3 ms·

Welcome to living in a society, Some how we flipped the script on what freedom means. If you do not accept the risk of coming in contact with things like the

by syshum 5y ago

Welcome to living in a society, Some how we flipped the script on what freedom means. If you do not accept the risk of coming in contact with things like the Common Cold, Flu, and now COVID, then you need to structure your life to be hermit, not have society bow to your fears

rabuse 5y ago
Exactly. Why should I have to isolate for YOUR fears? YOU should isolate, if you're worried.
- nathanaldensr 5y ago
  If you haven't already, research the term "safetyism."
- jorblumesea 5y ago
  You stop people from getting elective surgeries and seriously disrupt society by being out and about eating indoors or not taking proper precautions. This isn't hard to understand. Hospitals are buckling under the weight of cases. Even if you personally recover from it, some do not or the impact of your decisions is far beyond what you personally feel. It's an absurd point and highlights the ignorance around the entire problem. Your personal choices have consequences far outside of whether you personally suffer or end up hospitalized.
- treebirg 5y ago
  There are plenty of immunocompromised people of working age for whom vaccines simply do not work, and who cannot work from home due to the nature of their work. These people can't isolate, even if they're worried. Ignoring the abhorrent – yet apparently acceptable to you – idea that these people should be left to die (due to what I can only guess is some sort of naive ideation of a "survival of the fittest" concept), these people dying and being hospitalized will certainly have a negative effect on the health system and economy. While their lives may not be of interest to you, surely you can appreciate the risk of a fragile economy.
  - a45a33s 5y ago
    immunocompromised people are not a new thing, somehow they survived before covid
  - Sargos 5y ago
    >There are plenty of immunocompromised people of working age for whom vaccines simply do not work, and who cannot work from home due to the nature of their work. These people can't isolate, even if they're worried. Why were we willing to let these people die in 2019 and earlier? I don't remember being told to go out of my way to protect immunocompromised people from the flu, colds, and other viruses. Were we just a more savage society back then? We both know the answer is no. It's unfortunate that immunocompromised people are vulnerable but it's not something we can fully control in society. It's up to them and their close relatives to be as careful as they can as society cannot function in isolation forever.
    - treebirg 5y ago
      > Why were we willing to let these people die in 2019 and earlier? This is implying that the situation pre-2020 was the same as it was during the pandemic. Is the argument really "it's just the flu"? > It's unfortunate that immunocompromised people are vulnerable but it's not something we can fully control in society. Indeed, it's not something we can fully control, hence we do our best. Ultimately, my comment was in response to the idea that people who are worried should simply isolate. I gave an example of why that's fallacious. You can argue all you want about how victims are inevitable, how covid is now endemic, etc., but then say it as it is: "I don't care for the lives of the vulnerable". That would be a more factual and sincere statement.
- CabSauce 5y ago
  Why should I have to not drink and drive? If you're worried about car accients, you should stay off the roads!
  - MrRiddle 5y ago
    You’re comparing people who want to live normal lives to drunk drivers?
  - hstan4 5y ago
    What an absolutely ridiculous comparison
asabjorn 5y ago
The panic over the Covid pandemic has been a great leap forward in this transformation of Western societies away from a representative republic or democracy. In the technocracy we are transforming into those that happen to occupy the territory are under the care, custody, and control of the administrative state and then there are those who are noncompliant. So from that viewpoint it is perfectly logical to deny the things the administrative state provide to the noncompliant, because in the technocratic administrative state the people are granted privileges instead of the state deriving its representative power from the people. Read more here [1]. [1] https://www.takimag.com/article/prisoners-of-the-new-order/ https://www.takimag.com/article/prisoners-of-the-new-order/

by syshum 5y ago

rabuse 5y ago

Exactly. Why should I have to isolate for YOUR fears? YOU should isolate, if you're worried.

nathanaldensr 5y ago
If you haven't already, research the term "safetyism."
jorblumesea 5y ago
You stop people from getting elective surgeries and seriously disrupt society by being out and about eating indoors or not taking proper precautions. This isn't hard to understand. Hospitals are buckling under the weight of cases. Even if you personally recover from it, some do not or the impact of your decisions is far beyond what you personally feel. It's an absurd point and highlights the ignorance around the entire problem. Your personal choices have consequences far outside of whether you personally suffer or end up hospitalized.
treebirg 5y ago
There are plenty of immunocompromised people of working age for whom vaccines simply do not work, and who cannot work from home due to the nature of their work. These people can't isolate, even if they're worried. Ignoring the abhorrent – yet apparently acceptable to you – idea that these people should be left to die (due to what I can only guess is some sort of naive ideation of a "survival of the fittest" concept), these people dying and being hospitalized will certainly have a negative effect on the health system and economy. While their lives may not be of interest to you, surely you can appreciate the risk of a fragile economy.
- a45a33s 5y ago
  immunocompromised people are not a new thing, somehow they survived before covid
- Sargos 5y ago
  >There are plenty of immunocompromised people of working age for whom vaccines simply do not work, and who cannot work from home due to the nature of their work. These people can't isolate, even if they're worried. Why were we willing to let these people die in 2019 and earlier? I don't remember being told to go out of my way to protect immunocompromised people from the flu, colds, and other viruses. Were we just a more savage society back then? We both know the answer is no. It's unfortunate that immunocompromised people are vulnerable but it's not something we can fully control in society. It's up to them and their close relatives to be as careful as they can as society cannot function in isolation forever.
  - treebirg 5y ago
    > Why were we willing to let these people die in 2019 and earlier? This is implying that the situation pre-2020 was the same as it was during the pandemic. Is the argument really "it's just the flu"? > It's unfortunate that immunocompromised people are vulnerable but it's not something we can fully control in society. Indeed, it's not something we can fully control, hence we do our best. Ultimately, my comment was in response to the idea that people who are worried should simply isolate. I gave an example of why that's fallacious. You can argue all you want about how victims are inevitable, how covid is now endemic, etc., but then say it as it is: "I don't care for the lives of the vulnerable". That would be a more factual and sincere statement.
CabSauce 5y ago
Why should I have to not drink and drive? If you're worried about car accients, you should stay off the roads!
- MrRiddle 5y ago
  You’re comparing people who want to live normal lives to drunk drivers?
- hstan4 5y ago
  What an absolutely ridiculous comparison

asabjorn 5y ago

The panic over the Covid pandemic has been a great leap forward in this transformation of Western societies away from a representative republic or democracy. In the technocracy we are transforming into those that happen to occupy the territory are under the care, custody, and control of the administrative state and then there are those who are noncompliant. So from that viewpoint it is perfectly logical to deny the things the administrative state provide to the noncompliant, because in the technocratic administrative state the people are granted privileges instead of the state deriving its representative power from the people. Read more here [1]. [1] https://www.takimag.com/article/prisoners-of-the-new-order/ https://www.takimag.com/article/prisoners-of-the-new-order/