3 ms·

Yeah what's also a bit frustrating is that people like Joe Rogan are openly discussing the controversial stuff people don't wanna hear and are getting SLAMMED o

Yeah what's also a bit frustrating is that people like Joe Rogan are openly discussing the controversial stuff people don't wanna hear and are getting SLAMMED on Reddit for deviating even just slightly from what the government has chosen to do along with the medical leaders. Most of the smart people I know think that widespread lockdowns are an extremely heavy-handed solution that will lead to more harm than good. History is proving this day by day... It seems a nuanced approach to re-openings is simply too difficult to get right and therefore untenable, which is extremely sad.

kumarvvr 6y ago
The problem is not JR, it's the people who listen to him and take his every word as some sort of ultimate truth. I don't blame him. Human nature is to wield power. The more power the person has, in whatever form it is, the more inventive ways he will come up with to use it for his goals, be they selfish or otherwise. JR would shut his mouth if his audience chided him to being conspiratorial. The society has lost the ability to think critically. And the focus on individuality has exacerbated the problem. I don't mind individuality in matters such as personal growth, morality, religion, etc, but there are some aspects of social life where collective expert decisions must hold higher weight than individual opinions, such as in public health, defense, etc.
- travisoneill1 6y ago
  > the people who listen to him and take his every word as some sort of ultimate truth. They don't really exist. At least not in any significant number. This is just a straw man to attack Joe Rogan.
greggman3 6y ago
history is proving no such thing. you have no idea what the alternate history would have been
- anonytrary 6y ago
  See this is my point. "You have no idea what would have happened" is an opt-out of a conversation. You can't deny the negative effects of lockdown. The point is that other solutions should be tried because the current one clearly has disastrous consequences. For example, an alternate solution could be tried in a small microcosm as a sort of A/B test, but no one is really entertaining that possibility, and anyone who does is hit with contentless comments such as yours. Thinking is hard, but it's time for everyone to start.
  - greggman3 6y ago
    no it is not an opt-out of conversation. It's a point that you made a massive oversimplification and yourself opted out of thinking. You just basically said, lockdown = bad consequences, non-lockdown = good consequences. non-lockdown could have had 2x, 4x, 10x, 100x, 1x, 0.5x the infections. We don't know which. You ignored all those possibilities and their repercussions and just stated lockdown has been disastrous implying that non-lockdown would have been less disastrous. you don't know that. I for one believe non-lockdown would have been more disastrous. Hospitals would be more full, more people would be dying, people would be even more desperate than they are, the result would be an even worse economy and more suffering
    - anonytrary 6y ago
      > You just basically said, lockdown = bad consequences, non-lockdown = good consequences I'm sorry but your comment shows that you did not read my comment. Please read: > deviating even just slightly from what the government has chosen to do > nuanced approach to re-openings is simply too difficult to get right and therefore untenable What part of "deviating just slightly" and "nuanced approach" implies a complete inverse approach? I think you are straw-manning me, sorry. I never said that the solution was to not have lockdown at all. You can re-read my comment again if it helps. I implied that a nuanced approach and a slightly less restrictive approach would be better. It seems that my comment regarding people unwilling to have a nuanced conversation proves true again.

kumarvvr 6y ago

The problem is not JR, it's the people who listen to him and take his every word as some sort of ultimate truth. I don't blame him. Human nature is to wield power. The more power the person has, in whatever form it is, the more inventive ways he will come up with to use it for his goals, be they selfish or otherwise. JR would shut his mouth if his audience chided him to being conspiratorial. The society has lost the ability to think critically. And the focus on individuality has exacerbated the problem. I don't mind individuality in matters such as personal growth, morality, religion, etc, but there are some aspects of social life where collective expert decisions must hold higher weight than individual opinions, such as in public health, defense, etc.

travisoneill1 6y ago
> the people who listen to him and take his every word as some sort of ultimate truth. They don't really exist. At least not in any significant number. This is just a straw man to attack Joe Rogan.

greggman3 6y ago

history is proving no such thing. you have no idea what the alternate history would have been

anonytrary 6y ago
See this is my point. "You have no idea what would have happened" is an opt-out of a conversation. You can't deny the negative effects of lockdown. The point is that other solutions should be tried because the current one clearly has disastrous consequences. For example, an alternate solution could be tried in a small microcosm as a sort of A/B test, but no one is really entertaining that possibility, and anyone who does is hit with contentless comments such as yours. Thinking is hard, but it's time for everyone to start.
- greggman3 6y ago
  no it is not an opt-out of conversation. It's a point that you made a massive oversimplification and yourself opted out of thinking. You just basically said, lockdown = bad consequences, non-lockdown = good consequences. non-lockdown could have had 2x, 4x, 10x, 100x, 1x, 0.5x the infections. We don't know which. You ignored all those possibilities and their repercussions and just stated lockdown has been disastrous implying that non-lockdown would have been less disastrous. you don't know that. I for one believe non-lockdown would have been more disastrous. Hospitals would be more full, more people would be dying, people would be even more desperate than they are, the result would be an even worse economy and more suffering
  - anonytrary 6y ago
    > You just basically said, lockdown = bad consequences, non-lockdown = good consequences I'm sorry but your comment shows that you did not read my comment. Please read: > deviating even just slightly from what the government has chosen to do > nuanced approach to re-openings is simply too difficult to get right and therefore untenable What part of "deviating just slightly" and "nuanced approach" implies a complete inverse approach? I think you are straw-manning me, sorry. I never said that the solution was to not have lockdown at all. You can re-read my comment again if it helps. I implied that a nuanced approach and a slightly less restrictive approach would be better. It seems that my comment regarding people unwilling to have a nuanced conversation proves true again.