9 ms·

I'm reading between your lines, but by "totalitarian measures" do you mean asking people to temporarily wear masks, wash their hands, stay home, and restricting

I'm reading between your lines, but by "totalitarian measures" do you mean asking people to temporarily wear masks, wash their hands, stay home, and restricting the density of people at gathering spots? If so, that is as totalitarian as requiring people to stop at red stoplights.

barnacled 6y ago
In the UK law is being passed by decree without parliamentary approval, fundamental democratic freedoms are being specifically prohibited - freedom of speech, assembly and association and prosecution of people conducting hitherto legal and proper businesses. The pattern is entirely that of emergency 'enabling law' examples from the past when equally scary things gave them apparent justification. Boiling things down to 'just asking to wear a mask' is at best deeply naive and at worst arrogantly dismissive. Break out of the soundbites and take a moment to think about what's happening in historical context. If you want a serious and reasoned analysis of the worries, concerns and threats under these circumstances (at least from a UK perspective) I firmly recommend you view Lord Sumption's thoughts on this matter (recently retired judge from the supreme court of the UK with a long and highly respected career in the judiciary) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amDv2gk8aa0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amDv2gk8aa0 Unfortunately under circumstances such as the covid-19 mess we all live under (and thank your lucky stars you are in a 1st world country, the 3rd world will suffer at unimaginable levels, highly likely considerably moreso due to covid-19 aid cuts than covid-19 itself) things are considerably greyer than 'conspiracy theory nuts vs. just asking to put a mask on'. If only it were that simple.
- tasty_freeze 6y ago
  Sorry, I don't have time for an 1h16m video. I skipped the intro and started listening to Lord Sumption's part and quickly got bogged down in politics about the current government came into power saddled by constitutional baggage, blah blah. It sounds like he is trying to score points on unrelated matters and gave up. There are an infinite number of things which one might be worried could happen, and it is good to stay vigilant to those things. I have little fear that once the pandemic is mostly behind us that these temporary restrictions will be lifted -- we already know that many republicans think it is a political hoax, and I don't know of a single liberal who wouldn't love to get back to normal.
  - barnacled 6y ago
    Thank you for taking the time to take a look. It is a lengthily one but I do certainly recommend spending the time to listen, it is of course very UK-centric but a lot of the points he makes are valid globally. I am not advocating some absolute zero-measure approach but I also don't agree with the lockdowns which have repeatedly failed to work on any kind of permanent basis and whose costs are entirely ignored. The rational approach is a measured one taking into account all costs. Unfortunately politics, especially partisan ones don't work that way...
    - pjc50 6y ago
      Do you have a casualty estimate for not doing the lockdowns?
    - DanBC 6y ago
      >and whose costs are entirely ignored. The costs are not being ignored. Government frequently talks about the need to keep schools open to avoid some of those costs; we've recently had rapid release of suicide stats (no rise so far, but lots of caution needed); we're v worried about access to other forms of healthcare (London has today said they can't guarantee ambo service to home birth delivery that goes wrong) etc etc. People are constantly checking we've got the balance right. But the fact remains: covid kills lots of people and it seriously harms very many others. Those people who are harmed take time to recover and that has long term financial and health implications for them and their families. https://twitter.com/rupert_pearse/status/1342020644247130113 https://twitter.com/rupert_pearse/status/1342020644247130113
    - jokethrowaway 6y ago
      I would have preferred a zero measure approach. No excuse is valid for infringing freedom.
hhggfdss 6y ago
Oh come on, you're going to describe the forceful closure and subsequent self inflicted complete devastation of several industries (dining, entertainment) as "asking people to stay home"? That's pretty rich, especially if you realize that it's not just a matter of "more stimulus" because stimulus money has to come from taxing a working economy or it's printing money. Tell the people who've lost their livelihoods because of government shutdowns that they were not subject to an oppressive authoritarian decree. I do wonder at the end of this which will cause more deaths: the disease itself, or deaths of despair and of avoiding treatment for other illnesses out of fear caused by mass media, and of economic distress caused not directly by the disease but by governments' reactions to it.
admissionsguy 6y ago
I am trying to avoid discussing a particular political position, but rather going by the dictionary definition of totalitarianism as a system where "the state strives to control every aspect of life and civil society" through the use of propaganda, control over economy, censorship, surveillance, limited freedom of movement, and so forth. Even if you believe these are means to a noble end in the context of COVID-19, I think it is hard to deny that the response has used quite a few tools from the totalitarian toolset. Even explicitly, the early calls for lockdowns used China as a positive example.
- syndacks 6y ago
  In my mind totalitarianism is a means to an end. The end with these "tools" now is to limit death, but the means aren't working well (in the west, anyways). In a traditional auth. situation, the end is usually perpetual power and/or some ideological bend (genocide or something). Anyways, what I'm trying to say is that I don't think we're in a traditional auth. situation now. It's a classic "never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity" in my mind. Sure we're seeing some signs of government overreach, but the impetus is to save lives, not some consipriacy to control the masses. Doing so misses the mark and distracts from the real issue at hand.
  - jerkstate 6y ago
    One problem is, it’s very hard to get a government to give up so-called “emergency powers” even after the emergency is long over. How many times has the Patriot Act been renewed now?
    - edmundsauto 6y ago
      What part of the pandemic response do you think will be difficult for government to give up? Certainly the large measures (lockdowns) will be lifted once we are vaccinated. Is this more of a general fear, or do you have something relevant to the current situation?
      - 6y ago
cgriswald 6y ago
> I'm reading between your lines, but by "totalitarian measures" do you mean asking people to temporarily wear masks, wash their hands, stay home, and restricting the density of people at gathering spots? Did your government really just ask? My local government responded by drafting and frequently, but irregularly, updating an increasing complex document—by decree rather than through the legislature—the violation of which was a misdemeanor (or, for businesses, may result in being closed down). To this day, individual businesses are asking the government what steps they need to take in order to operate. The answers they receive are not in any legally drafted document. Effectively businesses are asking government what they need to do to avoid the scrutiny of government; not what they need to do to stay within the law. This was a massive insertion of government control into the lives of individuals, which is the essence of totalitarianism. I agree that wearing masks, washing your hands, and avoiding unnecessary contact with others are all good things to do. I do those things voluntarily; and would have done so if asked, even if it wasn't a misdemeanor not to do so. That doesn't mean I'm blind to the totalitarian measures some governments took to get there; or to the risks that imposes for the future.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
hammock 6y ago
>restricting the density of people at gathering spots? Restricting the density to... Zero? Is that what they are calling the forced shutdown of indoor and outdoor restaurants, gyms and other places of business and subsequent jailing of violators now? (And jailing of mask violators as well, despite mounting evidence that mask mandates don't work and/or make the problem worse)
- aynsof 6y ago
  Do you have evidence of the claim that mask mandates don't work? Not trolling - I'm genuinely interested. My understanding was that masks worked to reduce transmission.
  - hammock 6y ago
    Here is a list of 24 published papers that demonstrate lockdowns not working, in various forms including mask mandates. https://www.aier.org/article/lockdowns-do-not-control-the-coronavirus-the-evidence/ https://www.aier.org/article/lockdowns-do-not-control-the-co... Here is a new study (not published) that suggests mask mandates are counterproductive https://twitter.com/justin_hart/status/1340725086278434821?s=19 https://twitter.com/justin_hart/status/1340725086278434821?s... Would be nice if the mainstream media covered any of this.
    - aynsof 6y ago
      Thanks for the reading. I'm checking it out now.
    - free652 6y ago
      Except if you read the papers they aren't saying that. You are trying to spread BS here. We can take a look at China where the lockdown worked quiet well. >Official data from Germany’s RKI agency suggest strongly that the spread of the coronavirus in Germany receded autonomously, before any interventions became effective >From both sets of modelling, we found that closure of education facilities, prohibiting mass gatherings and closure of some non-essential businesses were associated with reduced incidence whereas stay at home orders and closure of all non-businesses was not associated with any independent additional impact >Conclusions: A national lockdown has a moderate advantage in saving lives

barnacled 6y ago

In the UK law is being passed by decree without parliamentary approval, fundamental democratic freedoms are being specifically prohibited - freedom of speech, assembly and association and prosecution of people conducting hitherto legal and proper businesses. The pattern is entirely that of emergency 'enabling law' examples from the past when equally scary things gave them apparent justification. Boiling things down to 'just asking to wear a mask' is at best deeply naive and at worst arrogantly dismissive. Break out of the soundbites and take a moment to think about what's happening in historical context. If you want a serious and reasoned analysis of the worries, concerns and threats under these circumstances (at least from a UK perspective) I firmly recommend you view Lord Sumption's thoughts on this matter (recently retired judge from the supreme court of the UK with a long and highly respected career in the judiciary) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amDv2gk8aa0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amDv2gk8aa0 Unfortunately under circumstances such as the covid-19 mess we all live under (and thank your lucky stars you are in a 1st world country, the 3rd world will suffer at unimaginable levels, highly likely considerably moreso due to covid-19 aid cuts than covid-19 itself) things are considerably greyer than 'conspiracy theory nuts vs. just asking to put a mask on'. If only it were that simple.

tasty_freeze 6y ago
Sorry, I don't have time for an 1h16m video. I skipped the intro and started listening to Lord Sumption's part and quickly got bogged down in politics about the current government came into power saddled by constitutional baggage, blah blah. It sounds like he is trying to score points on unrelated matters and gave up. There are an infinite number of things which one might be worried could happen, and it is good to stay vigilant to those things. I have little fear that once the pandemic is mostly behind us that these temporary restrictions will be lifted -- we already know that many republicans think it is a political hoax, and I don't know of a single liberal who wouldn't love to get back to normal.
- barnacled 6y ago
  Thank you for taking the time to take a look. It is a lengthily one but I do certainly recommend spending the time to listen, it is of course very UK-centric but a lot of the points he makes are valid globally. I am not advocating some absolute zero-measure approach but I also don't agree with the lockdowns which have repeatedly failed to work on any kind of permanent basis and whose costs are entirely ignored. The rational approach is a measured one taking into account all costs. Unfortunately politics, especially partisan ones don't work that way...
  - pjc50 6y ago
    Do you have a casualty estimate for not doing the lockdowns?
  - DanBC 6y ago
    >and whose costs are entirely ignored. The costs are not being ignored. Government frequently talks about the need to keep schools open to avoid some of those costs; we've recently had rapid release of suicide stats (no rise so far, but lots of caution needed); we're v worried about access to other forms of healthcare (London has today said they can't guarantee ambo service to home birth delivery that goes wrong) etc etc. People are constantly checking we've got the balance right. But the fact remains: covid kills lots of people and it seriously harms very many others. Those people who are harmed take time to recover and that has long term financial and health implications for them and their families. https://twitter.com/rupert_pearse/status/1342020644247130113 https://twitter.com/rupert_pearse/status/1342020644247130113
  - jokethrowaway 6y ago
    I would have preferred a zero measure approach. No excuse is valid for infringing freedom.

hhggfdss 6y ago

Oh come on, you're going to describe the forceful closure and subsequent self inflicted complete devastation of several industries (dining, entertainment) as "asking people to stay home"? That's pretty rich, especially if you realize that it's not just a matter of "more stimulus" because stimulus money has to come from taxing a working economy or it's printing money. Tell the people who've lost their livelihoods because of government shutdowns that they were not subject to an oppressive authoritarian decree. I do wonder at the end of this which will cause more deaths: the disease itself, or deaths of despair and of avoiding treatment for other illnesses out of fear caused by mass media, and of economic distress caused not directly by the disease but by governments' reactions to it.

admissionsguy 6y ago

I am trying to avoid discussing a particular political position, but rather going by the dictionary definition of totalitarianism as a system where "the state strives to control every aspect of life and civil society" through the use of propaganda, control over economy, censorship, surveillance, limited freedom of movement, and so forth. Even if you believe these are means to a noble end in the context of COVID-19, I think it is hard to deny that the response has used quite a few tools from the totalitarian toolset. Even explicitly, the early calls for lockdowns used China as a positive example.

syndacks 6y ago
In my mind totalitarianism is a means to an end. The end with these "tools" now is to limit death, but the means aren't working well (in the west, anyways). In a traditional auth. situation, the end is usually perpetual power and/or some ideological bend (genocide or something). Anyways, what I'm trying to say is that I don't think we're in a traditional auth. situation now. It's a classic "never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity" in my mind. Sure we're seeing some signs of government overreach, but the impetus is to save lives, not some consipriacy to control the masses. Doing so misses the mark and distracts from the real issue at hand.
- jerkstate 6y ago
  One problem is, it’s very hard to get a government to give up so-called “emergency powers” even after the emergency is long over. How many times has the Patriot Act been renewed now?
  - edmundsauto 6y ago
    What part of the pandemic response do you think will be difficult for government to give up? Certainly the large measures (lockdowns) will be lifted once we are vaccinated. Is this more of a general fear, or do you have something relevant to the current situation?
    - 6y ago

cgriswald 6y ago

> I'm reading between your lines, but by "totalitarian measures" do you mean asking people to temporarily wear masks, wash their hands, stay home, and restricting the density of people at gathering spots? Did your government really just ask? My local government responded by drafting and frequently, but irregularly, updating an increasing complex document—by decree rather than through the legislature—the violation of which was a misdemeanor (or, for businesses, may result in being closed down). To this day, individual businesses are asking the government what steps they need to take in order to operate. The answers they receive are not in any legally drafted document. Effectively businesses are asking government what they need to do to avoid the scrutiny of government; not what they need to do to stay within the law. This was a massive insertion of government control into the lives of individuals, which is the essence of totalitarianism. I agree that wearing masks, washing your hands, and avoiding unnecessary contact with others are all good things to do. I do those things voluntarily; and would have done so if asked, even if it wasn't a misdemeanor not to do so. That doesn't mean I'm blind to the totalitarian measures some governments took to get there; or to the risks that imposes for the future.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

hammock 6y ago

>restricting the density of people at gathering spots? Restricting the density to... Zero? Is that what they are calling the forced shutdown of indoor and outdoor restaurants, gyms and other places of business and subsequent jailing of violators now? (And jailing of mask violators as well, despite mounting evidence that mask mandates don't work and/or make the problem worse)

aynsof 6y ago
Do you have evidence of the claim that mask mandates don't work? Not trolling - I'm genuinely interested. My understanding was that masks worked to reduce transmission.
- hammock 6y ago
  Here is a list of 24 published papers that demonstrate lockdowns not working, in various forms including mask mandates. https://www.aier.org/article/lockdowns-do-not-control-the-coronavirus-the-evidence/ https://www.aier.org/article/lockdowns-do-not-control-the-co... Here is a new study (not published) that suggests mask mandates are counterproductive https://twitter.com/justin_hart/status/1340725086278434821?s=19 https://twitter.com/justin_hart/status/1340725086278434821?s... Would be nice if the mainstream media covered any of this.
  - aynsof 6y ago
    Thanks for the reading. I'm checking it out now.
  - free652 6y ago
    Except if you read the papers they aren't saying that. You are trying to spread BS here. We can take a look at China where the lockdown worked quiet well. >Official data from Germany’s RKI agency suggest strongly that the spread of the coronavirus in Germany receded autonomously, before any interventions became effective >From both sets of modelling, we found that closure of education facilities, prohibiting mass gatherings and closure of some non-essential businesses were associated with reduced incidence whereas stay at home orders and closure of all non-businesses was not associated with any independent additional impact >Conclusions: A national lockdown has a moderate advantage in saving lives