6 ms·

> And yet political leaders will face no consequences. What consequences should they face? They are democratically elected. If the handling was indeed as terri

> And yet political leaders will face no consequences. What consequences should they face? They are democratically elected. If the handling was indeed as terrible as you suggest I am sure they'll face the consequences in the next election.

bcrl 5y ago
Misinformation is a problem and causes harm to society. Punishing people who knowingly spread misinformation despite having more accurate knowledge seems like a possible way of improving public discourse. It doesn't even need to be a massive penalty, a fine is probably sufficient in most cases to make someone think twice.
- rambojohnson 5y ago
  you're not wrong, but if the last 5 years were any indication that is a naïve fallacy.
- geysersam 5y ago
  It's too difficult to define misinformation to use as a concept that restricts free speech. Just look at how much we've learnt about corona viruses these last two years. Many widely accepted truths today might have been considered misinformation early on in the pandemic.
  - bcrl 5y ago
    Free speech doesn't mean free speech without consequences. If you slander someone, you open yourself up to being sued by that person. If you spread misinformation that provably harms society, I don't see why society can't sue you for the damage you cause.
disambiguation 5y ago
Collins and Fauci are not elected, though Collins had the decency to step down (after holding the longest tenure ever of an NIH director).
- muh_gradle 5y ago
  I didn't know Collins has resigned until I read this. What problems do you have with Fauci and Collins? I am just curious and am reading more and not trying to be aggressive about this. It seems to me like they were the sole rational voices during the Trump administration.
  - disambiguation 5y ago
    As GP states, they engaged in "noble lies" in order to drive vaccine adoption. - flip flopping on mask policy - surface transmission - vaccine efficacy - herd immunity - natural immunity - gain of function I'm not going to argue whether or not this was best course of action, because there's no way to know what the alternate reality would look like. It is however an interesting revelation about the character of our leaders. In their mind, the ends justify the means, in so far as they unilaterally define both the ends and the means. Who knows what else they lie about for the "greater good".
    - fivea 5y ago
      > As GP states, they engaged in "noble lies" in order to drive vaccine adoption. Can you point out what was in your opinion the best example of what you described as "noble lie"? I've seen people throwing baseless accusations by misrepresenting basic guidances, such as how avoiding scarcity of personal safety equipment like latex gloves and surgical masks in hospitals was distorted into "first they state masks don't work but now they flipflop into arguing they do". Thus, to avoid personal subjective takes and keep this discussion on the facts, what exactly do you see as the best example of this "noble lie"?
      - disambiguation 5y ago
        Natural immunity works. It's settled science, and has been for some time. Many countries acknowledge it as a valid alternative to the vaccine. But not the USA. There has been no change in policy. Not even a public acknowledgment, let alone an apology for getting it wrong. Is this out of ignorance? malice? Neither, it's simply pragmatic. Reliably testing for prior infections at population scale would be really slow, expensive, and faulty. Further there's no real downside to vaccinating someone with a prior infection (slightly higher incidence of side effects notwithstanding). Further, people will lose the urgency to get the vaccine if they think they have antibodies. Monolithic policy is cheaper than nuanced policy, and monolithic policy only works if its dead simple. So, better to have everyone believe the vaccine is the one and only solution than to actually concern themselves with the truth. There are also many examples of "verbatim" lies, such as these: https://www.businessinsider.com/who-says-no-evidence-coronavirus-vaccine-prevent-transmissions-2020-12 https://www.businessinsider.com/who-says-no-evidence-coronav... > Moderna's chief medical officer, Tal Zaks, said last month that he believed it was likely the vaccine would prevent transmission but warned that there was not yet "sufficient evidence" of it. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/01/health/coronavirus-vaccine-walensky.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/01/health/coronavirus-vaccin... > The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Thursday walked back controversial comments made by its director, Dr. Rochelle P. Walensky, suggesting that people who are vaccinated against the coronavirus never become infected or transmit the virus to others.
yucky 5y ago
>They are democratically elected. No they're not. The only person in the Executive branch (which includes all cabinet positions) who is elected is the President, with whoever their VP is riding along on the ticket..
- reducesuffering 5y ago
  That's a technicality. People vote for Presidents by including the combo of them and their VP pick. The VP pick is known, even on the ballot, and understood to assume the President's role in case of emergency. So it's quite realistic to say we know full well we're voting for the package. I wouldn't extend this to the President's cabinet, as these people aren't known to us when voting.
  - yucky 5y ago
    >I wouldn't extend this to the President's cabinet, as these people aren't known to us when voting. Which is the bigger point, since that is who makes up the government. Not just the cabinet heads, but all of the undersecretaries and department heads etc. There are hundreds (or more) of appointed positions in the Executive Branch. People like Fauci have never been elected to anything so I don't see how the comment I replied to can make that stance.
    - reducesuffering 5y ago
      Agreed. My mistake, I thought you were emphasizing how the VP isn't democratically elected, on my first pass read.
    - geysersam 5y ago
      Of course not everyone in the government apparatus are elected. The post I replied to explicitly refered to politicians. But I also don't think public servants (Fauci etc) should be punished. Again, for what crime? They receive orders, in the form of laws, court decisions or executive orders from elected representatives. As long as they fulfill their duties implementing those orders they are not responsible for the consequences in the eyes of the law. The elected representatives are however responsible for the laws and directives they make. And they do face that responsibility when they meet the voters. Ultimately the voters are responsible to elect sensible people.

bcrl 5y ago

Misinformation is a problem and causes harm to society. Punishing people who knowingly spread misinformation despite having more accurate knowledge seems like a possible way of improving public discourse. It doesn't even need to be a massive penalty, a fine is probably sufficient in most cases to make someone think twice.

rambojohnson 5y ago
you're not wrong, but if the last 5 years were any indication that is a naïve fallacy.
geysersam 5y ago
It's too difficult to define misinformation to use as a concept that restricts free speech. Just look at how much we've learnt about corona viruses these last two years. Many widely accepted truths today might have been considered misinformation early on in the pandemic.
- bcrl 5y ago
  Free speech doesn't mean free speech without consequences. If you slander someone, you open yourself up to being sued by that person. If you spread misinformation that provably harms society, I don't see why society can't sue you for the damage you cause.

disambiguation 5y ago

Collins and Fauci are not elected, though Collins had the decency to step down (after holding the longest tenure ever of an NIH director).

muh_gradle 5y ago
I didn't know Collins has resigned until I read this. What problems do you have with Fauci and Collins? I am just curious and am reading more and not trying to be aggressive about this. It seems to me like they were the sole rational voices during the Trump administration.
- disambiguation 5y ago
  As GP states, they engaged in "noble lies" in order to drive vaccine adoption. - flip flopping on mask policy - surface transmission - vaccine efficacy - herd immunity - natural immunity - gain of function I'm not going to argue whether or not this was best course of action, because there's no way to know what the alternate reality would look like. It is however an interesting revelation about the character of our leaders. In their mind, the ends justify the means, in so far as they unilaterally define both the ends and the means. Who knows what else they lie about for the "greater good".
  - fivea 5y ago
    > As GP states, they engaged in "noble lies" in order to drive vaccine adoption. Can you point out what was in your opinion the best example of what you described as "noble lie"? I've seen people throwing baseless accusations by misrepresenting basic guidances, such as how avoiding scarcity of personal safety equipment like latex gloves and surgical masks in hospitals was distorted into "first they state masks don't work but now they flipflop into arguing they do". Thus, to avoid personal subjective takes and keep this discussion on the facts, what exactly do you see as the best example of this "noble lie"?
    - disambiguation 5y ago
      Natural immunity works. It's settled science, and has been for some time. Many countries acknowledge it as a valid alternative to the vaccine. But not the USA. There has been no change in policy. Not even a public acknowledgment, let alone an apology for getting it wrong. Is this out of ignorance? malice? Neither, it's simply pragmatic. Reliably testing for prior infections at population scale would be really slow, expensive, and faulty. Further there's no real downside to vaccinating someone with a prior infection (slightly higher incidence of side effects notwithstanding). Further, people will lose the urgency to get the vaccine if they think they have antibodies. Monolithic policy is cheaper than nuanced policy, and monolithic policy only works if its dead simple. So, better to have everyone believe the vaccine is the one and only solution than to actually concern themselves with the truth. There are also many examples of "verbatim" lies, such as these: https://www.businessinsider.com/who-says-no-evidence-coronavirus-vaccine-prevent-transmissions-2020-12 https://www.businessinsider.com/who-says-no-evidence-coronav... > Moderna's chief medical officer, Tal Zaks, said last month that he believed it was likely the vaccine would prevent transmission but warned that there was not yet "sufficient evidence" of it. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/01/health/coronavirus-vaccine-walensky.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/01/health/coronavirus-vaccin... > The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Thursday walked back controversial comments made by its director, Dr. Rochelle P. Walensky, suggesting that people who are vaccinated against the coronavirus never become infected or transmit the virus to others.

yucky 5y ago

>They are democratically elected. No they're not. The only person in the Executive branch (which includes all cabinet positions) who is elected is the President, with whoever their VP is riding along on the ticket..

reducesuffering 5y ago
That's a technicality. People vote for Presidents by including the combo of them and their VP pick. The VP pick is known, even on the ballot, and understood to assume the President's role in case of emergency. So it's quite realistic to say we know full well we're voting for the package. I wouldn't extend this to the President's cabinet, as these people aren't known to us when voting.
- yucky 5y ago
  >I wouldn't extend this to the President's cabinet, as these people aren't known to us when voting. Which is the bigger point, since that is who makes up the government. Not just the cabinet heads, but all of the undersecretaries and department heads etc. There are hundreds (or more) of appointed positions in the Executive Branch. People like Fauci have never been elected to anything so I don't see how the comment I replied to can make that stance.
  - reducesuffering 5y ago
    Agreed. My mistake, I thought you were emphasizing how the VP isn't democratically elected, on my first pass read.
  - geysersam 5y ago
    Of course not everyone in the government apparatus are elected. The post I replied to explicitly refered to politicians. But I also don't think public servants (Fauci etc) should be punished. Again, for what crime? They receive orders, in the form of laws, court decisions or executive orders from elected representatives. As long as they fulfill their duties implementing those orders they are not responsible for the consequences in the eyes of the law. The elected representatives are however responsible for the laws and directives they make. And they do face that responsibility when they meet the voters. Ultimately the voters are responsible to elect sensible people.