4 ms·

You could interpret this kind of statement as a hardline “never trust anything the government says” stance. You could also interpret it as espousing healthy ske

by dpark 5mo ago

You could interpret this kind of statement as a hardline “never trust anything the government says” stance. You could also interpret it as espousing healthy skepticism. You can’t tell which it is from a one line comment, so it’s not at all clear the person who said this is buying into any particular political narrative.

mindslight 5mo ago
I'd call it unhealthy skepticism. Someone who is operating at the level where they might have blindly trusted what the WHO says does not need a push that merely makes them more skeptical of the WHO while remaining hopelessly non-skeptical of all the other manipulators sending narratives their way.
- dpark 5mo ago
  > while remaining hopelessly non-skeptical of all the other manipulators You insist on assuming based on a one-line comment that the person is a gullible sheeple. And maybe they are, but I fail to see how you have established this.
  - mindslight 5mo ago
    It's the exact same one line comment made by lots of other people advocating a particularly malevolent political movement, so yes this is the reasonable inference (your inflammatory description notwithstanding). If OP intended some nuanced point, they didn't do the work to expound upon it. And while I certainly have sympathy for how intellectual libertarian discussion points get colonized by populist authoritarian movements, the dynamic is what it is.
    - rob_c 5mo ago
      > some nuanced point it's not nuanced to point out a very large statement which at the time was very VERY anti-trumpian and pro ultra-left, lest not forget "hug a tourist", "lets change the popular naming conventions to technical" and, "oh crap too late now human to human is higher than anything we've seen before" which is basically all memory holed now
      - mindslight 5mo ago
        [flagged]
        rob_c 5mo ago
        > the anti-mask wackos Well thank you for your service to stupidity. The only measure of worth was actual social distancing which was quickly admonished by the pointless mask arguments as nauseum. No, there is no science good to bad to back up things which are broken by common sense, virii spread in Japan at the same rate as the west after accounting for population densities. (faster without the correction as you'd expect) So let's just move on. Please, oh please, do not start with some form of "the masses seek to be ruled". The only, only end of that game is to justify totalitarianism which is often what those arguing the point are stupid enough to believe they are arguing against. If you're going to make an argument for they need lead then yes. And we need both control in the dining water. But we'll never see my version of an idealised advancing civilisation because of "mah feels", "personal experiences" and such drivel. You may not be used to hearing this but if I was to be grading you you'd get a pass for a coherent sentence but a fail for correctness and coherency, in short. You are wrong.
        mindslight 5mo ago
        > The only measure of worth was actual social distancing It's been conclusively shown that N95+ masks block the virus particles. IIRC the coherent anti-masking arguments were of the form that they were not necessary for general population, not that they did not work. If you want to point me to some research that shows masks are ineffective in eg healthcare settings, go right ahead. In my experience, anti-masking behavior was also strongly associated with people who wouldn't social distance, because we're really talking about proxies for "this is real and I am trying to take prudent measures". > do not start with some form of "the masses seek to be ruled" So then how do you explain the current embrace of open fascism? The many disingenuous appeals to lofty ideals of individual freedom, that when followed culiminate in support for autocratic authoritarianism? I sure fucking wish people would choose the individualist enlightened freedom path when presented, but they always seems to go sideways. > The only, only end of that game is to justify totalitarianism NGOs and government public health authorities issuing non-binding advice is not totalitarian, and calling it so in the context of the current political climate in the US is preposterous. Only about half of US states had any form of lockdown, yet from the amount it was talked about we can see where the bulk of the histrionics lay.
- rob_c 5mo ago
  It's healthy to remain sceptical of all information, pointing out a very widely blindly trusted organisation has serious problems which means this trust and faith placed in it is blind is NOT "an enemy of my enemy" situation. That leads to sectarianism. The WHO can both simultaneously be responsible for many good things and have very bad leadership doing more harm than good in other areas. But pointing out that dichotomy of the truth is beyond the conversational chattering class I fear.

by dpark 5mo ago

mindslight 5mo ago

I'd call it unhealthy skepticism. Someone who is operating at the level where they might have blindly trusted what the WHO says does not need a push that merely makes them more skeptical of the WHO while remaining hopelessly non-skeptical of all the other manipulators sending narratives their way.

dpark 5mo ago
> while remaining hopelessly non-skeptical of all the other manipulators You insist on assuming based on a one-line comment that the person is a gullible sheeple. And maybe they are, but I fail to see how you have established this.
- mindslight 5mo ago
  It's the exact same one line comment made by lots of other people advocating a particularly malevolent political movement, so yes this is the reasonable inference (your inflammatory description notwithstanding). If OP intended some nuanced point, they didn't do the work to expound upon it. And while I certainly have sympathy for how intellectual libertarian discussion points get colonized by populist authoritarian movements, the dynamic is what it is.
  - rob_c 5mo ago
    > some nuanced point it's not nuanced to point out a very large statement which at the time was very VERY anti-trumpian and pro ultra-left, lest not forget "hug a tourist", "lets change the popular naming conventions to technical" and, "oh crap too late now human to human is higher than anything we've seen before" which is basically all memory holed now
    - mindslight 5mo ago
      [flagged]
      - rob_c 5mo ago
        > the anti-mask wackos Well thank you for your service to stupidity. The only measure of worth was actual social distancing which was quickly admonished by the pointless mask arguments as nauseum. No, there is no science good to bad to back up things which are broken by common sense, virii spread in Japan at the same rate as the west after accounting for population densities. (faster without the correction as you'd expect) So let's just move on. Please, oh please, do not start with some form of "the masses seek to be ruled". The only, only end of that game is to justify totalitarianism which is often what those arguing the point are stupid enough to believe they are arguing against. If you're going to make an argument for they need lead then yes. And we need both control in the dining water. But we'll never see my version of an idealised advancing civilisation because of "mah feels", "personal experiences" and such drivel. You may not be used to hearing this but if I was to be grading you you'd get a pass for a coherent sentence but a fail for correctness and coherency, in short. You are wrong.
        mindslight 5mo ago
        > The only measure of worth was actual social distancing It's been conclusively shown that N95+ masks block the virus particles. IIRC the coherent anti-masking arguments were of the form that they were not necessary for general population, not that they did not work. If you want to point me to some research that shows masks are ineffective in eg healthcare settings, go right ahead. In my experience, anti-masking behavior was also strongly associated with people who wouldn't social distance, because we're really talking about proxies for "this is real and I am trying to take prudent measures". > do not start with some form of "the masses seek to be ruled" So then how do you explain the current embrace of open fascism? The many disingenuous appeals to lofty ideals of individual freedom, that when followed culiminate in support for autocratic authoritarianism? I sure fucking wish people would choose the individualist enlightened freedom path when presented, but they always seems to go sideways. > The only, only end of that game is to justify totalitarianism NGOs and government public health authorities issuing non-binding advice is not totalitarian, and calling it so in the context of the current political climate in the US is preposterous. Only about half of US states had any form of lockdown, yet from the amount it was talked about we can see where the bulk of the histrionics lay.
rob_c 5mo ago
It's healthy to remain sceptical of all information, pointing out a very widely blindly trusted organisation has serious problems which means this trust and faith placed in it is blind is NOT "an enemy of my enemy" situation. That leads to sectarianism. The WHO can both simultaneously be responsible for many good things and have very bad leadership doing more harm than good in other areas. But pointing out that dichotomy of the truth is beyond the conversational chattering class I fear.