4 ms·

>what alternative would you prefer? Perpetual rolling lockdowns and endless streams of prohibitions... Only about half of US adults are vaccinated. Parents are

>what alternative would you prefer? Perpetual rolling lockdowns and endless streams of prohibitions... Only about half of US adults are vaccinated. Parents are literally fighting with and attempting to "arrest" school officials who are trying to keep kids safe with commonsense measures. Then, there's the whole family of theories on the "gov't is trying to kill us with 5G and take away our freedom" continuum, some of which motivates the former behavior and has them preferring anything but science-backed treatments (bleach, animal de-wormer, etc). I could go on, but I think you get the point. Many of the same people who resist efforts to get the virus under control are the ones decrying lockdowns and prohibitions. So, perhaps one answer to your question of preferable alternatives is in there somewhere. That is, I don't see how we can ignore this outlandish disinformation pipeline that motivates counterproductive behavior and mistrust of the most basic things required for a functioning society, then just throw our hands up and say, "well, some people are just going to die. What choice do we have?"

helloworld11 5y ago
It's grotesque to lump together people with reasoned concerns about lockdowns, forced vaccines and other measures with the most extreme anti-vac conspiracy types who go on about 5G and microchips. This kind of smug disdain for millions of individual considerations is a kind of elitism that not only lacks sympathy for others but also has no business making binding legal decisions for whole populations. As for this idea of controlling "disinformation pipeline that motivates counterproductive behavior". What I hear is nearly Orwellian terminology there... It's based on very tenuously sustained affirmations about an information problem that magically only started being a problem under specific recent political circumstances and also tries to undermine some very important parts of how the free societies we've built over centuries work.
- unclebucknasty 5y ago
  >It's grotesque to lump together people with reasoned concerns I didn't lump "those people together", which is evidenced by the transitional sentence that began, "Then, there's the whole family of theories...". "Then" is used here, as in "additionally". So, no reasonable people were "smugly disdained" in the production of that comment. Secondly, I did indeed state that some of the egregious behavior I described is directly linked to this massive peddling of the idea that the government's efforts to fight the pandemic are really efforts to curb freedoms and/or harm them in some way. And to further clarify, those ideas do exist in degrees, up to and including the insane conspiracy theories at the extreme end. But, let's be clear: the very idea that what the gov't is doing to control the pandemic is really intended to harm people or confiscate their freedoms is itself a conspiracy theory. And, if it motivates effectively the same behavior, then it functions in the same manner, irrespective of what its adherents believe about 5G or vaccine microchips. So, I do think some who don't go as far as believing the extreme stuff can still be demoralized by disinfo and cultivate a distrust of gov't as a result, in much the same way as ads affect us all, even when we don't think they do. >As for this idea of controlling "disinformation pipeline that motivates counterproductive behavior". What I hear is nearly Orwellian terminology there I never wrote "controlling". That was your word. But, what I did state was that it's a problem when disinformation motivates behavior at scale, and that it's a threat to a functioning society. >very tenuously sustained affirmations about an information problem Some polls show up to 56% of Republicans believe that a theory that involves Dems eating babies and running a global pedophile ring is all or partly true. The theory involves a secret person who provides them with clues. That's 25% of the population. It's become a cult and a growing mass psychosis. So, I'm not understanding why you think the idea of addressing problems like that is "Orwellian", but the problems themselves are of little concern. I find this mass psychosis chilling beyond whatever comes after Orwellian. >that magically only started being a problem under specific recent political circumstances and also tries to undermine...free societies... Magically? I'm sorry my friend, but that reads like a conspiracy theory. The plain read is that we had a president who trafficked in lies and disinfo, was buttressed by elements who did the same, and benefitted from it. If the "magic" that you're alluding to finds no culpability there, then it's magic indeed.
- unclebucknasty 5y ago
  You changed the subject by dramatically accusing me of "grotesque" behavior that I didn't engage in, pivoted to a suggestion that disinformation is not a real problem, then strongly implied that the claims about disinformation are themselves part of a conspiracy to undermine our freedom. That is incredible. But, straw men aside, I'd still appreciate a reply to the core question, because I'm genuinely interested in understanding the base POV at work here... That is, there's an entire swath of people who resist even the most basic efforts to control the virus. And, these people also tend to be the very same who decry lockdowns and other "prohibitions" as an intrusion on their freedoms. So, exactly what responsibility do they have here? And, what exactly do you believe governments are justified in doing to protect the public health?
eloisius 5y ago
I’m with you, but I have even less confidence that we can do anything about the disinformation pipeline. Tech companies have attempted to disrupt it by adding notices to potential disinfo, like how Instagram puts an overlay on any story that contains anything that mentions COVID-19. YouTube has started putting little info boxes under videos about things like “the great reset.” Does this stop anyone from getting sucked in? Go browse /pol/ and you’ll eventually see this stuff discussed, and among the deluded, Google putting an info box like that on conspiracy content is even more evidence that it must be true, because Google is in on it. My sister is a nurse in the COVID ward. The other day she said they had 10 people on vent, 9 of them hadn’t been vaccinated, and that’s normal. Georgia is like 40% vaccinated even though you can walk into any Walgreens and get it. I haven’t really thought through the ethics of it, but I’m frustrated enough to think that if you’re an adult and you deny vaccines until you get COVID, we shouldn’t waste ER resources on you. It’s like we need to create a parallel society for the religious freedom anti-vaxers.
- unclebucknasty 5y ago
  >I have even less confidence that we can do anything about the disinformation >Google putting an info box like that on conspiracy content is even more evidence that it must be true, because Google is in on it. Yeah, it's disheartening to say the least. I know someone who was sucked in and her thought processes have completely changed. These ideas are like living parasites: fiercely self-protective to the point of impenetrability. The ideas become fused with their identities, so criticizing the theories is attacking the person and the world becomes binary: you're either in or out. And, if you're out, well then you're part of the conspiracy (or duped by it). It's very much like what you read about cult-conditioning. So, I've seen the logic: If Google instead removed it altogether, someone would screenshot it and make the claim that "Google tried to hide it". If Google just disallowed it in the first place or banned accounts, then that becomes evidence of a bigger conspiracy and, additionally, the freedom of speech arguments enter (as if there are no exceptions). So, I'm not sure that it's winnable in our current social media formats. Too many motivated bad actors with troll-farms and bots; and too many fertile minds who are growing more and more agitated, and whose worldviews and identities now rely on the disinfo. So, we've got a problem with both supply and demand.

helloworld11 5y ago

It's grotesque to lump together people with reasoned concerns about lockdowns, forced vaccines and other measures with the most extreme anti-vac conspiracy types who go on about 5G and microchips. This kind of smug disdain for millions of individual considerations is a kind of elitism that not only lacks sympathy for others but also has no business making binding legal decisions for whole populations. As for this idea of controlling "disinformation pipeline that motivates counterproductive behavior". What I hear is nearly Orwellian terminology there... It's based on very tenuously sustained affirmations about an information problem that magically only started being a problem under specific recent political circumstances and also tries to undermine some very important parts of how the free societies we've built over centuries work.

unclebucknasty 5y ago
>It's grotesque to lump together people with reasoned concerns I didn't lump "those people together", which is evidenced by the transitional sentence that began, "Then, there's the whole family of theories...". "Then" is used here, as in "additionally". So, no reasonable people were "smugly disdained" in the production of that comment. Secondly, I did indeed state that some of the egregious behavior I described is directly linked to this massive peddling of the idea that the government's efforts to fight the pandemic are really efforts to curb freedoms and/or harm them in some way. And to further clarify, those ideas do exist in degrees, up to and including the insane conspiracy theories at the extreme end. But, let's be clear: the very idea that what the gov't is doing to control the pandemic is really intended to harm people or confiscate their freedoms is itself a conspiracy theory. And, if it motivates effectively the same behavior, then it functions in the same manner, irrespective of what its adherents believe about 5G or vaccine microchips. So, I do think some who don't go as far as believing the extreme stuff can still be demoralized by disinfo and cultivate a distrust of gov't as a result, in much the same way as ads affect us all, even when we don't think they do. >As for this idea of controlling "disinformation pipeline that motivates counterproductive behavior". What I hear is nearly Orwellian terminology there I never wrote "controlling". That was your word. But, what I did state was that it's a problem when disinformation motivates behavior at scale, and that it's a threat to a functioning society. >very tenuously sustained affirmations about an information problem Some polls show up to 56% of Republicans believe that a theory that involves Dems eating babies and running a global pedophile ring is all or partly true. The theory involves a secret person who provides them with clues. That's 25% of the population. It's become a cult and a growing mass psychosis. So, I'm not understanding why you think the idea of addressing problems like that is "Orwellian", but the problems themselves are of little concern. I find this mass psychosis chilling beyond whatever comes after Orwellian. >that magically only started being a problem under specific recent political circumstances and also tries to undermine...free societies... Magically? I'm sorry my friend, but that reads like a conspiracy theory. The plain read is that we had a president who trafficked in lies and disinfo, was buttressed by elements who did the same, and benefitted from it. If the "magic" that you're alluding to finds no culpability there, then it's magic indeed.
unclebucknasty 5y ago
You changed the subject by dramatically accusing me of "grotesque" behavior that I didn't engage in, pivoted to a suggestion that disinformation is not a real problem, then strongly implied that the claims about disinformation are themselves part of a conspiracy to undermine our freedom. That is incredible. But, straw men aside, I'd still appreciate a reply to the core question, because I'm genuinely interested in understanding the base POV at work here... That is, there's an entire swath of people who resist even the most basic efforts to control the virus. And, these people also tend to be the very same who decry lockdowns and other "prohibitions" as an intrusion on their freedoms. So, exactly what responsibility do they have here? And, what exactly do you believe governments are justified in doing to protect the public health?

eloisius 5y ago

I’m with you, but I have even less confidence that we can do anything about the disinformation pipeline. Tech companies have attempted to disrupt it by adding notices to potential disinfo, like how Instagram puts an overlay on any story that contains anything that mentions COVID-19. YouTube has started putting little info boxes under videos about things like “the great reset.” Does this stop anyone from getting sucked in? Go browse /pol/ and you’ll eventually see this stuff discussed, and among the deluded, Google putting an info box like that on conspiracy content is even more evidence that it must be true, because Google is in on it. My sister is a nurse in the COVID ward. The other day she said they had 10 people on vent, 9 of them hadn’t been vaccinated, and that’s normal. Georgia is like 40% vaccinated even though you can walk into any Walgreens and get it. I haven’t really thought through the ethics of it, but I’m frustrated enough to think that if you’re an adult and you deny vaccines until you get COVID, we shouldn’t waste ER resources on you. It’s like we need to create a parallel society for the religious freedom anti-vaxers.

unclebucknasty 5y ago
>I have even less confidence that we can do anything about the disinformation >Google putting an info box like that on conspiracy content is even more evidence that it must be true, because Google is in on it. Yeah, it's disheartening to say the least. I know someone who was sucked in and her thought processes have completely changed. These ideas are like living parasites: fiercely self-protective to the point of impenetrability. The ideas become fused with their identities, so criticizing the theories is attacking the person and the world becomes binary: you're either in or out. And, if you're out, well then you're part of the conspiracy (or duped by it). It's very much like what you read about cult-conditioning. So, I've seen the logic: If Google instead removed it altogether, someone would screenshot it and make the claim that "Google tried to hide it". If Google just disallowed it in the first place or banned accounts, then that becomes evidence of a bigger conspiracy and, additionally, the freedom of speech arguments enter (as if there are no exceptions). So, I'm not sure that it's winnable in our current social media formats. Too many motivated bad actors with troll-farms and bots; and too many fertile minds who are growing more and more agitated, and whose worldviews and identities now rely on the disinfo. So, we've got a problem with both supply and demand.