would you stay quiet and wait for the covid threat to die down before protesting or taking action?
    - whiddershins 6y ago
      This happened in Seattle like 10 years ago to a white guy. It’s horrible. All these things are horrible. Absolutely disgusting and inexcusable. It is also a tiny fraction of the number of deaths from the virus. Also no one demonstrated regarding that guy. I wish people would have. Maybe we could have reformed no knock warrants, and the people you are referring to would still be alive.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - drusepth 6y ago
bjourne 6y ago
Because they compared governors to Hitler and their plight to how Jews were persecuted during the Holocaust. They also lynched an effigy of a politician they despised. That is why they were the crazy ones.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  But there are clear enforceability issues with trying to establish "protests are allowed unless they're crazy" as a rule. Who gets to decide what's crazy?
  - n9 6y ago
    and that is why the right to assemble is called an inherent right. it is owned and arbitrated ONLY by the individual. I know that this stuff seemed so boring in civics class, but it is all really rational. You cannot limit free assembly, because that limitation would have to be arbitrated. If it is arbitrated it must be arbitrated by the government. If it is arbitrated by the government the government can become corrupt and self serving and arbitrate based on self-interest... ie. TYRANNY. So it must be the individual that decides. And there are always and perpetually costs and challenges created by this arrangement, but it is the only alternative to tyranny.

nr2x 6y ago

Not getting a haircut won't kill you, the police will. Also, for the most part, anti-racism protestors are wearing masks, anti-lockdown people, for the most part, are not.

alchemyromcom 6y ago
Losing your livelihood can kill you, however. If you are a small business owner, for example, and it's illegal to operate that business, your life is also in danger and your situation deserves empathy. Empathy is not finite resource. We can extend it to all people in bad situations, not just people we prefer.
- thethethethe 6y ago
  > If you are a small business owner, for example, and it's illegal to operate that business, your life is also in danger and your situation deserves empathy This is a false dichotomy. Sure, these people (and their workers) deserve empathy and support, but that doesn’t mean they should be allowed to reopen. You can support business owners via financial aid or other measures while their business is closed.
  - glofish 6y ago
    no, this is not about empathy but personal autonomy and sovereignity and autocracy. Why not allow someone to do something if they are willing to take the risk, why treat them as criminals? If you believe that you get infected at a store, don't go to the store ... case closed. On what basis is the state "protecting" someone that does not want to be protected? On what basis is someone considered a criminal when a crime could only potentially be committed? what if the person is immune to the disease, already had the disease, or does not mind getting infected?
    - thethethethe 6y ago
      > Why not allow someone to do something if they are willing to take the risk, why treat them as criminals? Because we live in a society and our actions affect others. When you take this argument to an extreme it becomes pretty obvious that it is fallacious. For example, do you think it is okay for someone to actively burn their garbage, venting toxic smoke into their neighborhood because they are “willing to take the risk” of developing health complications? > If you believe that you get infected at a store, don't go to the store It would really nice if this worked but it strikes me as a grand oversimplification of how society operates and diseases spread. > what if the person is immune to the disease, already had the disease, or does not mind getting infected? These people still risk infecting others and perpetuating the pandemic, which is why you shouldn’t do it, even if you aren’t afraid for yourself.
    - mindslight 6y ago
      Much of that purported "willing" is driven by an involuntary need to service debt. Without acknowledging this, it's disingenuous to talk about the shutdowns in terms of autonomy. I'd wager that the shutdowns actually allowed more people to act with their desires than they prevented. For example had the shutdowns not occurred, how many companies that are pure WFH right now would have just continued telling everyone to come into the office?
    - dageshi 6y ago
      Presumably said people would be willing to forfeit medical treatment and quietly die at home if they did catch it?
      - caseysoftware 6y ago
        I've been considering this line of reasoning for a while: if opening your business disqualifies you from medical treatment, what else does? Being obese? Smoking? After all, both of those are the direct result of your choices and less dependent on other people than getting a virus. Most people say "Oh, that would never happen!" but if we have a time where rationing healthcare becomes the norm or even just vital, it will just as it did in Italy a few months back.
  - DennisAleynikov 6y ago
    you could make the same case for the current wave of protests 'you should support blm and adjacent causes from home through donating without putting more people and lives at risk'
- bsder 6y ago
  > Losing your livelihood can kill you, however. Why is "Reopen all the things!" the only solution, though? Part of the reason why people got angry is because none of the people involved around the cosplaytriots wanted to consider any other options, and there are many. 1) The fact that losing your job costs you your healthcare is a political problem. The government can decide to extend healthcare by fiat, expand access, or several other choices. 2) The fact that people weren't getting paid unemployment that they filed for is a problem. 3) If you really believed in choice, give people $2,000 per month unconditionally but allow them to choose whether they wish to go back to work. Now we can see the free market in action. Instead, the only thing on the cosplaytriot protest agenda was "Stay home and die or get back to work and possibly die". That's not exactly a protest sentiment that's going to get much grass roots support. Putting a gun to people's heads is going to make them angry.
- nr2x 6y ago
  What exactly do you mean by "people we prefer"? I am unclear on the meaning and motive of your language.
- CameronNemo 6y ago
  Which is why the federal government passed a never-before-seen stimulus package that included forgivable small business loans and expanded unemployment income. There is no equivalent safety net for people who are victims of positional asphyxia.
  - sethammons 6y ago
    I know several small businesses that are closed forever despite that bill. Many reasons why, I’m sure; however, the most cited one I’ve heard is that the monies had too many strings tied to uncertain outcomes whereby the business owner could end up still out there f business but also with debt that they wont be able to service.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

gdubs 6y ago

There was a lot of science denialism in those protests, conspiracy theories, and (based anecdotally on photos which are the best we have to go on) mask usage seemed a lot lower.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
notahacker 6y ago
Also, whilst mass gatherings themselves can act as a vector for disease transmission regardless of what the cause is and despite some forms of masks, the objection to the lockdown protests wasn't that participants might put themselves and their immediate families at risk so much as their stated goal was to end the lockdown, and thus see millions of people not involved in the protest expected to go back to work and encouraged to socialise.
thu2111 6y ago
But now we're seeing science denialism on a whole other scale. Over a thousand "scientists" signed a document that says protests for their preferred causes aren't risky, but protests against their policies are. Why should anyone be criticised for denying this so-called "science" when the people who made it are now openly denying it as well?

redisman 6y ago

What ever the answer is (and I don’t think there’s a non-partisan one), we’re screwed. Hopefully we’ll get new data on masks giving us a 80/20 solution since I don’t think either side of the political divide is going to buy the stay-at-home order much longer. “How come they can break it but we can’t?”

pstuart 6y ago
We are screwed. Partisanship has been extended to such a degree that it guarantees that "both sides" remain opposed. Science should not be a partisan topic. Mistakes get made, but those should be learning opportunities rather than a chance to discredit your "opponent".
- jdsully 6y ago
  Science is partisan because its being misapplied. It cannot tell you what you should do, that is the realm of leadership. All it can say is whether a course of action may lead to a certain outcome. Whether such outcome is desirable vs the trade-offs is not a scientific fact as desirability only exists in the minds of each individual.
  - jtbayly 6y ago
    Your comment seems to actually mean that “science is partisan the moment it is being applied at all.”
    - jdsully 6y ago
      No, and this is core to the point: Science has found no universal "utility" function that applies to all humans. As such its impossible for science to maximize utility, or in laymens terms "outcomes" globally for all humans. We must choose what we find important and there is no scientific tool to do so. Once you've decided what's important sure you can apply science to help you make the best decisions to achieve that outcome.
    - marcosdumay 6y ago

cma 6y ago

First I'll say I think a lot more distancing should be in place at these recent protests and even with high mask usage it is taking a huge risk with the elderly and vulnerable. > Why did nurses block them from protesting but not one would block someone now? I think the reason would be something like: the first group was protesting not being able to go to Applebee's, the second group is protesting systemic racism and police brutality.

jtbayly 6y ago
> the first group was protesting not being able to go to Applebee's This is such a terribly uncharitable assumption and ruins any sort of ability to have reasoned discourse. Are you aware how many people are unemployed in this nation right now because of the lockdown? Are you aware how many people’s businesses are destroyed, shut down permanently? And your assumption is that the only reason anybody could be upset is because they can’t go to their favorite restaurant!?
- cma 6y ago
  Yes, and I think they should support subsidies for the affected, rent and mortgage moratoriums, etc., not support spreading a serious disease to reopen Applebee’s and other indoor dining.

thethethethe 6y ago

> why were the people protesting the lock downs and business shutdowns and the limiting of freedoms the yahoos and crazy murderers? People denounced those protesters because they were protesting because many of them thought the virus was a hoax or because they couldn’t get a hair cut or buy lawn fertilizer. The current protests are addressing systemic racism black people have faced in America for hundreds of years and the terrifying, autocratic police response to the initial unrest. Once more unrest was met with brutal state violence, more people showed up because they don’t want this country to devolve into an uncontrollable autocracy. I think it’s pretty clear what the difference is here

DennisAleynikov 6y ago
there is no difference to covid, it doesn't ask 'oh were you protesting the right thing?'
- mrcorona 6y ago
  5 Plain clothed police officers break into your house and execute your wife or daughter in their bed, then say it was a mistake and walk away scott-free (no charges)... Would you stay quiet and wait for the covid threat to die down before protesting or taking action?
  - whiddershins 6y ago
    This happened in Seattle like 10 years ago to a white guy. It’s horrible. All these things are horrible. Absolutely disgusting and inexcusable. It is also a tiny fraction of the number of deaths from the virus. Also no one demonstrated regarding that guy. I wish people would have. Maybe we could have reformed no knock warrants, and the people you are referring to would still be alive.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - drusepth 6y ago

bjourne 6y ago

Because they compared governors to Hitler and their plight to how Jews were persecuted during the Holocaust. They also lynched an effigy of a politician they despised. That is why they were the crazy ones.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
But there are clear enforceability issues with trying to establish "protests are allowed unless they're crazy" as a rule. Who gets to decide what's crazy?
- n9 6y ago
  and that is why the right to assemble is called an inherent right. it is owned and arbitrated ONLY by the individual. I know that this stuff seemed so boring in civics class, but it is all really rational. You cannot limit free assembly, because that limitation would have to be arbitrated. If it is arbitrated it must be arbitrated by the government. If it is arbitrated by the government the government can become corrupt and self serving and arbitrate based on self-interest... ie. TYRANNY. So it must be the individual that decides. And there are always and perpetually costs and challenges created by this arrangement, but it is the only alternative to tyranny.