4 ms·

Unfortunately most of the arguments against wearing masks are petty and bullshit given that the inconvenience of wearing one is insignificant for most people.

Unfortunately most of the arguments against wearing masks are petty and bullshit given that the inconvenience of wearing one is insignificant for most people. Sure, if you have genuine health concerns wearing one then don’t. But most of the people that moaned about it were really just moaning about being told what to do. I had one mum in my kids school quoting the Magna Carta as a reason not to wear masks, which is simply ridiculous. And others claim that long term use of thermometers could be damaging to kids health, which completely misses the fact that such devices are entirely passive instruments. That was the point I quit Facebook. I realised my time was too valuable to read so much stupid.

baobabKoodaa 5y ago
(removed because parent comment edited their comment substantially)
- laumars 5y ago
  I couldn’t give a crap how you might choose to describe it. It’s still too much stupidity to be worth my effort reading. So I chose to stop reading it. You cannot force intelligent people to read your mindless drivel just because you consider it “political”. And “mindless drivel” is exactly how I viewed the baseless debates against masks, vaccines, public health and such like. > (removed because parent comment edited their comment substantially) I really didn’t. I just added some personal anecdotes in a subsequent paragraph to describe why I personally quit Facebook. The body of what you replied to was unchanged.
  - baobabKoodaa 5y ago
    > I couldn’t give a crap how you might choose to describe it. It’s still too much stupidity to be worth my effort reading. So I chose to stop reading it. Nobody here is advocating that you must continue reading Facebook. I'm not on Facebook. I don't advocate anyone else to go on Facebook either. > You cannot force intelligent people to read your mindless drivel just because you consider it “political”. And that’s exactly how I viewed the baseless debates against masks, vaccines, and such like. Nobody is forcing you to expose yourself to political opinions that are contrary to your political opinions. People are entirely free to stay in their own little bubbles if they choose to do so, but they should also be free to discuss major political decisions, such as mask mandates, if that's what they want to do.
  - baobabKoodaa 5y ago
    > > (removed because parent comment edited their comment substantially) > I really didn’t. This is a flat out lie. Please stop spreading disinformation. > I just added some personal anecdotes in a subsequent paragraph to describe why I personally quit Facebook. The body of what you replied to was unchanged. Your comment originally described unwanted political speech, but implied that the speech was actually fake news. I called you out on that, my comment was roughly "That is a good description of political speech. It is not a description of hate speech or fake news". Then you edited your comment to add in a description of fake news. Specifically, you added this: "And others claim that long term use of thermometers could be damaging to kids health, which completely misses the fact that such devices are entirely passive instruments." This anecdote is a good description of fake news. So now my comment appears as if I claimed that this fake news is not fake news. So you essentially edited your comment to make me appear like a conspiracy nut. And now you're lying about what you did.
    - laumars 5y ago
      Your comment about fake news is about masks. The context of that is clear. My comment cannot retroactively change the context of a comment I’m replying to. Though this is another good example of why I gave up with Facebook (and an increasing tendency I’ve noticed on HN too): conversations get really meta really quickly. When peoples views are based on opinion rather than science it’s impossible to hold a conversation with anyone because you cannot cite opinion. Thus conversations quickly degrade into meta arguments where opinions are “proven” by boring their opponents via “death by a thousand paper cuts”. It becomes as worthwhile as debating atheism with a priest (people are entitled to opinions but arguing over beliefs is never going to end well for either party). So the smarter thing to do here is me to duck out of the conversation now.
      - baobabKoodaa 5y ago
        > My comment cannot retroactively change the context of a comment I’m replying to. When you edit your old comment, yes it can, and it did. That's why I removed my comment, and you're perfectly aware that this happened.
raxxorrax 5y ago
Ok, but is that hate speech?
- laumars 5y ago
  Of course not. But comments don’t have to be hate speech to be damaging nonsense. And things don’t even have to be damaging for them to be too stupid for me to want to read. I only have a finite number of hours in the day, so why would I waste them reading stupid comments from people latching onto conspiracies because they need some form of belief system to cope with the chaos?
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    Common problem that words are taken to heart by those that weren't meant to do that in the first place. But I think there cannot be objective rules. Sure, you can scrap some vulgar words but even that could be negative. It is a problem that has to be solved on the receiving end. I think indignation of what other people say online is the vastly larger problem than any conspiracy. What we have seen related to comments about Covid was not pretty. It really underlined why content should be as unrestricted as possible.
    - laumars 5y ago
      > Common problem that words are taken to heart by those that weren't meant to do that in the first place. I’m not so sure about that. I think many of the opinions shared on social media are ones that people are passions about. Even if it’s unconsciously passionate. > But I think there cannot be objective rules. Sure, you can scrap some vulgar words but even that could be negative. It is a problem that has to be solved on the receiving end. Indeed. Which is why Facebook are losing members. To quote the movie “Wargames”: The only winning move is not to play. > I think indignation of what other people say online is the vastly larger problem than any conspiracy. What we have seen related to comments about Covid was not pretty. It really underlined why content should be as unrestricted as possible. The comments about COVID come from the same folk that follow conspiracy theories. The problem is once you stop listening to science and assume that experts cannot be trusted, you’re then defaulting to a position that there must be a conspiracy. It doesn’t mean all folk who are curious are worshipers of Qanon but the fact remains they still believe there is a conspiracy.

baobabKoodaa 5y ago

(removed because parent comment edited their comment substantially)

laumars 5y ago
I couldn’t give a crap how you might choose to describe it. It’s still too much stupidity to be worth my effort reading. So I chose to stop reading it. You cannot force intelligent people to read your mindless drivel just because you consider it “political”. And “mindless drivel” is exactly how I viewed the baseless debates against masks, vaccines, public health and such like. > (removed because parent comment edited their comment substantially) I really didn’t. I just added some personal anecdotes in a subsequent paragraph to describe why I personally quit Facebook. The body of what you replied to was unchanged.
- baobabKoodaa 5y ago
  > I couldn’t give a crap how you might choose to describe it. It’s still too much stupidity to be worth my effort reading. So I chose to stop reading it. Nobody here is advocating that you must continue reading Facebook. I'm not on Facebook. I don't advocate anyone else to go on Facebook either. > You cannot force intelligent people to read your mindless drivel just because you consider it “political”. And that’s exactly how I viewed the baseless debates against masks, vaccines, and such like. Nobody is forcing you to expose yourself to political opinions that are contrary to your political opinions. People are entirely free to stay in their own little bubbles if they choose to do so, but they should also be free to discuss major political decisions, such as mask mandates, if that's what they want to do.
- baobabKoodaa 5y ago
  > > (removed because parent comment edited their comment substantially) > I really didn’t. This is a flat out lie. Please stop spreading disinformation. > I just added some personal anecdotes in a subsequent paragraph to describe why I personally quit Facebook. The body of what you replied to was unchanged. Your comment originally described unwanted political speech, but implied that the speech was actually fake news. I called you out on that, my comment was roughly "That is a good description of political speech. It is not a description of hate speech or fake news". Then you edited your comment to add in a description of fake news. Specifically, you added this: "And others claim that long term use of thermometers could be damaging to kids health, which completely misses the fact that such devices are entirely passive instruments." This anecdote is a good description of fake news. So now my comment appears as if I claimed that this fake news is not fake news. So you essentially edited your comment to make me appear like a conspiracy nut. And now you're lying about what you did.
  - laumars 5y ago
    Your comment about fake news is about masks. The context of that is clear. My comment cannot retroactively change the context of a comment I’m replying to. Though this is another good example of why I gave up with Facebook (and an increasing tendency I’ve noticed on HN too): conversations get really meta really quickly. When peoples views are based on opinion rather than science it’s impossible to hold a conversation with anyone because you cannot cite opinion. Thus conversations quickly degrade into meta arguments where opinions are “proven” by boring their opponents via “death by a thousand paper cuts”. It becomes as worthwhile as debating atheism with a priest (people are entitled to opinions but arguing over beliefs is never going to end well for either party). So the smarter thing to do here is me to duck out of the conversation now.
    - baobabKoodaa 5y ago
      > My comment cannot retroactively change the context of a comment I’m replying to. When you edit your old comment, yes it can, and it did. That's why I removed my comment, and you're perfectly aware that this happened.

raxxorrax 5y ago

Ok, but is that hate speech?

laumars 5y ago
Of course not. But comments don’t have to be hate speech to be damaging nonsense. And things don’t even have to be damaging for them to be too stupid for me to want to read. I only have a finite number of hours in the day, so why would I waste them reading stupid comments from people latching onto conspiracies because they need some form of belief system to cope with the chaos?
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  Common problem that words are taken to heart by those that weren't meant to do that in the first place. But I think there cannot be objective rules. Sure, you can scrap some vulgar words but even that could be negative. It is a problem that has to be solved on the receiving end. I think indignation of what other people say online is the vastly larger problem than any conspiracy. What we have seen related to comments about Covid was not pretty. It really underlined why content should be as unrestricted as possible.
  - laumars 5y ago
    > Common problem that words are taken to heart by those that weren't meant to do that in the first place. I’m not so sure about that. I think many of the opinions shared on social media are ones that people are passions about. Even if it’s unconsciously passionate. > But I think there cannot be objective rules. Sure, you can scrap some vulgar words but even that could be negative. It is a problem that has to be solved on the receiving end. Indeed. Which is why Facebook are losing members. To quote the movie “Wargames”: The only winning move is not to play. > I think indignation of what other people say online is the vastly larger problem than any conspiracy. What we have seen related to comments about Covid was not pretty. It really underlined why content should be as unrestricted as possible. The comments about COVID come from the same folk that follow conspiracy theories. The problem is once you stop listening to science and assume that experts cannot be trusted, you’re then defaulting to a position that there must be a conspiracy. It doesn’t mean all folk who are curious are worshipers of Qanon but the fact remains they still believe there is a conspiracy.