4 ms·

> Anyway, I'm sure it's only temporary I believe you’re being sarcastic, because as free society and governments move more towards authoritarianism, it will be

> Anyway, I'm sure it's only temporary I believe you’re being sarcastic, because as free society and governments move more towards authoritarianism, it will become everything but temporary I agree with everything else you said

motohagiography 5y ago
It was the sarcasm of an entire galaxy collapsed into a total singularity of sarcasm, where being anywhere near its event horizon rips the very fabric crappy corporate and political narrative, and nothing that encounters it can persist in that reality thereafter. That's how sarcastic it was.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- chitowneats 5y ago
  Beautiful.
Max_aaa 5y ago
Nothing is more permanent than a temporary solution. This is an old Soviet proverb. This also applies to tech.
unclebucknasty 5y ago
Genuinely trying to understand the thinking here: I understand the lack of love for lockdowns. But, on this piece about it not being temporary: is the belief genuinely that COVID-related lockdowns are really just a nefarious ploy for introducing longer-term control in order to subvert our freedoms and usher in authoritarianism?
- colpabar 5y ago
  YES Why is it so hard to recognize that governments like to give themselves special "temporary" powers and then not give them up?
  - gutitout 5y ago
    We don’t teach history.
  - unclebucknasty 5y ago
    >Why is it so hard to recognize that governments like to give themselves special "temporary" powers and then not give them up? No need to be condescending. I understand that it's happened in the past. But, there's an "unintentional slippery slope" concern; then there's the "willful conspiracy" concern. So, I'm asking whether, in this specific instance, people believe it to be the actual intent of the U.S. government to willfully and maliciously use COVID as a pretext for turning the U.S. into an authoritarian regime?
    - colpabar 5y ago
      Again, yes. That is what some people believe. Maybe all these restrictions won't be in place forever, but some people believe that the government is setting precedent by putting them in place at all, and that they won't hesitate to do it again in the future in response to something far less serious. Trust me, we all really hope we're wrong. But that's what we think.
      - unclebucknasty 5y ago
        Your stance is clear. Thank you. So, it appears we have two scenarios: In the first scenario, the government is doing exactly what it says and taking the public health measures it feels are necessary to save lives and end a pandemic. In scenario two, the government is deliberately overreaching and applying unnecessary measures, purely designed to deceive the public and curtail freedoms (or to condition people to accept such limitations in the future) in order to set us on the path to authoritarianism. This raises a number of earnest questions: >they won't hesitate to do it again in the future in response to something far less serious The concern about it being done for some "future far less serious thing" seems to be a tacit acknowledgment that the current thing warrants these measures to some degree: 1. Given that these things aren't very frequent (i.e. the last pandemic of this scale was ~100 years ago and we've already rivaled that death toll), would it be more prudent to worry about hypothetical future abuses if/when they come to pass, versus resisting the current measures? 2. If we were currently dealing with, say, an equally virulent airborne strain of Ebola, would current measures seem more justified, thus significantly allaying your current concerns? >we all really hope we're wrong Me too! 1. What do you think the odds are that you're right (roughly speaking)? 2. What if the people actively resisting and interfering with government efforts to contain the pandemic are wrong? What is the cost? 3. How (or perhaps more accurately, when) will you know whether you are wrong?

motohagiography 5y ago

It was the sarcasm of an entire galaxy collapsed into a total singularity of sarcasm, where being anywhere near its event horizon rips the very fabric crappy corporate and political narrative, and nothing that encounters it can persist in that reality thereafter. That's how sarcastic it was.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
chitowneats 5y ago
Beautiful.

Max_aaa 5y ago

Nothing is more permanent than a temporary solution. This is an old Soviet proverb. This also applies to tech.

unclebucknasty 5y ago

Genuinely trying to understand the thinking here: I understand the lack of love for lockdowns. But, on this piece about it not being temporary: is the belief genuinely that COVID-related lockdowns are really just a nefarious ploy for introducing longer-term control in order to subvert our freedoms and usher in authoritarianism?

colpabar 5y ago
YES Why is it so hard to recognize that governments like to give themselves special "temporary" powers and then not give them up?
- gutitout 5y ago
  We don’t teach history.
- unclebucknasty 5y ago
  >Why is it so hard to recognize that governments like to give themselves special "temporary" powers and then not give them up? No need to be condescending. I understand that it's happened in the past. But, there's an "unintentional slippery slope" concern; then there's the "willful conspiracy" concern. So, I'm asking whether, in this specific instance, people believe it to be the actual intent of the U.S. government to willfully and maliciously use COVID as a pretext for turning the U.S. into an authoritarian regime?
  - colpabar 5y ago
    Again, yes. That is what some people believe. Maybe all these restrictions won't be in place forever, but some people believe that the government is setting precedent by putting them in place at all, and that they won't hesitate to do it again in the future in response to something far less serious. Trust me, we all really hope we're wrong. But that's what we think.
    - unclebucknasty 5y ago
      Your stance is clear. Thank you. So, it appears we have two scenarios: In the first scenario, the government is doing exactly what it says and taking the public health measures it feels are necessary to save lives and end a pandemic. In scenario two, the government is deliberately overreaching and applying unnecessary measures, purely designed to deceive the public and curtail freedoms (or to condition people to accept such limitations in the future) in order to set us on the path to authoritarianism. This raises a number of earnest questions: >they won't hesitate to do it again in the future in response to something far less serious The concern about it being done for some "future far less serious thing" seems to be a tacit acknowledgment that the current thing warrants these measures to some degree: 1. Given that these things aren't very frequent (i.e. the last pandemic of this scale was ~100 years ago and we've already rivaled that death toll), would it be more prudent to worry about hypothetical future abuses if/when they come to pass, versus resisting the current measures? 2. If we were currently dealing with, say, an equally virulent airborne strain of Ebola, would current measures seem more justified, thus significantly allaying your current concerns? >we all really hope we're wrong Me too! 1. What do you think the odds are that you're right (roughly speaking)? 2. What if the people actively resisting and interfering with government efforts to contain the pandemic are wrong? What is the cost? 3. How (or perhaps more accurately, when) will you know whether you are wrong?