4 ms·

Indeed, I’m lead to believe Trump forced us to lock down. It’s good that now under the current president we no longer have lockdowns or restrictions.

AustinDev 4y ago
[flagged]
kodyo 4y ago
Biden’s administration was ready to put people out of work if they didn’t get the shots. Red team vs blue team rhetoric is nauseating.
- laidoffamazon 4y ago
  Indeed, I’m sure this would mean the current unemployment rate is far higher than it was in January 2021 no?
  - kodyo 4y ago
    The courts blocked the insanity.
    - VagueMag 4y ago
      And they only did that because too large a proportion of workers showed the backbone necessary to lose their jobs and livelihoods in order to not take the shots. If the opposition had been something closer to 10% instead of 30% I think it's a good bet that the courts would have punted on the question. As someone who spent the fall and winter of 2021 checking my email each morning to see if my employer was initiating a mandate, I have a deep & abiding appreciation for all the brave resisters who paid a steep price to put these fascistic mandates on the ashheap of history where they always belonged.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
idgaf4u 4y ago
[flagged]
- mindslight 4y ago
  > This comment gets a lot up upvotes until it gets "flagged" and deleted This is because your comment is bog standard disinformation. It tickles the groupthink narrative about "lockdowns", even though "lockdowns" did not exist in the US beyond a few counties in California.
  - VagueMag 4y ago
    That's news to this Washington state resident, who couldn't eat indoors at restaurants or send my kids to in-person school through most of 2020.
    - mindslight 4y ago
      Business and school closures are not lockdowns. The abuse of terminology for political purposes is at the heart of this inability to communicate (and both political machines are guilty). If you could legally leave your home (ie you were not subject to a stay at home order with the force of law), you were not "locked down".
      - VagueMag 4y ago
        This is a bizarre definition completely at odds with the commonly understood meaning of "lockdowns" in the U.S.
        mindslight 4y ago
        "Commonly understood" by one political camp, which has hyperbolically defined terms to shore up the ranks. See my previous point. "Lockdown" evokes an idea of being uniformly unable to go out at all, which was most certainly not the case. Rather, the business and institutions that were closed were closed for specific reasons. For each venue we can debate those specific reasons - some were certainly ridiculously overbearing [0] - but grouping it all into "lockdowns" accomplishes nothing besides encouraging people talk past one another. [0] Non-controversial example: open air parks that were closed.

AustinDev 4y ago

[flagged]

kodyo 4y ago

Biden’s administration was ready to put people out of work if they didn’t get the shots. Red team vs blue team rhetoric is nauseating.

laidoffamazon 4y ago
Indeed, I’m sure this would mean the current unemployment rate is far higher than it was in January 2021 no?
- kodyo 4y ago
  The courts blocked the insanity.
  - VagueMag 4y ago
    And they only did that because too large a proportion of workers showed the backbone necessary to lose their jobs and livelihoods in order to not take the shots. If the opposition had been something closer to 10% instead of 30% I think it's a good bet that the courts would have punted on the question. As someone who spent the fall and winter of 2021 checking my email each morning to see if my employer was initiating a mandate, I have a deep & abiding appreciation for all the brave resisters who paid a steep price to put these fascistic mandates on the ashheap of history where they always belonged.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

idgaf4u 4y ago

[flagged]

mindslight 4y ago
> This comment gets a lot up upvotes until it gets "flagged" and deleted This is because your comment is bog standard disinformation. It tickles the groupthink narrative about "lockdowns", even though "lockdowns" did not exist in the US beyond a few counties in California.
- VagueMag 4y ago
  That's news to this Washington state resident, who couldn't eat indoors at restaurants or send my kids to in-person school through most of 2020.
  - mindslight 4y ago
    Business and school closures are not lockdowns. The abuse of terminology for political purposes is at the heart of this inability to communicate (and both political machines are guilty). If you could legally leave your home (ie you were not subject to a stay at home order with the force of law), you were not "locked down".
    - VagueMag 4y ago
      This is a bizarre definition completely at odds with the commonly understood meaning of "lockdowns" in the U.S.
      - mindslight 4y ago
        "Commonly understood" by one political camp, which has hyperbolically defined terms to shore up the ranks. See my previous point. "Lockdown" evokes an idea of being uniformly unable to go out at all, which was most certainly not the case. Rather, the business and institutions that were closed were closed for specific reasons. For each venue we can debate those specific reasons - some were certainly ridiculously overbearing [0] - but grouping it all into "lockdowns" accomplishes nothing besides encouraging people talk past one another. [0] Non-controversial example: open air parks that were closed.