5 ms·

> where the conservative side of politics have made climate change a massively politically polarised topic Not to side with either part, but it always takes tw

> where the conservative side of politics have made climate change a massively politically polarised topic Not to side with either part, but it always takes two to tango...

SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
That doesn't seem right. It takes only one group to twist the narrative into something that it doesn't have to be. "There's a virus that's killing people, based up on the current evidence we should all wear masks in an effort to stop it." "You're trampling on my freedoms by asking that I wear a mask." The first is an objective statement of fact, the second is twisting the message - it can easily get politicized without needing two parties to sink to that level. Now the first has to either engage or try to ignore it, but either way it'll continue to be politicized.
- AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
  The second statement is also a fact: wearing a mask violates people's freedom. Balancing safety and freedom is an ages old question.
  - padseeker 6y ago
    No one complains when a store posts the sign "no shoes no shirt no service" No one complains when a school has a dress code and someone is sent home for wearing "inappropriate attire" But there are an awful lot of complaints and concerns and discussions about freedom from people when asked to wear a mask, at least indoors. The problem is pretty simple - the oft used phrase "it should't be a partisan or political issue" is irrelevant because when one side the argument bases their beliefs strictly on the fact that they don't like the other side and will oppose everything not based on the merits of arguments and information but rather that they hate the other side, then EVERYTHING becomes partisan.
    - AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
      > No one complains when a school has a dress code and someone is sent home for wearing "inappropriate attire" This statement is factually wrong. Both students and parents do complain about it. A lot. But getting back to masks question: should two consenting adults who are on the private property be allowed to take their masks off? What if one of them happens to be a business owner and the other one is a customer? Should every person over 18 be required to carry a condom in their pocket? The costs are small, the benefits are obvious. The science and the facts both support this.
      - padseeker 6y ago
        You are clearly deliberately ignoring the point of my response. This is about community standards and political consensus. I'll stop presenting generalities and be more specific. You are clearing trying to quibble about minutia while ignoring the substance of my response. How the hell we're talking about wearing a mask when you are clearly a global warming denier is a little ridiculous but fine, here we go. You are right some college student might whine about having to wear shoes and a shirt, but no one stages a protest demanding that 7-11 sell that kid a soda without a shirt or shoes. There is no discussion over the rights and freedom of the individual to purchase something in any kind of store when someone isn't wearing proper attire. The ACLU, or perhaps an unnamed legal organization taking up this cause as an infringement of freedom. And generally conservatives in theory support most restrictions of behavior on private property. You want to refuse service or toss someone wearing an anti-war t-shirt from your store or mall? Every conservative has supported this. You are right, there have been some complaining and at times some legal action regarding enforcement of dress code. Private school is a voluntary thing, so I'm not discussing it. It is usually in a public school, and it could regard the content of text on a shirt or more often how much skin is being shown. The complaining/ or lawsuit filing side is generally from a more liberal side of the spectrum. I'm sure you can cite an example of a conservative wearing a shirt with a message that is deemed "offensive" or perhaps a racist who is banned from wearing a nazi symbol, but the overwhelming examples are generally of women wearing clothing that is deemed to be "too revealing or too sexual". No conservative wasted a moment worrying about the loss of freedom over banning underage girls wearing a crop top. My real point is NO CONSERVATIVE has worried about this kinda thing until it came to wearing a mask. Now all of the sudden the concern over infringement of freedom is an issue. Not wearing a mask is a health hazard, and 170K+ people have died because of the spread of COVID. No one died because some girl's dress is too short. If you can't see the point I'm trying to make, then let me be more explicit - your concern is over infringement of freedom because of a mask is completely unprincipled, which is a very nice way of me telling you I think you are full of shit. "Principles" that are used as arguments for suppressing laws and actions when it aligns with what you feel are wrong, and subjectively tossed aside for stuff you feel are right kinda proves they aren't principles. They're just an excuse to justify the things you want. You dont want to wear a mask, you cry "freedom", but some kid wears an anti war shirt, and you cite "private property". Based on your political arguments your alignment is transparent. Your example of every person being required to carry a condom is completely irrelevant.
- steve_g 6y ago
  The first part of the first statement is objective. The second part is an interpretation of evidence - but by whom? I'm old enough to remember when masks were not recommended by most public health experts (that is, I was born before March 2020). I say this with as much neutrality as I can muster - I don't know who to believe about anything. It seems that everyone has an axe to grind, or their livelihood depends on the truth going in one direction, or they just hate the "other side" so much that they'll say anything. Who can you trust? I don't want to become an expert in multiple disciplines just so I can evaluate the daily news. For me, it's an epistemic crisis, and I don't see the way out.
  - HideousKojima 6y ago
    It's been an issue for a very long time, see "Gell-man Amnesia": https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/65213-briefly-stated-the-gell-mann-amnesia-effect-is-as-follows-you https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/65213-briefly-stated-the-ge...
  - moksly 6y ago
    > when masks were not recommended by most public health experts Maybe they now know better? But let’s approach this as neutral as we can, because health experts haven’t and still don’t agree globally. But did countries that recommended and used mask early fare better than those who didn’t? It would seem so, as Korea, Vietnam, Japan and others did better than even us in Scandinavia who closed down and got through spring/summer better than most (excluding Sweden who did terrible). Maybe the early mask adopters did other great things, and maybe masks had no impact, but if you’re cautious, it would seem the neutral conclusion based simply on data is that masks are probably a good idea. Even if it turns out that masks do in fact do nothing, then what’s the damage from having used them? More trash and some money spent on it (if you’re like us and the government uses money to enforce low prices for everyone and free masks for the poor). Isn’t that acceptable? I personally feel the same way about global warming. Even if it should turn out not to be man made, are we really going to be worse off by having gotten off fossil fuels?
  - rsynnott 6y ago
    > I'm old enough to remember when masks were not recommended by most public health experts (that is, I was born before March 2020). There were initial concerns that improper mask use might do more harm than good (via misuse and potential changes to behaviour of wearers). Statistical and observational evidence has not borne this out, so the advice has changed. By the way, this was just for mask use by laypeople; masks were always recommended for trained medical staff (where there would be less concern about misuse).
- xorcist 6y ago
  > The first is an objective statement of fact, "We should all wear masks" is not based on facts all all. Science tells us how masks work, and we can interpret those facts and learn when they should be used. But from there to everyone wearing masks at all occasions is a leap from facts to opinion. Mandatory face masks because the costs are low and the risks are negligible is pure politics. Compare with "it was even warmer during the middle ages therefore global warming is not anthropogenic". It may be based on a fact, but the facts do not support the conclusion. Bicycle helmets is perhaps the most well known example of this. It is clear how they protect, that they are effective, and when they should be used. That does not mean mandatory helmet laws are a good idea. In fact, the places in the world with the lowest accidents per kilometre are also the ones where helmet usage is lowest! This may be surprising at first. Face masks may cause people to relax and enter crowded spaces they hadn't otherwise. Touching the mask is a very effective way to get virus material on your fingers. Kids playing with face masks is most certainly not a good idea. And so on. It is not unlikely that there are situations where face masks will worsen the outcome. Mandatory helmets have been much more studied than mandatory face masks, even if this is likely to change. Until then, any policy made is necessarily politicized, not objective.
  - eloff 6y ago
    I think I could summarize your position on masks as if we don't have sufficient evidence that mandatory mask usage helps, we shouldn't implement the policy because it infringes people's freedoms and there is a small chance it is actually worse. I apologise if I got it wrong. I think that's a very weak argument though. We have a lot of reasons to think a policy like that would be effective. It's cheap and low risk, so why not implement it?
    - AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
      > It's cheap and low risk, so why not implement it? I will humbly quote myself: Should every person over 18 be required to carry a condom in their pocket? The costs are small, the benefits are obvious.
      - deleted 6y ago
pydry 6y ago
In this case it takes scientists and people who see a potential threat to their profit margins if the science is accepted as true.
ipnon 6y ago
It really doesn't. Take genocide for example, a polarized conflict. It's ridiculous to point to the victims as mere participants in a mutually antagonistic conflict.
rsynnott 6y ago
No; this isn't a purely abstract political issue. If you deny the moon exists for political reasons, that doesn't mean that looking at the moon is a political act.

> where the conservative side of politics have made climate change a massively politically polarised topic Not to side with either part, but it always takes two to tango...

SketchySeaBeast 6y ago

That doesn't seem right. It takes only one group to twist the narrative into something that it doesn't have to be. "There's a virus that's killing people, based up on the current evidence we should all wear masks in an effort to stop it." "You're trampling on my freedoms by asking that I wear a mask." The first is an objective statement of fact, the second is twisting the message - it can easily get politicized without needing two parties to sink to that level. Now the first has to either engage or try to ignore it, but either way it'll continue to be politicized.

AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
The second statement is also a fact: wearing a mask violates people's freedom. Balancing safety and freedom is an ages old question.
- padseeker 6y ago
  No one complains when a store posts the sign "no shoes no shirt no service" No one complains when a school has a dress code and someone is sent home for wearing "inappropriate attire" But there are an awful lot of complaints and concerns and discussions about freedom from people when asked to wear a mask, at least indoors. The problem is pretty simple - the oft used phrase "it should't be a partisan or political issue" is irrelevant because when one side the argument bases their beliefs strictly on the fact that they don't like the other side and will oppose everything not based on the merits of arguments and information but rather that they hate the other side, then EVERYTHING becomes partisan.
  - AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
    > No one complains when a school has a dress code and someone is sent home for wearing "inappropriate attire" This statement is factually wrong. Both students and parents do complain about it. A lot. But getting back to masks question: should two consenting adults who are on the private property be allowed to take their masks off? What if one of them happens to be a business owner and the other one is a customer? Should every person over 18 be required to carry a condom in their pocket? The costs are small, the benefits are obvious. The science and the facts both support this.
    - padseeker 6y ago
      You are clearly deliberately ignoring the point of my response. This is about community standards and political consensus. I'll stop presenting generalities and be more specific. You are clearing trying to quibble about minutia while ignoring the substance of my response. How the hell we're talking about wearing a mask when you are clearly a global warming denier is a little ridiculous but fine, here we go. You are right some college student might whine about having to wear shoes and a shirt, but no one stages a protest demanding that 7-11 sell that kid a soda without a shirt or shoes. There is no discussion over the rights and freedom of the individual to purchase something in any kind of store when someone isn't wearing proper attire. The ACLU, or perhaps an unnamed legal organization taking up this cause as an infringement of freedom. And generally conservatives in theory support most restrictions of behavior on private property. You want to refuse service or toss someone wearing an anti-war t-shirt from your store or mall? Every conservative has supported this. You are right, there have been some complaining and at times some legal action regarding enforcement of dress code. Private school is a voluntary thing, so I'm not discussing it. It is usually in a public school, and it could regard the content of text on a shirt or more often how much skin is being shown. The complaining/ or lawsuit filing side is generally from a more liberal side of the spectrum. I'm sure you can cite an example of a conservative wearing a shirt with a message that is deemed "offensive" or perhaps a racist who is banned from wearing a nazi symbol, but the overwhelming examples are generally of women wearing clothing that is deemed to be "too revealing or too sexual". No conservative wasted a moment worrying about the loss of freedom over banning underage girls wearing a crop top. My real point is NO CONSERVATIVE has worried about this kinda thing until it came to wearing a mask. Now all of the sudden the concern over infringement of freedom is an issue. Not wearing a mask is a health hazard, and 170K+ people have died because of the spread of COVID. No one died because some girl's dress is too short. If you can't see the point I'm trying to make, then let me be more explicit - your concern is over infringement of freedom because of a mask is completely unprincipled, which is a very nice way of me telling you I think you are full of shit. "Principles" that are used as arguments for suppressing laws and actions when it aligns with what you feel are wrong, and subjectively tossed aside for stuff you feel are right kinda proves they aren't principles. They're just an excuse to justify the things you want. You dont want to wear a mask, you cry "freedom", but some kid wears an anti war shirt, and you cite "private property". Based on your political arguments your alignment is transparent. Your example of every person being required to carry a condom is completely irrelevant.
steve_g 6y ago
The first part of the first statement is objective. The second part is an interpretation of evidence - but by whom? I'm old enough to remember when masks were not recommended by most public health experts (that is, I was born before March 2020). I say this with as much neutrality as I can muster - I don't know who to believe about anything. It seems that everyone has an axe to grind, or their livelihood depends on the truth going in one direction, or they just hate the "other side" so much that they'll say anything. Who can you trust? I don't want to become an expert in multiple disciplines just so I can evaluate the daily news. For me, it's an epistemic crisis, and I don't see the way out.
- HideousKojima 6y ago
  It's been an issue for a very long time, see "Gell-man Amnesia": https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/65213-briefly-stated-the-gell-mann-amnesia-effect-is-as-follows-you https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/65213-briefly-stated-the-ge...
- moksly 6y ago
  > when masks were not recommended by most public health experts Maybe they now know better? But let’s approach this as neutral as we can, because health experts haven’t and still don’t agree globally. But did countries that recommended and used mask early fare better than those who didn’t? It would seem so, as Korea, Vietnam, Japan and others did better than even us in Scandinavia who closed down and got through spring/summer better than most (excluding Sweden who did terrible). Maybe the early mask adopters did other great things, and maybe masks had no impact, but if you’re cautious, it would seem the neutral conclusion based simply on data is that masks are probably a good idea. Even if it turns out that masks do in fact do nothing, then what’s the damage from having used them? More trash and some money spent on it (if you’re like us and the government uses money to enforce low prices for everyone and free masks for the poor). Isn’t that acceptable? I personally feel the same way about global warming. Even if it should turn out not to be man made, are we really going to be worse off by having gotten off fossil fuels?
- rsynnott 6y ago
  > I'm old enough to remember when masks were not recommended by most public health experts (that is, I was born before March 2020). There were initial concerns that improper mask use might do more harm than good (via misuse and potential changes to behaviour of wearers). Statistical and observational evidence has not borne this out, so the advice has changed. By the way, this was just for mask use by laypeople; masks were always recommended for trained medical staff (where there would be less concern about misuse).
xorcist 6y ago
> The first is an objective statement of fact, "We should all wear masks" is not based on facts all all. Science tells us how masks work, and we can interpret those facts and learn when they should be used. But from there to everyone wearing masks at all occasions is a leap from facts to opinion. Mandatory face masks because the costs are low and the risks are negligible is pure politics. Compare with "it was even warmer during the middle ages therefore global warming is not anthropogenic". It may be based on a fact, but the facts do not support the conclusion. Bicycle helmets is perhaps the most well known example of this. It is clear how they protect, that they are effective, and when they should be used. That does not mean mandatory helmet laws are a good idea. In fact, the places in the world with the lowest accidents per kilometre are also the ones where helmet usage is lowest! This may be surprising at first. Face masks may cause people to relax and enter crowded spaces they hadn't otherwise. Touching the mask is a very effective way to get virus material on your fingers. Kids playing with face masks is most certainly not a good idea. And so on. It is not unlikely that there are situations where face masks will worsen the outcome. Mandatory helmets have been much more studied than mandatory face masks, even if this is likely to change. Until then, any policy made is necessarily politicized, not objective.
- eloff 6y ago
  I think I could summarize your position on masks as if we don't have sufficient evidence that mandatory mask usage helps, we shouldn't implement the policy because it infringes people's freedoms and there is a small chance it is actually worse. I apologise if I got it wrong. I think that's a very weak argument though. We have a lot of reasons to think a policy like that would be effective. It's cheap and low risk, so why not implement it?
  - AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
    > It's cheap and low risk, so why not implement it? I will humbly quote myself: Should every person over 18 be required to carry a condom in their pocket? The costs are small, the benefits are obvious.
    - deleted 6y ago

pydry 6y ago

In this case it takes scientists and people who see a potential threat to their profit margins if the science is accepted as true.

ipnon 6y ago

It really doesn't. Take genocide for example, a polarized conflict. It's ridiculous to point to the victims as mere participants in a mutually antagonistic conflict.

rsynnott 6y ago

No; this isn't a purely abstract political issue. If you deny the moon exists for political reasons, that doesn't mean that looking at the moon is a political act.