3 ms·

It was never about science or the virus. We give way too much power too quickly to bunch of people who have the leaway to be as authoritarian as they want.

giantg2 6y ago
...to a bunch of stupid people...
trhway 6y ago
It is no surprise that the worse hit countries - US, Brazil, India, Russia - are led by populist governments. Virus is a technical issue and immune to the lip service of prayers and declarations.
- jbdigriz 6y ago
  Define worst hit. Because this statement is blatantly wrong when factoring in population size, death rate, demographics and a bunch of other factors which exist in the real world and not your FUD bubble
lowmagnet 6y ago
Yeah, "authoritarian-ness" or claiming "draconian measures" is just a rhetorical approach. It's not authoritarian to protect your neighbor from your effluent, especially as it barely costs you anything to do so. Save "authoritarian" for people controlling your entire life, thanks.
- jbdigriz 6y ago
  This is absurd and disregard for the inalienable right to freedom. Your don't dictate what people must do to protect YOU - that's your responsibility. This narcissistic logic is the same that would dictate you lose weight and ride yourself of other comorbidities to protect society as a whole from viruses at all times... If you're fearful, then get yourself a sophisticated portable air filtration system.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Your don't dictate what people must do to protect YOU - that's your responsibility. In the real world, it's pretty well established principle that you can't deliberately or recklessly toss harmful items onto other people’s person's or property without being liable for the harms thus incurred, and that restrictions reasonable in proportion to the risk can be adopted to prevent you from doing so as well as you being held responsible if you nevertheless do so. This idea that there is an entitlement to recklessly endager the public health without constraint or penalty is novel and bizarre.
    - jbdigriz 6y ago
      What an irrational stretch of logic to conflate natural respiration with deliberately intending to harm someone. Breathing freely doesn't harm you, get over yourself or maybe get a therapist because this is an unhealthy degree of neuroticism and little science. And none of the solutions proposed come close to achieving the supremely simplistic view of a radical ideologue.
- hartator 6y ago
  I don't think this will be remembered "thanks god we gave more power to the police" time. Do we remember anytime we were glad to give more power to the police?

giantg2 6y ago

...to a bunch of stupid people...

trhway 6y ago

It is no surprise that the worse hit countries - US, Brazil, India, Russia - are led by populist governments. Virus is a technical issue and immune to the lip service of prayers and declarations.

jbdigriz 6y ago
Define worst hit. Because this statement is blatantly wrong when factoring in population size, death rate, demographics and a bunch of other factors which exist in the real world and not your FUD bubble

lowmagnet 6y ago

Yeah, "authoritarian-ness" or claiming "draconian measures" is just a rhetorical approach. It's not authoritarian to protect your neighbor from your effluent, especially as it barely costs you anything to do so. Save "authoritarian" for people controlling your entire life, thanks.

jbdigriz 6y ago
This is absurd and disregard for the inalienable right to freedom. Your don't dictate what people must do to protect YOU - that's your responsibility. This narcissistic logic is the same that would dictate you lose weight and ride yourself of other comorbidities to protect society as a whole from viruses at all times... If you're fearful, then get yourself a sophisticated portable air filtration system.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Your don't dictate what people must do to protect YOU - that's your responsibility. In the real world, it's pretty well established principle that you can't deliberately or recklessly toss harmful items onto other people’s person's or property without being liable for the harms thus incurred, and that restrictions reasonable in proportion to the risk can be adopted to prevent you from doing so as well as you being held responsible if you nevertheless do so. This idea that there is an entitlement to recklessly endager the public health without constraint or penalty is novel and bizarre.
  - jbdigriz 6y ago
    What an irrational stretch of logic to conflate natural respiration with deliberately intending to harm someone. Breathing freely doesn't harm you, get over yourself or maybe get a therapist because this is an unhealthy degree of neuroticism and little science. And none of the solutions proposed come close to achieving the supremely simplistic view of a radical ideologue.
hartator 6y ago
I don't think this will be remembered "thanks god we gave more power to the police" time. Do we remember anytime we were glad to give more power to the police?