4 ms·

I've seen this quote before and it seems insightful in its face. But then I think of an example like vaccine mandates and immediately an area opens up for vari

I've seen this quote before and it seems insightful in its face. But then I think of an example like vaccine mandates and immediately an area opens up for varied interpretation. One side would say a mandate (or "public health policy" more generally) treats people as a corporate body of "things" seeking to maximize their lifespan while ignoring their free will and volition. The other side would say without such a mandate we are unnecessarily harming real people, who would otherwise be railroaded by the irresponsible actions of another.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago
But both sides have large numbers of people who are still thinking “if only those idiots would see the light then of course we could Solve Everything!!” And who are willing to go to (political) war to force the "idiots" to do what they obviously should. Within each side, there is hiding a position that genuinely cares about other people. But on both sides, the way it is pursued is very often to just try to run over the other side.
pmarreck 5y ago
Or making wearing a seatbelt law. Or perhaps more relevantly to health policy, making drunk driving against the law (since you can harm others, as opposed to seatbelts in which case the harmed is mainly only the seatbelt-objector). If only more people were rational, and understood how to properly value "small risks with disproportionately large consequences". But there I go touting an ideology, again... https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-inertia-trap/201303/why-are-people-bad-evaluating-risks https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-inertia-trap/201...
- nitrogen 5y ago
  It's clear that a line is being crossed though, when we go from "take this external low-cost behavior to enjoy the privilege of driving at 80mph" to "inject this substance into your body or you will be denied all access to public life." Maybe the line needs to be crossed, but denying that line and ridiculing the people who value the line is not helpful. Bodily autonomy/corporeal sovereignty was historically a cornerstone belief for the same people who now want to deny it from others, and that should not be taken lightly.
  - lazyasciiart 5y ago
    I don’t think any group has switched from anti-vaccine mandates to pro-Covid-vaccine-mandates, do you have an example?
    - nitrogen 5y ago
      Bodily autonomy applies to more than just vaccines.
      - lazyasciiart 5y ago
        So you're saying that you are mad that people who believe abortion is a question of bodily autonomy do not also believe that vaccination is a question of bodily autonomy. Interestingly enough, you appear not to identify with the group that has historically supported the right to abortion as a personal decision, have I interpreted that correctly? And you do identify with the group that believes vaccination should be a personal decision?
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  > as opposed to seatbelts in which case the harmed is mainly only the seatbelt-objector Helmet law would be a better comparison. The argument for requiring a seat belt isn't about protecting people from their own choices. It's because it's very easy to lose control when things get exciting if you're not belted into the seat. Now you're throwing around a two ton projectile and everyone else's lives are at risk.
  - cgriswald 5y ago
    > The argument for requiring a seat belt isn't about protecting people from their own choices. It's because it's very easy to lose control when things get exciting if you're not belted into the seat. Now you're throwing around a two ton projectile and everyone else's lives are at risk. This can't be the complete argument, because then it would only apply to drivers. If you're not wearing a seat belt and you're in an accident, you might become a projectile which can cause harm to others in the same vehicle.
    - rootusrootus 5y ago
      Having had an unbelted passenger come to visit me once long ago when I was driving spiritedly, it's important that all passengers are belted in. It's hard to stay focused on driving when someone lands in your lap.
- trashtester 5y ago
  I agree with your beliefs, and I'm triple vaxxed. In my country, vaccination rates are 10+% higher than in the US, despite much less coercion. I suspect a large part of that, is that we don't have nearly the same level of political polarization. If some person starts to link their identity to not believing in the vaccines, belittling them is not likely to help. If it hadn't been made political, I would buy your comparison to seatbelts and drunk driving, but as it is, I think it is more comparable to putting a ban on male circumcision. (Also, for the record, I think both sides of US politics has their own areas where they ignore evidence in favour of what is "correct" thinking for their side.)
  - pmarreck 5y ago
    Agree.
A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
The quote is insightful, because it is insightful, if you forgive some harmless tautology. A good test of the rule is how well it compares to the situation you want to apply it to. In the case you presented ( 'vaccines' ), for example, there is conscious effort to cast people, who refuse to be vaccinated as subhuman that have no rights in the face of this overwhelming threat. On the other hand, unvaccinated attempt to portray the 'opposing side' as 'sheeple' riding on pre-existing anti-government strain prevalent in US mainstream. It does not make the quote less insightful. It just shows that humans instinctively gather into tribes. It used to be the tribes were limited geographically, but this has not been the case for a while. TLDR; Granny ( and Pratchett ) was not wrong when those words were written. It starts there.
cgriswald 5y ago
> The other side would say without such a mandate we are unnecessarily harming real people, who would otherwise be railroaded by the irresponsible actions of another. At best, this is misplacement of blame. The only people placing others in jeopardy are those not getting vaccinated. The rest of us are not responsible just because we didn't tie those people down and inject them. That doesn't mean the rest of us should do nothing about the problem, but neither does it mean that a vaccine mandate is necessarily the appropriate solution. You will often see such justifications of actions: 1. We are responsible for X. 2. Our solution solves the problem of X. 3. Therefore, our solution must be implemented regardless of your objections. The problem being (1) may or may not be true; (2) is usually true; but (3) does not follow, because their solution to the problem of X is not the only solution, even if it is their preferred solution because of politics, economy, expediency, convenience, et cetera.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago

But both sides have large numbers of people who are still thinking “if only those idiots would see the light then of course we could Solve Everything!!” And who are willing to go to (political) war to force the "idiots" to do what they obviously should. Within each side, there is hiding a position that genuinely cares about other people. But on both sides, the way it is pursued is very often to just try to run over the other side.

pmarreck 5y ago

Or making wearing a seatbelt law. Or perhaps more relevantly to health policy, making drunk driving against the law (since you can harm others, as opposed to seatbelts in which case the harmed is mainly only the seatbelt-objector). If only more people were rational, and understood how to properly value "small risks with disproportionately large consequences". But there I go touting an ideology, again... https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-inertia-trap/201303/why-are-people-bad-evaluating-risks https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-inertia-trap/201...

nitrogen 5y ago
It's clear that a line is being crossed though, when we go from "take this external low-cost behavior to enjoy the privilege of driving at 80mph" to "inject this substance into your body or you will be denied all access to public life." Maybe the line needs to be crossed, but denying that line and ridiculing the people who value the line is not helpful. Bodily autonomy/corporeal sovereignty was historically a cornerstone belief for the same people who now want to deny it from others, and that should not be taken lightly.
- lazyasciiart 5y ago
  I don’t think any group has switched from anti-vaccine mandates to pro-Covid-vaccine-mandates, do you have an example?
  - nitrogen 5y ago
    Bodily autonomy applies to more than just vaccines.
    - lazyasciiart 5y ago
      So you're saying that you are mad that people who believe abortion is a question of bodily autonomy do not also believe that vaccination is a question of bodily autonomy. Interestingly enough, you appear not to identify with the group that has historically supported the right to abortion as a personal decision, have I interpreted that correctly? And you do identify with the group that believes vaccination should be a personal decision?
rootusrootus 5y ago
> as opposed to seatbelts in which case the harmed is mainly only the seatbelt-objector Helmet law would be a better comparison. The argument for requiring a seat belt isn't about protecting people from their own choices. It's because it's very easy to lose control when things get exciting if you're not belted into the seat. Now you're throwing around a two ton projectile and everyone else's lives are at risk.
- cgriswald 5y ago
  > The argument for requiring a seat belt isn't about protecting people from their own choices. It's because it's very easy to lose control when things get exciting if you're not belted into the seat. Now you're throwing around a two ton projectile and everyone else's lives are at risk. This can't be the complete argument, because then it would only apply to drivers. If you're not wearing a seat belt and you're in an accident, you might become a projectile which can cause harm to others in the same vehicle.
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    Having had an unbelted passenger come to visit me once long ago when I was driving spiritedly, it's important that all passengers are belted in. It's hard to stay focused on driving when someone lands in your lap.
trashtester 5y ago
I agree with your beliefs, and I'm triple vaxxed. In my country, vaccination rates are 10+% higher than in the US, despite much less coercion. I suspect a large part of that, is that we don't have nearly the same level of political polarization. If some person starts to link their identity to not believing in the vaccines, belittling them is not likely to help. If it hadn't been made political, I would buy your comparison to seatbelts and drunk driving, but as it is, I think it is more comparable to putting a ban on male circumcision. (Also, for the record, I think both sides of US politics has their own areas where they ignore evidence in favour of what is "correct" thinking for their side.)
- pmarreck 5y ago
  Agree.

A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago

The quote is insightful, because it is insightful, if you forgive some harmless tautology. A good test of the rule is how well it compares to the situation you want to apply it to. In the case you presented ( 'vaccines' ), for example, there is conscious effort to cast people, who refuse to be vaccinated as subhuman that have no rights in the face of this overwhelming threat. On the other hand, unvaccinated attempt to portray the 'opposing side' as 'sheeple' riding on pre-existing anti-government strain prevalent in US mainstream. It does not make the quote less insightful. It just shows that humans instinctively gather into tribes. It used to be the tribes were limited geographically, but this has not been the case for a while. TLDR; Granny ( and Pratchett ) was not wrong when those words were written. It starts there.

cgriswald 5y ago

> The other side would say without such a mandate we are unnecessarily harming real people, who would otherwise be railroaded by the irresponsible actions of another. At best, this is misplacement of blame. The only people placing others in jeopardy are those not getting vaccinated. The rest of us are not responsible just because we didn't tie those people down and inject them. That doesn't mean the rest of us should do nothing about the problem, but neither does it mean that a vaccine mandate is necessarily the appropriate solution. You will often see such justifications of actions: 1. We are responsible for X. 2. Our solution solves the problem of X. 3. Therefore, our solution must be implemented regardless of your objections. The problem being (1) may or may not be true; (2) is usually true; but (3) does not follow, because their solution to the problem of X is not the only solution, even if it is their preferred solution because of politics, economy, expediency, convenience, et cetera.