4 ms·

> Maybe I'll just point others to this discussion about whether lockdowns are a scientific response to the pandemic or not, from March 2020 Here's the problem:

> Maybe I'll just point others to this discussion about whether lockdowns are a scientific response to the pandemic or not, from March 2020 Here's the problem: this is a bunch of random people talking in an informal setting. None of them appear to be policymakers in the US. Googling for random shit isn't research. > Otherwise, I'll just say that I think we both want to end the pandemic, right? Yes. > Surely we're both interested in having a free and open society as well? What made you stop believing in that? Trumpers? I didn't know they were so powerful and evil. Big leap here. Yes, a free and open society is important and your assumption that I don't agree with that because I don't agree with _you_ is asinine. A free and open society doesn't mean ignoring all sense of personal and collective responsibility and it _especially_ doesn't mean that you'll never be told what to do. Sometimes, that's just how it has to be especially when anyone can convince themselves of anything just by googling what they already believe to be true. > Are they making it illegal to work from home without a vaccine pass? Or is that you? Not me, but I have no problem with a public health mandate. There are too many people convinced that _they know better_ because they spent a few minutes googling shit. FWIW, the vaccine mandate does have exceptions for people who do not come into close contact with other people (wfh, exclusively outdoors, or similar). > By the way, didn't the supreme court just pause the vaccine mandates precisely because of what I said about coercion and side-stepping established laws? No. A fifth circuit judge appointed by trump kept the stay in place. That's not the supreme court. OSHA (by the letter of the law) has the power to institute these measures because they were granted this power by Congress (granted by the constitution).

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
prohobo 5y ago
Maybe we should turn off the internet for people who are troublesome.
- cweagans 5y ago
  If you want to turn your internet off, be my guest. A more comprehensive solution (imo) is required at the educational system level: we're kind of okay-ish at getting people to memorize things and take tests, but when actual critical thinking is required (particularly when distinguishing fact from fiction), we collectively fall short again and again and again. Few are interested in trying to understand complex problems beyond blaming the nearest boogeyman (vaccines, 5g, bill gates, masks, democrats, whatever) and it's a serious problem.
  - prohobo 5y ago
    You were the only one to blame any boogeyman in this discussion. Would you be up for re-education on how to use the internet and engaging in sincere debate? In my opinion it's too late to educate modern people on how to use the internet. The crux of the issue is people who don't want to discern relevant information correctly, who fall into pedantic one-up-manship and never actually look at anything they believe with a critical eye. For example, what does it matter in this discussion if it was the supreme court or the 5th circuit court that paused the mandate? It was still paused on the grounds I outlined. People escape real debate on purpose, because they believe they are on the winning side, socially. This kind of behavior gets amplified on the internet, but could probably be mitigated in future generations by emancipating them through teaching the dynamics of the internet and information flows. It's harder to fall into the traps when you can spot them earlier on. The idea behind all of this is that people tend to follow powerful leaders during times of heightened anxiety by abdicating their critical thought processes to them. It's impossible to argue with or reason with such people, because it's a sociological rather than intellectual phenomenon. The only way to resolve the issue is to do acts of liberation for them, because they are slaves to the narrative they choose. That's really hard because everyone is anxious about so many things, they get tied up in whatever makes them most comfortable, for a multitude of reasons. I suppose the only effective way to do it is to engage in alternative actions that clearly show them that their approaches don't work. You'd think Sweden's results during the pandemic would have done that, but because they also provide the vaccines and their economy is failing due to the global interventions it's pushed aside as incidental: "See! Sweden isn't doing anything different than us! Clearly, our approach is fine." or "Sweden is a special case because..." Truthfully, they will not mandate the vaccine, do not restrict access to events or restaurants, and will not impose lockdowns because it's against their constitution. They are doing as well as, or better than most western countries. Why? Because they happen to be doing most of what they should be doing in a pandemic, according to established and proven epidemiology - not the current bullshit "this is an experiment but also the best way" epidemiology. That's what I call an effective and competent democracy, do you not? It works, and that's really what this is about: what works and what doesn't. I don't care about your fucking politics.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

prohobo 5y ago

Maybe we should turn off the internet for people who are troublesome.

cweagans 5y ago
If you want to turn your internet off, be my guest. A more comprehensive solution (imo) is required at the educational system level: we're kind of okay-ish at getting people to memorize things and take tests, but when actual critical thinking is required (particularly when distinguishing fact from fiction), we collectively fall short again and again and again. Few are interested in trying to understand complex problems beyond blaming the nearest boogeyman (vaccines, 5g, bill gates, masks, democrats, whatever) and it's a serious problem.
- prohobo 5y ago
  You were the only one to blame any boogeyman in this discussion. Would you be up for re-education on how to use the internet and engaging in sincere debate? In my opinion it's too late to educate modern people on how to use the internet. The crux of the issue is people who don't want to discern relevant information correctly, who fall into pedantic one-up-manship and never actually look at anything they believe with a critical eye. For example, what does it matter in this discussion if it was the supreme court or the 5th circuit court that paused the mandate? It was still paused on the grounds I outlined. People escape real debate on purpose, because they believe they are on the winning side, socially. This kind of behavior gets amplified on the internet, but could probably be mitigated in future generations by emancipating them through teaching the dynamics of the internet and information flows. It's harder to fall into the traps when you can spot them earlier on. The idea behind all of this is that people tend to follow powerful leaders during times of heightened anxiety by abdicating their critical thought processes to them. It's impossible to argue with or reason with such people, because it's a sociological rather than intellectual phenomenon. The only way to resolve the issue is to do acts of liberation for them, because they are slaves to the narrative they choose. That's really hard because everyone is anxious about so many things, they get tied up in whatever makes them most comfortable, for a multitude of reasons. I suppose the only effective way to do it is to engage in alternative actions that clearly show them that their approaches don't work. You'd think Sweden's results during the pandemic would have done that, but because they also provide the vaccines and their economy is failing due to the global interventions it's pushed aside as incidental: "See! Sweden isn't doing anything different than us! Clearly, our approach is fine." or "Sweden is a special case because..." Truthfully, they will not mandate the vaccine, do not restrict access to events or restaurants, and will not impose lockdowns because it's against their constitution. They are doing as well as, or better than most western countries. Why? Because they happen to be doing most of what they should be doing in a pandemic, according to established and proven epidemiology - not the current bullshit "this is an experiment but also the best way" epidemiology. That's what I call an effective and competent democracy, do you not? It works, and that's really what this is about: what works and what doesn't. I don't care about your fucking politics.