3 ms·

> could the state not do a little nuance and say “hospitals need the N95s and you need a bandana” No. Not in 2020. Not with the vast majority of the populatio

> could the state not do a little nuance and say “hospitals need the N95s and you need a bandana” No. Not in 2020. Not with the vast majority of the population. Nuance is dead.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
Rumors of its death have been greatly exaggerated. There seems to be a trend to paint people as imbeciles who can't tie their own shoelaces without somebody standing over them, and then on investigation it turns out not to be true. There was a story a while back about a couple who drank fish tank cleaner (containing chloroquine) after Trump touted chloroquine against the coronavirus. Come to find out the couple were not fans of Trump but were having marital difficulties, so now you've got to weigh the possibility that these two were stupid enough to drink poison against the possibility that the woman discovered a way to intentionally poison her husband and pin it on Trump: https://nypost.com/2020/04/29/homicide-cops-investigate-death-of-man-who-drank-chloroquine/ https://nypost.com/2020/04/29/homicide-cops-investigate-deat... More often than not, when you see someone doing something apparently colossally stupid, it's because you don't know the whole story rather than because they're actually that stupid. People understand nuance plenty when it's important to them.
- CathedralBorrow 6y ago
  Wait, you read a NY Post article with rumors about a married couple having marriage difficulties, and you believe you've uncovered the "whole story" that other people are somehow blind to but you can see?
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    Do you want the same story from a dozen different sources? This is actually a good example of the differences between partisan sources. The New York Post article says this: > Mesa City police declined to comment on the investigation but told the paper that the probe was “normal protocol” for non-natural deaths and noted that the case has not been ruled a homicide “at this time.” In left-leaning publications they omit "at this time" and make that the headline. But the interesting thing about the story isn't the police determination. That hasn't been made yet, so it tells us nothing, and anyway the police would have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. The whole point is using that excuse creates a lot of reasonable doubt even if it was completely intentional. The value of the story is that it gives us some new evidence. The narrative that somebody recklessly drank fish tank cleaner after a Trump recommendation loses credibility when you learn that the person was anti-Trump and thereby not inclined to unthinkingly believe whatever he says, up to and including drinking something with a label on it that says poison. Meanwhile a plausible alternative explanation exists.

> could the state not do a little nuance and say “hospitals need the N95s and you need a bandana” No. Not in 2020. Not with the vast majority of the population. Nuance is dead.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

Rumors of its death have been greatly exaggerated. There seems to be a trend to paint people as imbeciles who can't tie their own shoelaces without somebody standing over them, and then on investigation it turns out not to be true. There was a story a while back about a couple who drank fish tank cleaner (containing chloroquine) after Trump touted chloroquine against the coronavirus. Come to find out the couple were not fans of Trump but were having marital difficulties, so now you've got to weigh the possibility that these two were stupid enough to drink poison against the possibility that the woman discovered a way to intentionally poison her husband and pin it on Trump: https://nypost.com/2020/04/29/homicide-cops-investigate-death-of-man-who-drank-chloroquine/ https://nypost.com/2020/04/29/homicide-cops-investigate-deat... More often than not, when you see someone doing something apparently colossally stupid, it's because you don't know the whole story rather than because they're actually that stupid. People understand nuance plenty when it's important to them.

CathedralBorrow 6y ago
Wait, you read a NY Post article with rumors about a married couple having marriage difficulties, and you believe you've uncovered the "whole story" that other people are somehow blind to but you can see?
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  Do you want the same story from a dozen different sources? This is actually a good example of the differences between partisan sources. The New York Post article says this: > Mesa City police declined to comment on the investigation but told the paper that the probe was “normal protocol” for non-natural deaths and noted that the case has not been ruled a homicide “at this time.” In left-leaning publications they omit "at this time" and make that the headline. But the interesting thing about the story isn't the police determination. That hasn't been made yet, so it tells us nothing, and anyway the police would have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. The whole point is using that excuse creates a lot of reasonable doubt even if it was completely intentional. The value of the story is that it gives us some new evidence. The narrative that somebody recklessly drank fish tank cleaner after a Trump recommendation loses credibility when you learn that the person was anti-Trump and thereby not inclined to unthinkingly believe whatever he says, up to and including drinking something with a label on it that says poison. Meanwhile a plausible alternative explanation exists.