3 ms·

I'm calling it now, they will require all employees to have this, remote or not.

wffurr 5y ago
…but why? Why would they? And why would you think so? I think you’ve already decided what to believe and are just looking for ways to justify it. You’ve just got to support this “anti-freedom” narrative somehow for whatever mysterious reason that’s important to your ego and sense of self. I don’t get it.
yupper32 5y ago
For what reason? Arbitrary control? Why does the right think that every government mandate that they don't understand (masks are the big one) are just about arbitrary control over people? It seems like a very common theme.
- rolobio 5y ago
  Why would they do it? They will do it because they are trying to save lives. They think they are doing harm by allowing people NOT to take the vaccine. After all, how many people will die by unvaccinated people spreading the disease? They have a duty to save other humans! That is what I think they believe. My problem is that this is an overstep. They should stay in their lane, rather than mandating the health of their workers. If someone at Google died from drunk driving, would it be fair to ban alcohol? Of course not.
  - dagsdgfhdgdj 5y ago
    > If someone at Google died from drunk driving, would it be fair to ban alcohol? Of course not. I would expect Google to ban alcohol consumption at work if this causes safety hazards. So the answer is yes.
  - yupper32 5y ago
    There's no reason to think they'll do this, though. You're just wildly speculating. The much more likely scenario is that they say "find a remote position at the company or leave". And they're not so much "mandating the health of their workers", they're mandating that their workers don't harm other workers. > If someone at Google died from drunk driving, would it be fair to ban alcohol? If enough people got wasted at work and hurt other employees as a result, they'd probably think about limiting alcohol at events at the office. That's a closer example to this vaccination requirement.
- Covzire 5y ago
  Because people are rightfully hesitant to believe anything suspected liars tell them they need to do. The science is far from settled and Google banning doctors for discussing amongst themselves is as big of a red flag as can possibly exist. If you ask most people on the right how the virus has affected them, their friends or family, they'll tell you the lockdowns and mandates have been 100x more harmful to their entire community, family and friends than the virus has been. This is an extremely common response.

…but why? Why would they? And why would you think so? I think you’ve already decided what to believe and are just looking for ways to justify it. You’ve just got to support this “anti-freedom” narrative somehow for whatever mysterious reason that’s important to your ego and sense of self. I don’t get it.

yupper32 5y ago

For what reason? Arbitrary control? Why does the right think that every government mandate that they don't understand (masks are the big one) are just about arbitrary control over people? It seems like a very common theme.

rolobio 5y ago
Why would they do it? They will do it because they are trying to save lives. They think they are doing harm by allowing people NOT to take the vaccine. After all, how many people will die by unvaccinated people spreading the disease? They have a duty to save other humans! That is what I think they believe. My problem is that this is an overstep. They should stay in their lane, rather than mandating the health of their workers. If someone at Google died from drunk driving, would it be fair to ban alcohol? Of course not.
- dagsdgfhdgdj 5y ago
  > If someone at Google died from drunk driving, would it be fair to ban alcohol? Of course not. I would expect Google to ban alcohol consumption at work if this causes safety hazards. So the answer is yes.
- yupper32 5y ago
  There's no reason to think they'll do this, though. You're just wildly speculating. The much more likely scenario is that they say "find a remote position at the company or leave". And they're not so much "mandating the health of their workers", they're mandating that their workers don't harm other workers. > If someone at Google died from drunk driving, would it be fair to ban alcohol? If enough people got wasted at work and hurt other employees as a result, they'd probably think about limiting alcohol at events at the office. That's a closer example to this vaccination requirement.
Covzire 5y ago
Because people are rightfully hesitant to believe anything suspected liars tell them they need to do. The science is far from settled and Google banning doctors for discussing amongst themselves is as big of a red flag as can possibly exist. If you ask most people on the right how the virus has affected them, their friends or family, they'll tell you the lockdowns and mandates have been 100x more harmful to their entire community, family and friends than the virus has been. This is an extremely common response.