7 ms·

>…He has come to believe there is only one weapon that can defeat our extreme political polarization: love. Oh my, what a silly way to pitch a possible reader

>…He has come to believe there is only one weapon that can defeat our extreme political polarization: love. Oh my, what a silly way to pitch a possible reader on your book. There is a (VERY conservative) town in my state where every single employee of the local department of transportation has quit over the vaccine mandate. Now the former employees and their conservative allies are gleefully posting about how “the libs” won’t be able to use the nearby freeways due to lack of maintenance, and how “the libs” will have trouble driving around town because there will be no snow plow operators come winter. Here’s the funny part: The conservative:liberal ratio there is about 50:1. This rural town is gleefully destroying its own infrastructure over some perceived culture war, fully knowingly. These people are willing to cripple their ability to leave their houses in order to “own the libs” even if they’re not even existent. I do not think I could be convinced by some old guy that his newly-invented form of conservative Kumbaya will actually make it possible for these people to go to the pharmacy when it snows, or get fresh food from the grocery store.

etherael 5y ago
Isnt this argument predicated on the supposition that the only reason they are opposed to coercive experimental gene therapy is because they want to "own the libs?" I mean, maybe that's right but it seems unlikely when there are other much more obvious things to explain the reasons for the actions in question. That they then post hoc express schadenfreude for the party who they perceive to be responsible for the situation is evidence of the addiction to contempt the article refers to, sure. But I find it difficult to imagine they wouldn't prefer not to be coerced into experimental gene therapy even if it means they don't get the opportunity to "own the libs" in response.
- md8z 5y ago
  I'm not sure if you're saying this is your opinion, but just to be clear: Vaccine mandates are not coercive, the vaccine is not experimental, and vaccines in general are not gene therapy. To elaborate: You can consider work vaccine mandates to be similar to any other job requirement. The COVID vaccines have received a huge amount of studies and trials. And "gene therapy" usually refers to use of things like CRISPR-Cas9 or other methods of delivering DNA into the cell which are able to modify genes. mRNA vaccines do not modify genes. (I'm not a biologist so you should ask one if you want more information on this)
  - rufus_foreman 5y ago
    >> mandates are not coercive Wait, hold on. That's an actual argument you are making and not satire? "Mandates are not coercive", that's a thought that actually went through your head and you thought, "Hmm, that sounds like a reasonable argument"?
    - md8z 5y ago
      Please read my follow up responses where I explain it further. Also your comment doesn't really have anything substantial in it that I can respond to, you may want to note these parts of the HN guidelines: "Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community." "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
      - rufus_foreman 5y ago
        The strongest plausible interpretation of "mandates are not coercive" is very weak.
        md8z 5y ago
        Please see my explanations in the follow up responses where I give a stronger interpretation, thanks. Best of luck.
  - notenoughbeans 5y ago
    What do you mean the vaccine mandates are not coercive? Isn't that the entire selling point of the mandates?
    - md8z 5y ago
      The selling point of the mandates is to reduce spread of the virus.
- newbie789 5y ago
  I didn’t mention anything about gene therapy or whatever other bananas theory that can be inserted into literally any conversation nowadays. What I did bring up is the fact that people are willing to deny themselves, their families and neighbors the ability to leave their own homes to get food and medicine in order to “own the libs.” While this sort of Markov-chain sounding word salad about… whatever, must indicate that people are passionate about… whatever, the fact of the matter is that sabotaging your own infrastructure out of ideology sounds kind of suicidal. I honestly don’t get how I could personally rally behind people that would celebrate my righteous death from being stranded in the snow because I’d died owning the libs because uh… my ideology will have prevented theoretical vaccine deaths in the future? My actual, concrete, current life is literally worth less than… what? Some bogeyman that I read about on Facebook? If I were genuinely that concerned about all these conspiracies and thought that my thoughtless death would make a difference, I’d self-immolate like the monks during Vietnam. Somehow curiously, these folks rather than doing that are taking the mighty stand of keeping kids from going to school, their neighbors going to work or their doctors, local business owners from opening etc. Ironically, not plowing the streets creates the exact same (if not considerably worse) lockdown situation that these people have been mad about for 18 months. Ironically, it’s not the reduction of peoples freedoms that matter to these conservatives, it’s who gets to be the ones taking the freedoms away. People will literally kill themselves and everyone around them in order to feel Right About Stuff. “Love” isn’t an answer here. It’s a completely meaningless word put in a context to sound nice on a podcast to sell books to people who will never change their minds about any of this.
  - etherael 5y ago
    All you're doing here is re-stating your original argument, seemingly without actually understanding my criticism of it. I'm not sure what you're hoping to accomplish by that, but it strikes me as very strange. Look, let's say we observe an employee and employer undertaking a discussion that goes something like this. "Take this medicine" "No I don't want to" "Take it or else you're fired" "I'm not going to take it, fire me if you have to." "OK, you're fired" "That's going to turn out poorly for the people who must now suffer the consequences of not having people available to do my job" I don't understand how you jump to the conclusion that the reason the employee refuses to take the medicine is so they can have that last line of dialogue, rather than that they don't want to take the medicine. Enlighten me?
notenoughbeans 5y ago
While it might be a silly way to pitch your book, I think your anecdote captures what he is saying pretty well. Rampant contempt is bad for everyone. It doesn't help you or the people for which you hold contempt.
maccolgan 5y ago
If I am to believe that "every single employee of the local department of transportation" are somehow right in a (counterfactual?) different timeline, what are they really supposed to do? Take the vaccine for a greater cause and their worst dreams turn true? It's not the employees that are destroying the aforementioned rural town, it's the DOT doing blatantly undemocratic things that their employees won't approve.

etherael 5y ago

Isnt this argument predicated on the supposition that the only reason they are opposed to coercive experimental gene therapy is because they want to "own the libs?" I mean, maybe that's right but it seems unlikely when there are other much more obvious things to explain the reasons for the actions in question. That they then post hoc express schadenfreude for the party who they perceive to be responsible for the situation is evidence of the addiction to contempt the article refers to, sure. But I find it difficult to imagine they wouldn't prefer not to be coerced into experimental gene therapy even if it means they don't get the opportunity to "own the libs" in response.

md8z 5y ago
I'm not sure if you're saying this is your opinion, but just to be clear: Vaccine mandates are not coercive, the vaccine is not experimental, and vaccines in general are not gene therapy. To elaborate: You can consider work vaccine mandates to be similar to any other job requirement. The COVID vaccines have received a huge amount of studies and trials. And "gene therapy" usually refers to use of things like CRISPR-Cas9 or other methods of delivering DNA into the cell which are able to modify genes. mRNA vaccines do not modify genes. (I'm not a biologist so you should ask one if you want more information on this)
- rufus_foreman 5y ago
  >> mandates are not coercive Wait, hold on. That's an actual argument you are making and not satire? "Mandates are not coercive", that's a thought that actually went through your head and you thought, "Hmm, that sounds like a reasonable argument"?
  - md8z 5y ago
    Please read my follow up responses where I explain it further. Also your comment doesn't really have anything substantial in it that I can respond to, you may want to note these parts of the HN guidelines: "Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community." "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
    - rufus_foreman 5y ago
      The strongest plausible interpretation of "mandates are not coercive" is very weak.
      - md8z 5y ago
        Please see my explanations in the follow up responses where I give a stronger interpretation, thanks. Best of luck.
- notenoughbeans 5y ago
  What do you mean the vaccine mandates are not coercive? Isn't that the entire selling point of the mandates?
  - md8z 5y ago
    The selling point of the mandates is to reduce spread of the virus.
newbie789 5y ago
I didn’t mention anything about gene therapy or whatever other bananas theory that can be inserted into literally any conversation nowadays. What I did bring up is the fact that people are willing to deny themselves, their families and neighbors the ability to leave their own homes to get food and medicine in order to “own the libs.” While this sort of Markov-chain sounding word salad about… whatever, must indicate that people are passionate about… whatever, the fact of the matter is that sabotaging your own infrastructure out of ideology sounds kind of suicidal. I honestly don’t get how I could personally rally behind people that would celebrate my righteous death from being stranded in the snow because I’d died owning the libs because uh… my ideology will have prevented theoretical vaccine deaths in the future? My actual, concrete, current life is literally worth less than… what? Some bogeyman that I read about on Facebook? If I were genuinely that concerned about all these conspiracies and thought that my thoughtless death would make a difference, I’d self-immolate like the monks during Vietnam. Somehow curiously, these folks rather than doing that are taking the mighty stand of keeping kids from going to school, their neighbors going to work or their doctors, local business owners from opening etc. Ironically, not plowing the streets creates the exact same (if not considerably worse) lockdown situation that these people have been mad about for 18 months. Ironically, it’s not the reduction of peoples freedoms that matter to these conservatives, it’s who gets to be the ones taking the freedoms away. People will literally kill themselves and everyone around them in order to feel Right About Stuff. “Love” isn’t an answer here. It’s a completely meaningless word put in a context to sound nice on a podcast to sell books to people who will never change their minds about any of this.
- etherael 5y ago
  All you're doing here is re-stating your original argument, seemingly without actually understanding my criticism of it. I'm not sure what you're hoping to accomplish by that, but it strikes me as very strange. Look, let's say we observe an employee and employer undertaking a discussion that goes something like this. "Take this medicine" "No I don't want to" "Take it or else you're fired" "I'm not going to take it, fire me if you have to." "OK, you're fired" "That's going to turn out poorly for the people who must now suffer the consequences of not having people available to do my job" I don't understand how you jump to the conclusion that the reason the employee refuses to take the medicine is so they can have that last line of dialogue, rather than that they don't want to take the medicine. Enlighten me?

notenoughbeans 5y ago

While it might be a silly way to pitch your book, I think your anecdote captures what he is saying pretty well. Rampant contempt is bad for everyone. It doesn't help you or the people for which you hold contempt.

maccolgan 5y ago

If I am to believe that "every single employee of the local department of transportation" are somehow right in a (counterfactual?) different timeline, what are they really supposed to do? Take the vaccine for a greater cause and their worst dreams turn true? It's not the employees that are destroying the aforementioned rural town, it's the DOT doing blatantly undemocratic things that their employees won't approve.