5 ms·

> No matter which side you're on (real or not, overblown or not, etc.) One thing we need to step away from is this framing that there are "sides" to be on. All

> No matter which side you're on (real or not, overblown or not, etc.) One thing we need to step away from is this framing that there are "sides" to be on. Allowing for there to be these separate "sides" just invites conflict and allows people the opportunity to create an identity around something they have no business having an identity about. There are people who are anti-vax now (and weren't before) for example, but that's not a "side" anymore than being for or against bandaids would make sense to have "sides". Framing this as though there are sides also has the effect of legitimizing indefensible things, like being anti-vax. As an example, are there two sides to the flat earth debate? If you say yes, then you're admitting that people who think the earth is flat have an equal standing with someone who knows that the earth is round. But these do not have equal standing, so it shouldn't be legitimized as a "debate" where there are "sides". Something like private versus public (to oversimplify) healthcare is worthy of two sides and a debate. Broadly speaking there are two defensible and respectable opinions.

bequanna 5y ago
How you choose to see what separates the two "sides" is quite interesting. You'll in fact find that it is not Vax/Anti-Vax but: 1. a group that needs the comforting reassurance of authority for security vs. 2. a group who regard their autonomy as paramount and see no need to have arbitrary rules forced on them.
- ericmay 5y ago
  > a group that needs the comforting reassurance of authority for security And I assume you say this when someone is getting surgery, buys ibuprofen, or gets a splint as well? > a group who regard their autonomy as paramount and see no need to have arbitrary rules forced on them In the specific context of vaccines at least in America, nobody is forcing anyone to take a vaccine so the position wouldn't make any sense. Maybe you want to clarify what you mean here? As an aside, this idea of autonomy here is a psychological reflex to control something about a situation that you have absolutely no control over. But it's really just an illusion. They're not more autonomous than anyone else is. A vaccine wouldn't make a difference in your autonomy, and in a really bad pandemic ala The Stand (Stephen King novel) you'd be forced at gunpoint to take a vaccine and you'd happily comply. It's all just lifestyle and cosplay at this point.
  - mpalczewski 5y ago
    > in America, nobody is forcing anyone to take a vaccine so the position wouldn't make any sense. Employers, en masse, are forcing it as a condition of employment. I do agree with some of these employer mandates, e.g. airlines, because they increase connectivity and thus spread. Not so much with some others, e.g. clerical stay at home workers.
  - bequanna 5y ago
    > As an aside, this idea of autonomy here is a psychological reflex to control something about a situation that you have absolutely no control over. It may be difficult for some to accept, but we as individuals have essentially total control over our own health and COVID was no exception. Essentially all serious COVID cases had multiple LIFESTYLE-casued comorbidities. The most prevalent: obesity.
    - ericmay 5y ago
      No not really. Like you can't choose to get COVID-19 or not. The only control you really have is the agency to get a vaccine or not, which is why it's so emotionally charged - it's the one thing people believe they can "control". So psychologically you grasp that because you're terrified of something you can't control (the pandemic). Comorbidities increase your risk or "serious COVID", just like being unvaccinated does. But that still doesn't satisfy anything. Comorbidities increase your risk, getting vaccinated decreases your risk substantially, so if you want to blame this "well only fat people get it", well sure. Most people are fat, therefore they should get the vaccine since you can do that in a very short period of time whereas weight loss takes a while and you may have other comorbidities that you can't actually control or change at all.
      - nradov 5y ago
        We've known that high body fat was a serious risk factor for over two years now. While I agree that everyone eligible should protect themselves by getting vaccinated, people who want to lose weight have had plenty of time to do so.
- AshleyGrant 5y ago
  Actually, you'll find it is 1. a group that understands that if we all would act together in the interest of public health we could have greatly reduced the death toll of COVID-19 vs 2. a group of idiots who won't learn until they win themselves their own personal Herman Cain Award. Also, you apparently have no idea what "arbitrary" means.
  - bequanna 5y ago
    > Also, you apparently have no idea what "arbitrary" means. Ah, right. They were just highly intelligent people "following the science". Not at all obsessed with stoking fear so they could seize control and consolidate power: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=arbitrary+six+foot+rule&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=arbitrary+six+foot+rule&ia=web
- archagon 5y ago
  And yet group 2 is the one that full-throatedly supported an authoritarian president. Funny, that!
_3u10 5y ago
Admitting there are two sides is hardly admitting both points of view are equal. This attitude on both sides of if you believe “reasonable thing” that means you believe “unreasonable and unreasonable to infer from what was said” thing creates a lot of animosity. In all honesty your attitude creates a lot of the problems you describe. It’s a free country if people don’t want to be vaxxed they can take their chances with the 99.9% survival rate for those under 50. Or the lower survival rate if they are over 50.
- ericmay 5y ago
  > It’s a free country if people don’t want to be vaxxed they can take their chances... Can you name a single person in America who has been held down against their will and administered a vaccine? Can you name multiple, coordinated instances of this happening? Can you point to a lawsuit? If not, you should stop repeating this. > In all honesty your attitude creates a lot of the problems you describe. I used to think that too but ultimately what you have is a group that cannot be reasoned with ala flat-earth proponents and no amount of information, debate, or reason would change their mind because the point isn't to understand, it's to create a lifestyle and culture. It's like a religion. The only thing that's left to be important here is to combat disinformation by bad actors and prevent further corrosion of civilization.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - _3u10 5y ago
    I’m antivax and anti mask mandates and think vaccines are a good idea. I’ve even gotten two vaccines. However I won’t be getting another the reason I won’t is to stand in solidarity with the unvaxxed, note this is a political stance and not a scientific one. If you want me to get vaxxed to save whoever then the mandates must be lifted in their entirety save for actual quarantining of the infected which I think is reasonable. I can definitely be reasoned with and reason with the unvaccinated all the time. I opened my home in contravention of the mandates to throw parties and have unvaccinated people a place to socialize and people found my point of view to be in line with theirs. Namely that vaccines work but for them they would prefer the risk of getting Covid to getting vaccinated. It may surprise you but many people can be talked to and turn out to have points of view vastly different than what you read on the news / see on social media.
lisper 5y ago
> As an example, are there two sides to the flat earth debate? If you say yes, then you're admitting that people who think the earth is flat have an equal standing with someone who knows that the earth is round. No, that's not true. One can acknowledge the existence of two sides while still maintaining that one of those two sides is entirely without merit. And in fact it is essential to do this because history shows that simply denying the existence of people with crazy points of view does not make them go away, and in fact often increases their power and influence, ironically, because the denial of their existence is actually evidence that their conspiracy theories are correct, that they are in fact the victims of prejudice. Flat earth is an interesting case in point. It is actually quite challenging to show that the earth is round in a way that does not require you to take anyone's word for anything.
- causi 5y ago
  It is actually quite challenging to show that the earth is round in a way that does not require you to take anyone's word for anything Perhaps if you live nowhere near an ocean and have no trees from which to hang a pendulum and can't afford a rangefinder for lining up two boards with holes in them.
  - lisper 5y ago
    You would be shocked at how many people there are who have never seen an ocean. You would be shocked at how many people there are who live within an hour's drive of an ocean who have never seen it. There are a lot of things that the typical HN reader takes for granted that are unimaginable luxuries for billions of people. I think you will also be surprised how hard it is to fill in the details of the experiments you are alluding to.
    - causi 5y ago
      The only one you need details to is the aligned-holes experiment. The others are just observation. You watch the bottom of a ship vanish before the top. You watch a swinging pendulum deviate from its beginning alignment more and more over time.
qiskit 5y ago
> One thing we need to step away from is this framing that there are "sides" to be on. Two sides/devil's advocate is the basis of philosophy, thought, learning, etc. To claim otherwise is to demand blind obedience to authority. > As an example, are there two sides to the flat earth debate? If you say yes, then you're admitting that people who think the earth is flat have an equal standing with someone who knows that the earth is round. Nobody is saying they are on equal footing. They have a right to their opinions. But the facts are what matters. 800 years ago, you'd be demanding everyone believe the earth is the center of the universe and that anyone who says otherwise is a heretic. You'd be saying we shouldn't legitimize indefensible things like heliocentrism. In my opinion, the side that is trying to stifle debate/opinions/etc is the wrong side. If someone says they are a flat earther, just show them a video of the earth. Do you realize that just a few decades ago, the idea of vaccination was viewed as indefensible and anti-science? Much of the scientific community viewed vaccine advocates as charlatans. After all, you'd have to be a lunatic to infect yourself with disease right? Almost everything you hold dear and absolutely true today were once "indefensible things". Including almost everything medical and scientific. Instead of trying to stifle debate, just bring facts with you and you'll be fine. Nothing is gained by zealotry.
- ericmay 5y ago
  What debate is being stifled? It's settled science. This is equivalent to going back and claiming that the earth is the center of the universe and then being upset when presented facts to the contrary. You have a right to an opinion. I have a right to dismiss that opinion off-hand like I would dismiss someone saying the earth is flat. Would you host a debate with someone at a university about whether or not the earth is flat? If I went to a Python conference and have a lecture on how strings in Python work which were completely contrary to how the language operates would you suggest that this is a matter of two sides, or that it's the basis of philosophy and learning? I don't think so.
  - _3u10 5y ago
    Science isn’t settled. That’s the whole idea of it. It also doesn’t work by consensus.
causi 5y ago
One thing we need to step away from is this framing that there are "sides" to be on. I think it's easy to confuse the two major covid conflicts as one. The first, more obvious and dumber conflict is the "covid is fake/nothing!" idiots. That's the conflict you're mainly addressing. The second, less one-sided conflict is whether our anti-covid measures have a good return-on-investment vs less-stringent measures. Covid deaths and government anti-covid efforts seem to be less closely coupled than is intuitive. For example, comparing Sweden, a country with very lax covid mandates, to countries with stronger mandates. They came off much worse than Finland, but better than the UK, comparable to Germany, and much better than the United States.
- ericmay 5y ago
  I wouldn't say that I'm confusing those as I'm directly responding to anti-vax. I agree completely that there is further study to be done on lockdowns and other efforts that were undertaken. For example, I'm monitoring this and we'll see, but perhaps China's COVID 0 lockdown strategy wasn't the right one compared, to, say, the US strategy. There's much to say about how historic human efforts to contain disease (we've always done lockdowns) may be or may not be effective with 8 billion globalized people. But even in this case I don't think we need "sides". We need analysis. Sides create tribalism and suboptimal outcomes I think in this case.
FerociousTimes 5y ago
False balance AKA bothsidesism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance
cato_the_elder 5y ago
So essentially you are arguing for Orwellian use of language. I was reluctant to even respond to your comment, lest I legitimize sophistry. There aren't really two sides to it, you're openly calling for playing language games. I can't even...

bequanna 5y ago

How you choose to see what separates the two "sides" is quite interesting. You'll in fact find that it is not Vax/Anti-Vax but: 1. a group that needs the comforting reassurance of authority for security vs. 2. a group who regard their autonomy as paramount and see no need to have arbitrary rules forced on them.

ericmay 5y ago
> a group that needs the comforting reassurance of authority for security And I assume you say this when someone is getting surgery, buys ibuprofen, or gets a splint as well? > a group who regard their autonomy as paramount and see no need to have arbitrary rules forced on them In the specific context of vaccines at least in America, nobody is forcing anyone to take a vaccine so the position wouldn't make any sense. Maybe you want to clarify what you mean here? As an aside, this idea of autonomy here is a psychological reflex to control something about a situation that you have absolutely no control over. But it's really just an illusion. They're not more autonomous than anyone else is. A vaccine wouldn't make a difference in your autonomy, and in a really bad pandemic ala The Stand (Stephen King novel) you'd be forced at gunpoint to take a vaccine and you'd happily comply. It's all just lifestyle and cosplay at this point.
- mpalczewski 5y ago
  > in America, nobody is forcing anyone to take a vaccine so the position wouldn't make any sense. Employers, en masse, are forcing it as a condition of employment. I do agree with some of these employer mandates, e.g. airlines, because they increase connectivity and thus spread. Not so much with some others, e.g. clerical stay at home workers.
- bequanna 5y ago
  > As an aside, this idea of autonomy here is a psychological reflex to control something about a situation that you have absolutely no control over. It may be difficult for some to accept, but we as individuals have essentially total control over our own health and COVID was no exception. Essentially all serious COVID cases had multiple LIFESTYLE-casued comorbidities. The most prevalent: obesity.
  - ericmay 5y ago
    No not really. Like you can't choose to get COVID-19 or not. The only control you really have is the agency to get a vaccine or not, which is why it's so emotionally charged - it's the one thing people believe they can "control". So psychologically you grasp that because you're terrified of something you can't control (the pandemic). Comorbidities increase your risk or "serious COVID", just like being unvaccinated does. But that still doesn't satisfy anything. Comorbidities increase your risk, getting vaccinated decreases your risk substantially, so if you want to blame this "well only fat people get it", well sure. Most people are fat, therefore they should get the vaccine since you can do that in a very short period of time whereas weight loss takes a while and you may have other comorbidities that you can't actually control or change at all.
    - nradov 5y ago
      We've known that high body fat was a serious risk factor for over two years now. While I agree that everyone eligible should protect themselves by getting vaccinated, people who want to lose weight have had plenty of time to do so.
AshleyGrant 5y ago
Actually, you'll find it is 1. a group that understands that if we all would act together in the interest of public health we could have greatly reduced the death toll of COVID-19 vs 2. a group of idiots who won't learn until they win themselves their own personal Herman Cain Award. Also, you apparently have no idea what "arbitrary" means.
- bequanna 5y ago
  > Also, you apparently have no idea what "arbitrary" means. Ah, right. They were just highly intelligent people "following the science". Not at all obsessed with stoking fear so they could seize control and consolidate power: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=arbitrary+six+foot+rule&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=arbitrary+six+foot+rule&ia=web
archagon 5y ago
And yet group 2 is the one that full-throatedly supported an authoritarian president. Funny, that!

_3u10 5y ago

Admitting there are two sides is hardly admitting both points of view are equal. This attitude on both sides of if you believe “reasonable thing” that means you believe “unreasonable and unreasonable to infer from what was said” thing creates a lot of animosity. In all honesty your attitude creates a lot of the problems you describe. It’s a free country if people don’t want to be vaxxed they can take their chances with the 99.9% survival rate for those under 50. Or the lower survival rate if they are over 50.

ericmay 5y ago
> It’s a free country if people don’t want to be vaxxed they can take their chances... Can you name a single person in America who has been held down against their will and administered a vaccine? Can you name multiple, coordinated instances of this happening? Can you point to a lawsuit? If not, you should stop repeating this. > In all honesty your attitude creates a lot of the problems you describe. I used to think that too but ultimately what you have is a group that cannot be reasoned with ala flat-earth proponents and no amount of information, debate, or reason would change their mind because the point isn't to understand, it's to create a lifestyle and culture. It's like a religion. The only thing that's left to be important here is to combat disinformation by bad actors and prevent further corrosion of civilization.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- _3u10 5y ago
  I’m antivax and anti mask mandates and think vaccines are a good idea. I’ve even gotten two vaccines. However I won’t be getting another the reason I won’t is to stand in solidarity with the unvaxxed, note this is a political stance and not a scientific one. If you want me to get vaxxed to save whoever then the mandates must be lifted in their entirety save for actual quarantining of the infected which I think is reasonable. I can definitely be reasoned with and reason with the unvaccinated all the time. I opened my home in contravention of the mandates to throw parties and have unvaccinated people a place to socialize and people found my point of view to be in line with theirs. Namely that vaccines work but for them they would prefer the risk of getting Covid to getting vaccinated. It may surprise you but many people can be talked to and turn out to have points of view vastly different than what you read on the news / see on social media.

lisper 5y ago

> As an example, are there two sides to the flat earth debate? If you say yes, then you're admitting that people who think the earth is flat have an equal standing with someone who knows that the earth is round. No, that's not true. One can acknowledge the existence of two sides while still maintaining that one of those two sides is entirely without merit. And in fact it is essential to do this because history shows that simply denying the existence of people with crazy points of view does not make them go away, and in fact often increases their power and influence, ironically, because the denial of their existence is actually evidence that their conspiracy theories are correct, that they are in fact the victims of prejudice. Flat earth is an interesting case in point. It is actually quite challenging to show that the earth is round in a way that does not require you to take anyone's word for anything.

causi 5y ago
It is actually quite challenging to show that the earth is round in a way that does not require you to take anyone's word for anything Perhaps if you live nowhere near an ocean and have no trees from which to hang a pendulum and can't afford a rangefinder for lining up two boards with holes in them.
- lisper 5y ago
  You would be shocked at how many people there are who have never seen an ocean. You would be shocked at how many people there are who live within an hour's drive of an ocean who have never seen it. There are a lot of things that the typical HN reader takes for granted that are unimaginable luxuries for billions of people. I think you will also be surprised how hard it is to fill in the details of the experiments you are alluding to.
  - causi 5y ago
    The only one you need details to is the aligned-holes experiment. The others are just observation. You watch the bottom of a ship vanish before the top. You watch a swinging pendulum deviate from its beginning alignment more and more over time.

qiskit 5y ago

> One thing we need to step away from is this framing that there are "sides" to be on. Two sides/devil's advocate is the basis of philosophy, thought, learning, etc. To claim otherwise is to demand blind obedience to authority. > As an example, are there two sides to the flat earth debate? If you say yes, then you're admitting that people who think the earth is flat have an equal standing with someone who knows that the earth is round. Nobody is saying they are on equal footing. They have a right to their opinions. But the facts are what matters. 800 years ago, you'd be demanding everyone believe the earth is the center of the universe and that anyone who says otherwise is a heretic. You'd be saying we shouldn't legitimize indefensible things like heliocentrism. In my opinion, the side that is trying to stifle debate/opinions/etc is the wrong side. If someone says they are a flat earther, just show them a video of the earth. Do you realize that just a few decades ago, the idea of vaccination was viewed as indefensible and anti-science? Much of the scientific community viewed vaccine advocates as charlatans. After all, you'd have to be a lunatic to infect yourself with disease right? Almost everything you hold dear and absolutely true today were once "indefensible things". Including almost everything medical and scientific. Instead of trying to stifle debate, just bring facts with you and you'll be fine. Nothing is gained by zealotry.

ericmay 5y ago
What debate is being stifled? It's settled science. This is equivalent to going back and claiming that the earth is the center of the universe and then being upset when presented facts to the contrary. You have a right to an opinion. I have a right to dismiss that opinion off-hand like I would dismiss someone saying the earth is flat. Would you host a debate with someone at a university about whether or not the earth is flat? If I went to a Python conference and have a lecture on how strings in Python work which were completely contrary to how the language operates would you suggest that this is a matter of two sides, or that it's the basis of philosophy and learning? I don't think so.
- _3u10 5y ago
  Science isn’t settled. That’s the whole idea of it. It also doesn’t work by consensus.

causi 5y ago

One thing we need to step away from is this framing that there are "sides" to be on. I think it's easy to confuse the two major covid conflicts as one. The first, more obvious and dumber conflict is the "covid is fake/nothing!" idiots. That's the conflict you're mainly addressing. The second, less one-sided conflict is whether our anti-covid measures have a good return-on-investment vs less-stringent measures. Covid deaths and government anti-covid efforts seem to be less closely coupled than is intuitive. For example, comparing Sweden, a country with very lax covid mandates, to countries with stronger mandates. They came off much worse than Finland, but better than the UK, comparable to Germany, and much better than the United States.

ericmay 5y ago
I wouldn't say that I'm confusing those as I'm directly responding to anti-vax. I agree completely that there is further study to be done on lockdowns and other efforts that were undertaken. For example, I'm monitoring this and we'll see, but perhaps China's COVID 0 lockdown strategy wasn't the right one compared, to, say, the US strategy. There's much to say about how historic human efforts to contain disease (we've always done lockdowns) may be or may not be effective with 8 billion globalized people. But even in this case I don't think we need "sides". We need analysis. Sides create tribalism and suboptimal outcomes I think in this case.

FerociousTimes 5y ago

False balance AKA bothsidesism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance

cato_the_elder 5y ago

So essentially you are arguing for Orwellian use of language. I was reluctant to even respond to your comment, lest I legitimize sophistry. There aren't really two sides to it, you're openly calling for playing language games. I can't even...