5 ms·

It's something to see the woke crowd go unabashedly totalitarian against those that disagree with them. Invoking a concept (no fly list) they would undoubtedly

It's something to see the woke crowd go unabashedly totalitarian against those that disagree with them. Invoking a concept (no fly list) they would undoubtedly have argued in wrong for it's original recipients (and I agree) to target their now enemies. Populism is a horrible disease, and just because you agree with its aims in a particular instance does not make it justifiable. My argument for why we should strongly support e.g. gay rights has always been that it's not acceptable to wait until the government opposes something I want to do. The same applied here. Whether you want a vaccine (and I have mine) or not, embracing authoritarianism towards those that disagree with you is incompatible with basically everything from the enlightenment forward, and should be opposed.

version_five 5y ago
Just to add to my post above: I'm a rich man. This will not be a burden to me or to any of my peers. I oppose this out of belief about how our society should treat people, not because of some personal inconvenience. I can still do whatever I want, as can most readers here I expect. Like any authoritarian laws, this only really impacts groups that society didnt like anyway. It is the most unfair possible kind of idea. It amazes me that in one breath we hear ridiculous ideas about equity, and in another, we hear things like this that promote "hard" unfairness. All authoritarianism is hypocritical, but this is blatantly so.
mc32 5y ago
Exactly right. I disagree with antivaxxers. There is little argument against getting vaccinated. But to advocate for this. This is just unbelievable. As you said, it's a fawning embrace of authoritarianism just because you agree on position. Yeah, I agree on getting vaccinated, but I don't agree with these despotic measures.
- yuppie_scum 5y ago
  https://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/GW&smallpoxinoculation.html https://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/GW&smallpoxinoculation.html
- yeuxardents 5y ago
  >There is little argument against getting vaccinated. You would be immensely surprised as to the varying reasons and literature and science brought to bear as to why this statement is incorrect. Longitudinal cross sectional studies, for one, comes to mind. Never before used technology to innoculate the ENTIRE population at once, never having been used before also comes to mind. That only scratches the surface for people objecting to being forced, does not get into nitty gritty details. Those alone should be sufficient to not inject the entire human population on planet earth with an experimental unapproved medical treatment.
  - mc32 5y ago
    There are _some reasons_ but cost/benefit would heavily favor vaccination. That's what I'm saying. And. like I said, while I don't agree with the stand, I also disagree with the proposed draconian measure as it clearly impinges upon liberty as afforded by our constitution.
    - yeuxardents 5y ago
      Cost/benefit to whom? The disease according to all stats around the world primarily will kill those over 75 who are already ill and frail, under that age, which for most of the world is the AVERAGE life expectancy, the chance of death is near zero. Avg death age in US from covid is 80. thats HIGHER than the life expectancy. I am not saying who cares about seniors, but, somehow we lost the thread that old people die, and that this happens and is normal. edit and that we shouldnt blow up the entire planet and inject everyone with experimental drugs just to save 10,000 over 80's
  - ozfive 5y ago
    Where is there never before used technology?
anonuser123456 5y ago
Spreading disease violates the NAP and legitimizes the need for state violence to prevent it.
- AndrewBissell 5y ago
  Welcome to earth. You, a human being, are a vector for numerous pathogens at any given time. In fact, you are made up of viruses to a not insignificant extent! Criminalizing being a vector for disease amounts to criminalizing humanity as such. What freedom of assembly is possible if everyone is already guilty of carrying viruses?
- tluyben2 5y ago
  But why not mandate masks, forever? And keep distance, stop all meetings over 8 people forever etc? Covid measures prevented seasonal flu and other transferable diseases (STDs etc) so why not enforce a that with 'state violence'? Of course not: just overreach because every state is struggling with the first pandemic in their life time.
  - anonuser123456 5y ago
    Proportionality is a thing.
    - tluyben2 5y ago
      Sure but who decides...
- Khaine 5y ago
  AIDS predominantly infects gay men. So your saying the police were right to beat up gay men in the 80s?
  - anonuser123456 5y ago
    Nice straw man argument.
- 5y ago
tdeck 5y ago
> Populism is a horrible disease Could you explain what you mean by this? What's your definition of populism, and what does it have to do with this issue?
teorema 5y ago
This theme stretches elsewhere in the pandemic discourse. There's an interview appearing alongside this article, where they discuss the failures of the FDA in approving the vaccine for children and booster shots. The FDA's comments suggest they're approaching, say, the boosters from the standpoint of managing perceived need rather than safety. This shouldn't be their role. If I want to purchase a delta booster from Pfizer and it's safe and there's a reasonable argument for its efficacy, why shouldn't I? To help manage public perception that the initial dosages aren't effective? My perception is this weird authoritarianism cuts both ways, against the antivaxxers as well as the provaxxers. The common thread is the failures of authority itself. So much is being revealed in this time about the castles made of sand; why the underlying problems don't get even more attention is beyond me.

version_five 5y ago

Just to add to my post above: I'm a rich man. This will not be a burden to me or to any of my peers. I oppose this out of belief about how our society should treat people, not because of some personal inconvenience. I can still do whatever I want, as can most readers here I expect. Like any authoritarian laws, this only really impacts groups that society didnt like anyway. It is the most unfair possible kind of idea. It amazes me that in one breath we hear ridiculous ideas about equity, and in another, we hear things like this that promote "hard" unfairness. All authoritarianism is hypocritical, but this is blatantly so.

mc32 5y ago

Exactly right. I disagree with antivaxxers. There is little argument against getting vaccinated. But to advocate for this. This is just unbelievable. As you said, it's a fawning embrace of authoritarianism just because you agree on position. Yeah, I agree on getting vaccinated, but I don't agree with these despotic measures.

yuppie_scum 5y ago
https://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/GW&smallpoxinoculation.html https://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/GW&smallpoxinoculation.html
yeuxardents 5y ago
>There is little argument against getting vaccinated. You would be immensely surprised as to the varying reasons and literature and science brought to bear as to why this statement is incorrect. Longitudinal cross sectional studies, for one, comes to mind. Never before used technology to innoculate the ENTIRE population at once, never having been used before also comes to mind. That only scratches the surface for people objecting to being forced, does not get into nitty gritty details. Those alone should be sufficient to not inject the entire human population on planet earth with an experimental unapproved medical treatment.
- mc32 5y ago
  There are _some reasons_ but cost/benefit would heavily favor vaccination. That's what I'm saying. And. like I said, while I don't agree with the stand, I also disagree with the proposed draconian measure as it clearly impinges upon liberty as afforded by our constitution.
  - yeuxardents 5y ago
    Cost/benefit to whom? The disease according to all stats around the world primarily will kill those over 75 who are already ill and frail, under that age, which for most of the world is the AVERAGE life expectancy, the chance of death is near zero. Avg death age in US from covid is 80. thats HIGHER than the life expectancy. I am not saying who cares about seniors, but, somehow we lost the thread that old people die, and that this happens and is normal. edit and that we shouldnt blow up the entire planet and inject everyone with experimental drugs just to save 10,000 over 80's
- ozfive 5y ago
  Where is there never before used technology?

anonuser123456 5y ago

Spreading disease violates the NAP and legitimizes the need for state violence to prevent it.

AndrewBissell 5y ago
Welcome to earth. You, a human being, are a vector for numerous pathogens at any given time. In fact, you are made up of viruses to a not insignificant extent! Criminalizing being a vector for disease amounts to criminalizing humanity as such. What freedom of assembly is possible if everyone is already guilty of carrying viruses?
tluyben2 5y ago
But why not mandate masks, forever? And keep distance, stop all meetings over 8 people forever etc? Covid measures prevented seasonal flu and other transferable diseases (STDs etc) so why not enforce a that with 'state violence'? Of course not: just overreach because every state is struggling with the first pandemic in their life time.
- anonuser123456 5y ago
  Proportionality is a thing.
  - tluyben2 5y ago
    Sure but who decides...
Khaine 5y ago
AIDS predominantly infects gay men. So your saying the police were right to beat up gay men in the 80s?
- anonuser123456 5y ago
  Nice straw man argument.
5y ago

tdeck 5y ago

> Populism is a horrible disease Could you explain what you mean by this? What's your definition of populism, and what does it have to do with this issue?

teorema 5y ago

This theme stretches elsewhere in the pandemic discourse. There's an interview appearing alongside this article, where they discuss the failures of the FDA in approving the vaccine for children and booster shots. The FDA's comments suggest they're approaching, say, the boosters from the standpoint of managing perceived need rather than safety. This shouldn't be their role. If I want to purchase a delta booster from Pfizer and it's safe and there's a reasonable argument for its efficacy, why shouldn't I? To help manage public perception that the initial dosages aren't effective? My perception is this weird authoritarianism cuts both ways, against the antivaxxers as well as the provaxxers. The common thread is the failures of authority itself. So much is being revealed in this time about the castles made of sand; why the underlying problems don't get even more attention is beyond me.