6 ms·

The worst part of the pandemic beside policies that would swing back and forth (which is kind of understandable if you're learning as you go) was the inability

by mc32 4y ago

The worst part of the pandemic beside policies that would swing back and forth (which is kind of understandable if you're learning as you go) was the inability to have discussions about the pros and cons of shutdowns and other pandemic related policies. Social media and mainstream media saw it fit to censor dissenting voices --not those of quacks, we can mostly all agree on minimizing the voices of quacks but shutting down medical professionals and medical academics and so on is very concerning. The only people they allowed to be wrong about the pandemic were govt officials. They could get it wrong and right it as many times as necessary.

14 4y ago
You wouldn’t believe how bad it was on reddit. Places like r/Canada had to ban any dissenting voices because they were unable to have a discussion that didn’t go with their beliefs. If I had to wager my left nut I would wager that sub is controlled by the government to try and sway a narrative. If you have a strong argument you have no issues about debate.
- stevenwoo 4y ago
  this thread is a year old but two of the mods of r/canada are white supremacists https://old.reddit.com/r/onguardforthee/comments/m4zywr/rcanada_mods/gqxs16f/ https://old.reddit.com/r/onguardforthee/comments/m4zywr/rcan...
s3r3nity 4y ago
> Social media and mainstream media saw it fit to censor dissenting voices --not those of quacks, we can mostly all agree on minimizing the voices of quacks but shutting down medical professionals and medical academics and so on is very concerning. No I don't agree with censoring _any_ voices - precisely because of this issue. The decentralized market of ideas will address the "quacks" in the room, as I don't trust any central authority to do that for me. If a centralized authority wields power in a way that creates negative consequences, you don't give them _more_ power, or just hope that they'll do the right thing.
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  "the dictum that truth always triumphs over persecution, is one of those pleasant falsehoods which men repeat after one another till they pass into commonplaces, but which all experience refutes. History teems with instances of truth put down by persecution. If not suppressed forever, it may be thrown back for centuries." – John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (https://www.utilitarianism.com/ol/two.html https://www.utilitarianism.com/ol/two.html)
  - throwawaylinux 4y ago
    - dredmorbius 4y ago
      Disinformation and misinformation are noted tactics used by those who would seize control of levers of power and use them to their own ends as well. Control over information is a fundamental tool of power and warfare (cf: Arendt, Mill, von Clausewitz, Machiavelli, Sun Tzu, and many others). Ascribing it to any one faction, or presuming all factions seeking power are uniform and unified, is another fallacy (broad brush) . Those who seek to base power on democratic principles, for the maximum number and good, have at least a more altruistic objective to their credit.
      - throwawaylinux 4y ago
        Fortunately I didn't ascribe or presume any such thing. > Those who seek to base power on democratic principles, for the maximum number and good, have at least a more altruistic objective to their credit. Those who seek power within ostensibly democratic systems aren't basing power on those systems though, they're trying to gain power by the means available to them. And those who claim they are out to do good with power are deserving of no particular credit for it.
        dredmorbius 4y ago
        You did: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32103825 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32103825 (https://archive.ph/qJQFO https://archive.ph/qJQFO) We can look to what the past accomplishments (consistent with present actions), and stated goals are. Many see significant differences. Blair said it well: “The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?” https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/8327593-the-party-seeks-power-entirely-for-its-own-sake-we https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/8327593-the-party-seeks-pow... Where actions are power-seeking and rationales, justifications, and/or inspirations are grossly inconsistent, Blair's description seems to fit.
Consultant32452 4y ago
At least with the pandemic you can pretend that lives were at stake and dissenters were a public health risk. I disagree with that argument, but I can see it. Those same social networks are de-ranking and blocking dissenters against the escalation of war against Russia in Ukraine. This is categorically different and a major escalation in censorship that most people are not realizing. It's very scary.
- kcb 4y ago
  > Those same social networks are de-ranking and blocking dissenters against the escalation of war against Russia in Ukraine. Yea Russia shouldn't have escalated the war.
  - Consultant32452 4y ago
- markdown 4y ago
  Of course Russian bots should be blocked. Why would anyone else support LESS defence by Ukraine? What a bizarre idea.
  - Consultant32452 4y ago
    The US got Ukraine into this war in the first place by intentionally provoking Russia into it. Obama admitted to committing the 2014 coup in Ukraine and then refused to go so far as to provide weapons because he said Russia would likely escalate. Trump gave them weapons and then Russia responded to that escalation by invading. Even if you're okay with all of that, the US is not trying to help Ukraine win, it's trying to make the war as long and as expensive as possible for Russia. The US is sacrificing Ukrainian lives to harm Russia.
    - astrange 4y ago
      Ukraine has had two elections since then, hasn't kept the people elected in 2014 (Zelensky was elected as the the pro-Russia candidate), certainly didn't like the corrupt Yanukovych who you're claiming the US couped, and the US has been giving Ukraine distance weapons like HIMARS so… no? Though, Poroshenko (the guy who was elected in 2014 post-revolution and is some kind of chocolate factory oligarch) fled the country over a prosecution but has since come back to fight in the national guard, so it seems like even he's in favor of it.
jimbob45 4y ago
There was no discussion to be had. The fear was that COVID would mutate into something deadly like the Spanish Flu epidemic and we’d instantly lose an entire generation of kids. That didn’t end up happening but we couldn’t have known that until after. The way it’s framed now, you’d think officials were weighing a 1% fatality rate against lockdowns. That’s silly. Before the vaccines were prepared and distributed, mutation was the much higher threat.
NaturalPhallacy 4y ago
The pandemic really was a case study in why free speech is so important and how little of it we have on the Internet. Aaron Swartz warned bout this a lot. It was like his main thing.
guelo 4y ago
Sorry but to me this complaint is incomprehensible. Every view imaginable about the pandemic, right and wrong, got tons of discussion and garnered millions of adherents.

by mc32 4y ago

14 4y ago

You wouldn’t believe how bad it was on reddit. Places like r/Canada had to ban any dissenting voices because they were unable to have a discussion that didn’t go with their beliefs. If I had to wager my left nut I would wager that sub is controlled by the government to try and sway a narrative. If you have a strong argument you have no issues about debate.

stevenwoo 4y ago
this thread is a year old but two of the mods of r/canada are white supremacists https://old.reddit.com/r/onguardforthee/comments/m4zywr/rcanada_mods/gqxs16f/ https://old.reddit.com/r/onguardforthee/comments/m4zywr/rcan...

s3r3nity 4y ago

> Social media and mainstream media saw it fit to censor dissenting voices --not those of quacks, we can mostly all agree on minimizing the voices of quacks but shutting down medical professionals and medical academics and so on is very concerning. No I don't agree with censoring _any_ voices - precisely because of this issue. The decentralized market of ideas will address the "quacks" in the room, as I don't trust any central authority to do that for me. If a centralized authority wields power in a way that creates negative consequences, you don't give them _more_ power, or just hope that they'll do the right thing.

dredmorbius 4y ago
"the dictum that truth always triumphs over persecution, is one of those pleasant falsehoods which men repeat after one another till they pass into commonplaces, but which all experience refutes. History teems with instances of truth put down by persecution. If not suppressed forever, it may be thrown back for centuries." – John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (https://www.utilitarianism.com/ol/two.html https://www.utilitarianism.com/ol/two.html)
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  - dredmorbius 4y ago
    Disinformation and misinformation are noted tactics used by those who would seize control of levers of power and use them to their own ends as well. Control over information is a fundamental tool of power and warfare (cf: Arendt, Mill, von Clausewitz, Machiavelli, Sun Tzu, and many others). Ascribing it to any one faction, or presuming all factions seeking power are uniform and unified, is another fallacy (broad brush) . Those who seek to base power on democratic principles, for the maximum number and good, have at least a more altruistic objective to their credit.
    - throwawaylinux 4y ago
      Fortunately I didn't ascribe or presume any such thing. > Those who seek to base power on democratic principles, for the maximum number and good, have at least a more altruistic objective to their credit. Those who seek power within ostensibly democratic systems aren't basing power on those systems though, they're trying to gain power by the means available to them. And those who claim they are out to do good with power are deserving of no particular credit for it.
      - dredmorbius 4y ago
        You did: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32103825 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32103825 (https://archive.ph/qJQFO https://archive.ph/qJQFO) We can look to what the past accomplishments (consistent with present actions), and stated goals are. Many see significant differences. Blair said it well: “The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?” https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/8327593-the-party-seeks-power-entirely-for-its-own-sake-we https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/8327593-the-party-seeks-pow... Where actions are power-seeking and rationales, justifications, and/or inspirations are grossly inconsistent, Blair's description seems to fit.

Consultant32452 4y ago

At least with the pandemic you can pretend that lives were at stake and dissenters were a public health risk. I disagree with that argument, but I can see it. Those same social networks are de-ranking and blocking dissenters against the escalation of war against Russia in Ukraine. This is categorically different and a major escalation in censorship that most people are not realizing. It's very scary.

kcb 4y ago
> Those same social networks are de-ranking and blocking dissenters against the escalation of war against Russia in Ukraine. Yea Russia shouldn't have escalated the war.
- Consultant32452 4y ago
markdown 4y ago
Of course Russian bots should be blocked. Why would anyone else support LESS defence by Ukraine? What a bizarre idea.
- Consultant32452 4y ago
  The US got Ukraine into this war in the first place by intentionally provoking Russia into it. Obama admitted to committing the 2014 coup in Ukraine and then refused to go so far as to provide weapons because he said Russia would likely escalate. Trump gave them weapons and then Russia responded to that escalation by invading. Even if you're okay with all of that, the US is not trying to help Ukraine win, it's trying to make the war as long and as expensive as possible for Russia. The US is sacrificing Ukrainian lives to harm Russia.
  - astrange 4y ago
    Ukraine has had two elections since then, hasn't kept the people elected in 2014 (Zelensky was elected as the the pro-Russia candidate), certainly didn't like the corrupt Yanukovych who you're claiming the US couped, and the US has been giving Ukraine distance weapons like HIMARS so… no? Though, Poroshenko (the guy who was elected in 2014 post-revolution and is some kind of chocolate factory oligarch) fled the country over a prosecution but has since come back to fight in the national guard, so it seems like even he's in favor of it.

jimbob45 4y ago

There was no discussion to be had. The fear was that COVID would mutate into something deadly like the Spanish Flu epidemic and we’d instantly lose an entire generation of kids. That didn’t end up happening but we couldn’t have known that until after. The way it’s framed now, you’d think officials were weighing a 1% fatality rate against lockdowns. That’s silly. Before the vaccines were prepared and distributed, mutation was the much higher threat.

NaturalPhallacy 4y ago

The pandemic really was a case study in why free speech is so important and how little of it we have on the Internet. Aaron Swartz warned bout this a lot. It was like his main thing.

guelo 4y ago

Sorry but to me this complaint is incomprehensible. Every view imaginable about the pandemic, right and wrong, got tons of discussion and garnered millions of adherents.