So, who someone is is more important than what they're saying? Isn't that a logical fallacy?
Depends. In perfectly logical debate, you'd be right. But I think real world is more complex.
What if "who someone is" a "someone who is easily manipulated and used by bad actors to amplify dangerous misinformation"?
Or, someone being American person of color is pretty important when they talk about racism in US. As opposed to someone, who is not only not a person of color but has been to US like once for a week (like me).
Or perhaps more relevantly, what if "who someone is" is "a certified medical doctor" as opposed to "someone with no experience in medical field who gets their information from corporate social network who makes most money when people are angry because anger is very good for engagement"?
Or, similarly: What if someone who isn't even an American amplifies their opinions on what direction America should take its public health policy in?
But I am strongly in the camp that it doesn't matter. I welcome your opinion, and want to read it. No discussions are perfectly logical; that's not a relevant component in the application of critical thinking to look past who is speaking, and at what they are speaking about. A gag is a poor replacement for Reason, and more-over only serves to strengthen the bubbles we build for ourselves in both our offline and online lives.
I would agree that credentialism is valuable; but that is very, very different from "once said something on the internet that I disagreed with."
It's so odd seeing a person wishing for HN to be more like reddit.
Redditors are often ridiculed for their low-intelligence and cult-like tribal behavior and lack of any ability for individual thought or nuance.
Reddit didn't use to be like this in it's early years... but those times are long gone.
I'd say on average HN readers can avoid COVID by way of privilege. They can have food delivered to them, work from home, receive necessities from Amazon, etc.
This allows them to disproportionately value individual freedoms over the greater good with little to no personal risk.
You don't see this level of anti-mask/anti-vaxx nonsense on forums for Uber drivers and grocery store workers, for example.
I’d say the average HN reader can afford to completely ignore how badly our motivations have screwed over the working class. It’s easy to call for lockdowns and “the new normal” when you and your significant other are making a half million dollars a year and live in a big house with a huge yard.
If anything, the people who are the most ungrounded and fearful are also the most privileged people I know. All the working class folks I know called bullshit on this a long, long time ago. It takes a hell of a lot of privilege for a bunch of spoiled work-from-home tech people to run around shaming everybody about trying to live their lives.
People _were_ fine with lockdowns when implementing such measures helped avoid failures in the healthcare system (which is still kind of an issue in certain places in the United States, as ludocode above points out).
No one is calling for lockdowns now, especially now that we have a safe, working vaccine and that we're seemingly close to actual treatments to reduce the death rate of COVID. Vaccines are free. So how is a vaccine mandate fucking over the working class? Or are you just disingenuously using them a cudgel to argue against policies which have the potential to save lives?
Vaccines are free. Anybody can get one. The end. Why people are tolerating the continuance of covid crap almost a year after the release of the vaccine is beyond me. Accept that covid isn’t going away and move on. Move on people.
Forcing restrictions of any kind is complete crap. And masks == restrictions. So does vaccine mandates.
And feel free to downvote me and call me names. I’ve taken heaps of verbal abuse and tons of gaslighting from plenty of real world people. Online people I don’t get phased by at all. Y’all need to realize that “the other side” has very rational arguments and is, quite frankly, correct in those arguments.
First off, your edit removes any credibility your post had
> It's strange that HN is the most antivaxx place on the internet that I know
I assume based on the fanatical nature of your post that for you anti-vax means anything but fervent orthodoxy, where nobody gets to exercise free thought and everyone has to prove on a minute by minute basis that they've followed whatever the New York Times thinks is the vaccine protocol du jour.
I say this, because I think what makes HN special is that it allows free thought. I've seen almost no "conspiracy theory" type vaccine discussion, only healthy a scepticism about different aspects. The consensus is clearly that the pros outweigh the cons, but this site somewhat uniquely allows a discussion instead of just calling any debate "anti-vax" and pretending the poster doesnt deserve to think for themselves. So all said, this is a feature, not a bug. If you're interested in a more religious discussion board, there are plenty.
and plus lumping anti-mask with anti-vaxx is incredibly disingenuous. I am firmly anti-mask and pro-vaccine. It’s absolutely insane to continue with this mask stuff when anybody can get a vaccine. There is zero reason for a vaccinated individual to continue wearing a mask in any circumstance at all. Zero.
anybody who brings up kids is being intentionally obtuse. They know full well that kids are at basically zero risk of serious covid.
Lastly, calling everything you disagree with as “dangerous misinformation” is just intellectually dishonest nonsense. Yeah there is plenty of nonsense out there… but lots of non-crazy people can legitimately object to virtually every single thing society has done the last year and three quarters. To think it is impossible that well intentioned people can think any way but the orthodox covid narrative is, well, not very open minded at all to say it politely.
> I am firmly anti-mask and pro-vaccine. It’s absolutely insane to continue with this mask stuff when anybody can get a vaccine. There is zero reason for a vaccinated individual to continue wearing a mask in any circumstance at all. Zero.
Ok that's just nonsense.
Both vaccines and masks are effective at lowering the likelihood for people getting and spreading COVID. Layered defence / defence in depth is a completed normal approach for pretty much anything serious.
Apartment building have both fire alarms, sprinklers and fire hydrants. Cars have both deformation zones, airbags, seatbelts and ABS. Airplanes have so many redundant safety systems you can't even imagine. When you go to ER with chest pain and shortness of breath, they do both ECG and measure your troponin just to be sure.
Masks (or rather KN95 respirators) are cheap, readily available, and the only negative side is they are very slightly uncomfortable. Why would you not do that?
"I'm anti-mask but pro-vax" makes very little sense. More like a troll post.
> They know full well that kids are at basically zero risk of serious covid.
They do however go to school where they sit in a room in large group perfect for spreading it and then can bring it home and kill their grandparents with it.
>EDIT: One feature I would love on HN is some way to add tags to posters that I see, so I could somehow mark the worst offenders in reality-denying and can make sure to disregard their opinions in other ways, because their brains obviously can process information correctly.
But why do you need a tagging system for that? If they're constantly spewing "reality-denying" comments then surely you can tell by the comments? Or do you find the tagging system useful for when they make plausibly sounding comments, so you can dismiss those with prejudice as well?
Yes, that was kinda the point.
If someone is easy to manipulate to spread misinformation about Ivermectin being effective for treating COVID in humans, do I really want to listen to their opinions about (for example) technology or are they horribly misinformed in that as well?
Is it unfair? Maybe.
It's somewhat annoying to do the work of reading a lead in comment that carefully walks the line while giving it the benefit of the doubt, just to see follow up comments consisting of tired refrains like "masks don't work" [0] and loaded terms like "lockdown". So yes, the latter - personal reputation matters for a reason.
Forgoing context (eg cached judgements) is highly inefficient. Having to individually evaluate each bit of chaff severely undermines the ability to have productive discussion. Looking at the larger picture, destroying the discourse with nonsensical spam seems to have become the entire political game at this point. If we want to have any hope at actually addressing the issues facing us in good faith debate, we've got to upgrade our discussion forums to mitigate the noise floor.
[0] If your criticism is that ersatz cloth masks are ineffective, then the conclusion is to push people towards real N95/P100 respirators rather than just rejecting the insufficient approach.