4 ms·

No. That line of thinking destroyed free speech and destroyed whatever trust was left in science, medicine, governments and media. Was it worth it for a bunch

No. That line of thinking destroyed free speech and destroyed whatever trust was left in science, medicine, governments and media. Was it worth it for a bunch of maybes? "maybe China wouldn't have collaborated" (also, collaborate how? They didn't, they don't). There is a reason why these freedoms are absolute and non-negotiable: Even when people think they have a good reason to violate them, they're wrong.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
didibus 3y ago
> and destroyed whatever trust was left in science, medicine, governments and media If you can't distinguish between science, medicine, media and government policies, there's little we can do. People need to have basic understanding and the ability to differentiate and not mix up and conflate everything. If you're getting your scientific data from headlines, for-profit media outlets, opportunistic politicians, or podcasters and what not. This isn't the same as scientific dissidents. Do we need more political dissidents? Maybe that's the better topic here. > There is a reason why these freedoms are absolute and non-negotiable: Even when people think they have a good reason to violate them, they're wrong Those freedoms are actually not absolute, and are negotiable. I understand that you would want them to be absolute and are a freedom of speech absolutist. But don't claim that they are currently absolute. So in fact, we might ask ourselves, why aren't they currently implemented in an absolute framework in any country not even the US? Now, to be frank, I'll admit the possibility that maybe an absolute freedom of speech is better, but I also recognize certain dangers with it that might want to put a few little caveats to protect from misinformation, abuse, hatred, defamation, fear mongering, incitement of violence, etc. And I don't know which is truly best. My point though is that, when making policies, these concerns come into the picture, where they do not in a purely scientific framework. Because when making policies, you also need to ask yourself: 1. Could this cause a panic 2. Could this hurt our collective effort to fight off the virus 3. Could this cause unrest that would just add to the pile of problems we already face 4. Could it just distract us and lead us towards a dead end 5. Is there a solid evidence base or data to support this 6. How might international implications or considerations affect it And so on.
- MrPatan 3y ago
  > If you can't distinguish between science, medicine, media and government policies, there's little we can do. I surely can. And this thing you say has nothing to do with what I said, which is that they destroyed completely trust in all of those institutions. I don't know what you're arguing for, all of those things you list happened because of the desire to ignore the actual science and common sense in favor of preferred policies. 1 They caused a panic 2 They didn't fight off the virus very well 3 There was unrest, there is still unrest, and to all those problems, add that people don't trust science, medicine, governments or media 4 The policies enacted kind of were a dead end? A waste of 2 years for little benefit? 5 There was none. No studies, no data, no previous experience. 6 It came out anyway and thanks to point 3, all the goodwill is gone. I don't know, apply those standards to the course taken? What conclusion do you reach? That everything would be much worse otherwise? So that's my point. The "clever" policies are going to fail anyway and now nobody trusts the people who pushed them. It's not difficult: Don't lie. And whoever feels the need to censor people who disagree with them, well, I don't need to check if they're lying anymore.
  - didibus 3y ago
    > So that's my point. The "clever" policies are going to fail anyway and now nobody trusts the people who pushed them. I get your point, but without any argument, rationale, or data, behind it, I don't know what to make of it. Now it just seems like your opinion. What policies do you think failed? How do you quantify failure? What do you think would have been more successful? How can you know it would have been more successful? How do you know trust was lost because of the policies themselves, and not because of some of the opposition's agenda to push mistrust? You say: "don't lie", ok, where did you see lies? Who did you see lying? Who censored what?
    - MrPatan 3y ago
      > You say: "don't lie", ok, where did you see lies? Who did you see lying? Who censored what? The most obvious one, which you already admitted to in your original post, is the lab leak theory. They knew it was a very likely possibility, and lied. And dissenting opinions were labelled conspiracies, censored, deboosted, demonetized, the usual. The masks are the funniest one, because it's double dumb. When they thought they worked, they told us they didn't work, and after we knew they don't do much they still mandated masks. Or how about ivermectin being called a "horse dewormer" so that people didn't use it? If you think that's not lying or censoring because it can indeed be used to treat horses, I don't know what else to tell you. As for policy that failed, how about the lockdowns? You may argue that it's because they didn't go far enough, like in China or New Zealand (where they also failed, as excess deaths are through the roof anyway) but it would still make it a failed policy, failure of implementation is still failure. I'm not going to give you any sources, you can Google them on the spot as well as I can, and it seems like you need an out here.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

didibus 3y ago

> and destroyed whatever trust was left in science, medicine, governments and media If you can't distinguish between science, medicine, media and government policies, there's little we can do. People need to have basic understanding and the ability to differentiate and not mix up and conflate everything. If you're getting your scientific data from headlines, for-profit media outlets, opportunistic politicians, or podcasters and what not. This isn't the same as scientific dissidents. Do we need more political dissidents? Maybe that's the better topic here. > There is a reason why these freedoms are absolute and non-negotiable: Even when people think they have a good reason to violate them, they're wrong Those freedoms are actually not absolute, and are negotiable. I understand that you would want them to be absolute and are a freedom of speech absolutist. But don't claim that they are currently absolute. So in fact, we might ask ourselves, why aren't they currently implemented in an absolute framework in any country not even the US? Now, to be frank, I'll admit the possibility that maybe an absolute freedom of speech is better, but I also recognize certain dangers with it that might want to put a few little caveats to protect from misinformation, abuse, hatred, defamation, fear mongering, incitement of violence, etc. And I don't know which is truly best. My point though is that, when making policies, these concerns come into the picture, where they do not in a purely scientific framework. Because when making policies, you also need to ask yourself: 1. Could this cause a panic 2. Could this hurt our collective effort to fight off the virus 3. Could this cause unrest that would just add to the pile of problems we already face 4. Could it just distract us and lead us towards a dead end 5. Is there a solid evidence base or data to support this 6. How might international implications or considerations affect it And so on.

MrPatan 3y ago
> If you can't distinguish between science, medicine, media and government policies, there's little we can do. I surely can. And this thing you say has nothing to do with what I said, which is that they destroyed completely trust in all of those institutions. I don't know what you're arguing for, all of those things you list happened because of the desire to ignore the actual science and common sense in favor of preferred policies. 1 They caused a panic 2 They didn't fight off the virus very well 3 There was unrest, there is still unrest, and to all those problems, add that people don't trust science, medicine, governments or media 4 The policies enacted kind of were a dead end? A waste of 2 years for little benefit? 5 There was none. No studies, no data, no previous experience. 6 It came out anyway and thanks to point 3, all the goodwill is gone. I don't know, apply those standards to the course taken? What conclusion do you reach? That everything would be much worse otherwise? So that's my point. The "clever" policies are going to fail anyway and now nobody trusts the people who pushed them. It's not difficult: Don't lie. And whoever feels the need to censor people who disagree with them, well, I don't need to check if they're lying anymore.
- didibus 3y ago
  > So that's my point. The "clever" policies are going to fail anyway and now nobody trusts the people who pushed them. I get your point, but without any argument, rationale, or data, behind it, I don't know what to make of it. Now it just seems like your opinion. What policies do you think failed? How do you quantify failure? What do you think would have been more successful? How can you know it would have been more successful? How do you know trust was lost because of the policies themselves, and not because of some of the opposition's agenda to push mistrust? You say: "don't lie", ok, where did you see lies? Who did you see lying? Who censored what?
  - MrPatan 3y ago
    > You say: "don't lie", ok, where did you see lies? Who did you see lying? Who censored what? The most obvious one, which you already admitted to in your original post, is the lab leak theory. They knew it was a very likely possibility, and lied. And dissenting opinions were labelled conspiracies, censored, deboosted, demonetized, the usual. The masks are the funniest one, because it's double dumb. When they thought they worked, they told us they didn't work, and after we knew they don't do much they still mandated masks. Or how about ivermectin being called a "horse dewormer" so that people didn't use it? If you think that's not lying or censoring because it can indeed be used to treat horses, I don't know what else to tell you. As for policy that failed, how about the lockdowns? You may argue that it's because they didn't go far enough, like in China or New Zealand (where they also failed, as excess deaths are through the roof anyway) but it would still make it a failed policy, failure of implementation is still failure. I'm not going to give you any sources, you can Google them on the spot as well as I can, and it seems like you need an out here.