3 ms·

ACLU's 2008 stance on pandemics (now reversed)

15 points by RickJWagner 5y ago

geofft 5y ago
The executive summary says: > The lessons from history should be kept in mind whenever we are told by government officials that “tough,” liberty-limiting actions are needed to protect us from dangerous diseases. Specifically: > • Coercion and brute force are rarely necessary. In fact they are generally counterproductive—they gratuitously breed public distrust and encourage the people who are most in need of care to evade public health authorities. > • On the other hand, effective, preventive strategies that rely on voluntary participation do work. Simply put, people do not want to contract smallpox, influenza or other dangerous diseases. Empirically, that's not true anymore. A lot of people openly state that they'd prefer to get covid than the vaccine, because they'll be fine, And it may even be true that they'll be fine, but they'll go on to spread it to a lot of other people in the process. So it makes sense that they would revise their view in the face of new data. As their tweet points out, but not quite so bluntly, people who get infected from unvaccinated partying carriers and die cannot really exercise their civil liberties.
- Proven 5y ago
  > Empirically, that's not true anymore There's nothing empirical about it. A person has the right to reject coercion. What's empirical about that? That if they get SWAT'ed they won't be able to reject it, which now justifies coercion? > And it may even be true that they'll be fine, but they'll go on to spread it to a lot of other people in the process. The vaccinated can spread the virus just like unvaccinated do. > cannot really exercise their civil liberties. Nonsense. Everyone can always exercise their civil liberties. That's why they're called liberties, genius.
- iammisc 5y ago
  > people who get infected from unvaccinated partying carriers and die cannot really exercise their civil liberties. How does this argument of 'causing others to die prevents them from exercising civil liberties' apply to other issues the aclu takes on, such as abortion? By your own measure, abortion would be the most heinous form of preventing someone from exercising future civil liberties. Why can't we just say they changed their minds?
  - geofft 5y ago
    I am saying they changed their minds in response to new information. It's a sign of maturity, I have no idea why we wouldn't want to say that.
RickJWagner 5y ago
Today's stance is different: https://twitter.com/aclu/status/1433433737304449024 https://twitter.com/aclu/status/1433433737304449024
version_five 5y ago
People tie themselves in knots to try and explain why the new stance aligns with civil liberties. Sure. So the logical next question is what is the point of the ACLU? Maybe they are continuing to do good work in other areas and should continue to be supported. But with respect to maintaining individual rights during a pandemic, right or wrong who cares, they are now just another "progressive" mouthpiece of whom there are many, parroting an unoriginal opinion. So why would anyone continue to care about their role in this area?
- iammisc 5y ago
  The point of the aclu is to make progressive agenda items appear neutral because older people value the aclu while younger people consider themselves like any other pac equivalent. For example, the 2008 article was for Obama and the bar for a democratic president is lower so they have to frame the issue at the start.. that even if Obama did nothing and the pandemic actualized into something terrible, he would be praised for preserving liberty. Since they didn't like trump, they set another bar for him and pretended that was the only way forward for civil rights.

15 points by RickJWagner 5y ago

The executive summary says: > The lessons from history should be kept in mind whenever we are told by government officials that “tough,” liberty-limiting actions are needed to protect us from dangerous diseases. Specifically: > • Coercion and brute force are rarely necessary. In fact they are generally counterproductive—they gratuitously breed public distrust and encourage the people who are most in need of care to evade public health authorities. > • On the other hand, effective, preventive strategies that rely on voluntary participation do work. Simply put, people do not want to contract smallpox, influenza or other dangerous diseases. Empirically, that's not true anymore. A lot of people openly state that they'd prefer to get covid than the vaccine, because they'll be fine, And it may even be true that they'll be fine, but they'll go on to spread it to a lot of other people in the process. So it makes sense that they would revise their view in the face of new data. As their tweet points out, but not quite so bluntly, people who get infected from unvaccinated partying carriers and die cannot really exercise their civil liberties.

Proven 5y ago
> Empirically, that's not true anymore There's nothing empirical about it. A person has the right to reject coercion. What's empirical about that? That if they get SWAT'ed they won't be able to reject it, which now justifies coercion? > And it may even be true that they'll be fine, but they'll go on to spread it to a lot of other people in the process. The vaccinated can spread the virus just like unvaccinated do. > cannot really exercise their civil liberties. Nonsense. Everyone can always exercise their civil liberties. That's why they're called liberties, genius.
iammisc 5y ago
> people who get infected from unvaccinated partying carriers and die cannot really exercise their civil liberties. How does this argument of 'causing others to die prevents them from exercising civil liberties' apply to other issues the aclu takes on, such as abortion? By your own measure, abortion would be the most heinous form of preventing someone from exercising future civil liberties. Why can't we just say they changed their minds?
- geofft 5y ago
  I am saying they changed their minds in response to new information. It's a sign of maturity, I have no idea why we wouldn't want to say that.

RickJWagner 5y ago

Today's stance is different: https://twitter.com/aclu/status/1433433737304449024 https://twitter.com/aclu/status/1433433737304449024

version_five 5y ago

People tie themselves in knots to try and explain why the new stance aligns with civil liberties. Sure. So the logical next question is what is the point of the ACLU? Maybe they are continuing to do good work in other areas and should continue to be supported. But with respect to maintaining individual rights during a pandemic, right or wrong who cares, they are now just another "progressive" mouthpiece of whom there are many, parroting an unoriginal opinion. So why would anyone continue to care about their role in this area?

iammisc 5y ago
The point of the aclu is to make progressive agenda items appear neutral because older people value the aclu while younger people consider themselves like any other pac equivalent. For example, the 2008 article was for Obama and the bar for a democratic president is lower so they have to frame the issue at the start.. that even if Obama did nothing and the pandemic actualized into something terrible, he would be praised for preserving liberty. Since they didn't like trump, they set another bar for him and pretended that was the only way forward for civil rights.