3 ms·

What really sucks is that I can't say anybody is wrong for being skeptical of a government, insofar as any large organization with power over individuals is dan

What really sucks is that I can't say anybody is wrong for being skeptical of a government, insofar as any large organization with power over individuals is dangerous. But the critical mistake they are making is that this doesn't mean a government action can't be good. Coordinating public health responses is probably one of the most good government actions possible, and it was vilified for political power. In my mind, it's analogous to a starving rural person saying they should have their hunting rifle melted down (condemning them to likely death) because lots of people have been unjustly murdered by assault rifles. Yes, guns are dangerous - they're powerful, and power is dangerous. So we recognize that there can be abuses of the power of guns (and governments), and we already have guardrails against some of the most egregious abuses - very few people argue citizens should have free access to heavy machine guns and missile launchers. What we argue about is where we should draw the line between usefulness vs risk of abuse of abuse. And in this analogy, there are some people so scared of guns that they're saying we shouldn't even have them available as a simple hunting tool. Bringing it back to government, people are so traumatized by government abuses, regardless of whether those abuses happened to them or even happened at all, that they're sort of arguing for the melting down of the government even when it is genuinely acting in their best interest. Except it's worse, because the anti-mask movement is not trying to actually abolish government at all, just weaponize their own fear for targeted harm.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
The issue is that there's a difference between coordinating and coercing. If you want to have a body that studies the best way to stymie a pandemic and make recommendations, and one of those recommendations is to wear a mask in certain circumstances, that's great. If that body has a reputation for being competent and reasonable then most people will follow their recommendations. The problem comes when those recommendations become regulations which get enforced without context or nuance, because then people chafe, and it becomes a political issue, and then people resist for the sake of resisting. Which makes everything worse, and that doesn't work. The thing that works is for people to actually believe in the rules and follow them out of solidarity and self-interest. But then you don't need to point a gun at anybody. And by the time you've sullied your own reputation to the point that you do have to, you've already lost.
- digging 3y ago
  > The problem comes when those recommendations become regulations which get enforced without context or nuance, because then people chafe, and it becomes a political issue, and then people resist for the sake of resisting. Which makes everything worse, and that doesn't work. The core issue was fearmongering and misinformation. We had people on TV, on the internet, reaching a wide audience, just making up lies about the pandemic or "just asking questions" in a way that is identical to making up and spreading lies. They did this for power, for ratings, for fun, whatever. It is also true that the implementation was not great and that Americans have a cultural tendency to petulance when "told" to do something, but I expect most of that could have been worked through if there wasn't such an active opposition.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

The issue is that there's a difference between coordinating and coercing. If you want to have a body that studies the best way to stymie a pandemic and make recommendations, and one of those recommendations is to wear a mask in certain circumstances, that's great. If that body has a reputation for being competent and reasonable then most people will follow their recommendations. The problem comes when those recommendations become regulations which get enforced without context or nuance, because then people chafe, and it becomes a political issue, and then people resist for the sake of resisting. Which makes everything worse, and that doesn't work. The thing that works is for people to actually believe in the rules and follow them out of solidarity and self-interest. But then you don't need to point a gun at anybody. And by the time you've sullied your own reputation to the point that you do have to, you've already lost.

digging 3y ago
> The problem comes when those recommendations become regulations which get enforced without context or nuance, because then people chafe, and it becomes a political issue, and then people resist for the sake of resisting. Which makes everything worse, and that doesn't work. The core issue was fearmongering and misinformation. We had people on TV, on the internet, reaching a wide audience, just making up lies about the pandemic or "just asking questions" in a way that is identical to making up and spreading lies. They did this for power, for ratings, for fun, whatever. It is also true that the implementation was not great and that Americans have a cultural tendency to petulance when "told" to do something, but I expect most of that could have been worked through if there wasn't such an active opposition.