4 ms·
That's a very American way of thinking, just the kind of reasoning that allowed Facebook to almost destroy your democracy. I'm aware that discussing free speec
by rospaya 6y ago
That's a very American way of thinking, just the kind of reasoning that allowed Facebook to almost destroy your democracy.
I'm aware that discussing free speech on any platform is a fool's errand, but at some point somebody has to say that making people angry is profitable and facilitated through the US concept of giving anyone a platform to say anything with very little consequences.
And the last four years really showed how far it can go.
> They can exist because both of them are going to HAVE to learn how to engage with one another
People never ever learn. Wearing a mask has become a political struggle, people literally rather died than wore a piece of cloth just because they looked at it emotionally and not rationally, like you software dev and Marine officer would.
- cbozeman 6y ago> people literally rather died than wore a piece of cloth just because they looked at it emotionally and not rationally And that's fine. If you're going to live in a so-called "free" society, part of that "freedom" means people have to be "free" to make stupid choices, even if those stupid choices kill them.
- cageface 6y agoWhat if their stupid choices kill other people too?
- cbozeman 6y agoWe already have laws for those things - second, third degree murder; involuntary manslaughter, etc.
- cageface 6y agoSo can people out in public without masks on be charged with any of these things?
- j16sdiz 6y agoNot wearing masks increase the risk. But as long as they, themselves, are not infected, they are not “killing” You don’t charge people with manslaughter violating fire code —- there are separate law for that
- cageface 6y agoI'm really not clear on what you're advocating here. Going out in public without a mask increases the risk of transmitting the virus to other people, possibly killing them. In this case one person's freedoms impinge on another's.
- chordalkeyboard 6y agoRisk is a part of life, driving a car puts people at risk. Going out with a mask also puts people at risk. Coal and nuclear power put people at risk. You can’t eliminate risk by restricting people’s rights, at some point the restrictions cause more measureable harm and risk of future harm than they eliminate.
- cageface 6y agoWe restrict people's rights all the time. You don't have the right to drive drunk, or fly a drone around an airport or raise a false fire alarm in a crowded theater etc etc. Society is a balancing act of one person's freedoms vs another. Why should I have to endure life threating extra risk for something that's a trivial inconvenience on your part like wearing a mask? I have to say that this kind of me-first libertarian thinking is a big part of the reason I choose not to live in the US anymore.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago> Why should I have to endure life threating extra risk for something that's a trivial inconvenience on your part like wearing a mask? This question can be reasonably applied to any restriction on anyone’s liberty and the answer is that we always have to strike a balance and there will always be people like yourself who are unhappy with where that balance lies. > I have to say that this kind of me-first libertarian thinking is a big part of the reason I choose not to live in the US anymore. I’m glad that you sought out a community that strikes a balance more to your liking but you should probably consider that libertarians in the US do not consider the balance between personal freedom and social risk in the US to be representative of their values. The US is a neoliberal country, not a libertarian country. And that’s fine, and that’s also not for everyone, people who find themselves too far from the center of discourse should find a community where they are more at home. The world is a big place.