3 ms·
"Policy makers", aka the government, should be weighing actions depending on their outcomes as projected by expert consensus. That weighing should be to optimi
by Loquebantur 3y ago
"Policy makers", aka the government, should be weighing actions depending on their outcomes as projected by expert consensus.
That weighing should be to optimize according to a pre-defined value system, which of course is a matter of political deliberation.
To prefer personal interests (like not to have to wear a mask) over common interests (to protect against pandemic effects) incurs the negative consequences irrespective of whether one pretends to know better than the experts.
To let others play dumb and act against society is to be dumb yourself.
- spookthesunset 3y agowhat about deaf people who need to see faces? Or do we not care about those people. What about small children who need to see faces to properly develop? Or does that not matter. What about people who just think they are uncomfortable for whatever reason? Who are you to force others to wear a mask?
- Loquebantur 3y agoWhataboutism very much, but to entertain you: Yes, what about them? You conflate individual discomforts with numerous people actually dying or suffering lasting physical damages. Who are you to pretend your personal idiosyncrasies and weird preferences were more important than society as a whole?
- np_tedious 3y agoDespite the phrase used, this is not whataboutism. They are direct negative results of a practice with benefits in another domain. Weighing then against one another is a real and important thing to do Whataboutism is more like a redirection / distraction. "X is bad". "Yeah but what about Y that's even worse!" when they aren't even related