Sick Times: Coronavirus

Random chat: movies, books, games, technology, etcetera.

Moderators: Mexicola, 2020k, Fredd-E, Aesthetics

User avatar
Eagle Minded
Status: Offline
Posts: 486
Joined: 21 Mar 2006
Location: Scotland
Aesthetics wrote:Let's, especially in these times, respect each other their point of view and not call someone names because of that.

It seems like there isn't a middle course these days, polarization increases and we are less open toward one and another when covid is brought to the table. To me it is concerning not having an open minded discussion about something which inflicts us all. Let's not stop the debate here on twoism so please respect the forum rules.


Fair enough. However, sorry, there are some points of view which are not worthy of respect, and it is not possible to comment on moronic dangerous views without implying there is a dangerous moron behind them. Masks or if the virus exists is not a debate. People literally die because of "points of view" like this.

User avatar
Dayvan Cowboy
Status: Offline
Posts: 1366
Joined: 21 Apr 2013
niknak wrote:
Aesthetics wrote:Let's, especially in these times, respect each other their point of view and not call someone names because of that.

It seems like there isn't a middle course these days, polarization increases and we are less open toward one and another when covid is brought to the table. To me it is concerning not having an open minded discussion about something which inflicts us all. Let's not stop the debate here on twoism so please respect the forum rules.


Fair enough. However, sorry, there are some points of view which are not worthy of respect, and it is not possible to comment on moronic dangerous views without implying there is a dangerous moron behind them. Masks or if the virus exists is not a debate. People literally die because of "points of view" like this.


Well, I'm certainly, still open for a conversation. If you so, will clarify, what danger exactly and who are those morons?
Image

User avatar
Site Admin
Status: Offline
Posts: 5316
Joined: 25 Nov 2004
Location: Lowlands
niknak wrote:
Aesthetics wrote:Let's, especially in these times, respect each other their point of view and not call someone names because of that.

It seems like there isn't a middle course these days, polarization increases and we are less open toward one and another when covid is brought to the table. To me it is concerning not having an open minded discussion about something which inflicts us all. Let's not stop the debate here on twoism so please respect the forum rules.


Fair enough. However, sorry, there are some points of view which are not worthy of respect, and it is not possible to comment on moronic dangerous views without implying there is a dangerous moron behind them. Masks or if the virus exists is not a debate. People literally die because of "points of view" like this.

Foul language and pigeonholing certainly do not help to get closer in point of view.
I really wonder how you would argue in real life... do you, sitting in front of each other, also use expletives to fortify your point?

I like the gesture above of arvy to re-enter the conversation :]
Life is a Frequency

User avatar
Eagle Minded
Status: Offline
Posts: 486
Joined: 21 Mar 2006
Location: Scotland
Aesthetics wrote: Foul language and pigeonholing certainly do not help to get closer in point of view.
I really wonder how you would argue in real life... do you, sitting in front of each other, also use expletives to fortify your point?


Well, actually yes. Frequently. I call my closest friends all sorts of foul cursewords in the course of heated discussions, but that's quite cultural. :lol:

But i take your point. Online is not the same, so tone and context can be lost. I should have framed my opinions of arvy and his views better.

However, I am not going to have a conversation about the COVID pandemic when the starting point of a participant is that the virus does not exist, or that public mask wearing is "barbaric" or some sort of assault on freedom and something to be fought against, like some countries fought the Nazis (and this is not the first time he has spouted these fringe conspiracy views, by the way). He has already shown he can't keep any discussion separate from Nationalistic nonsense, as if that had anything to do with anything. If arvy really wants to, and more importantly is open to, truly learning about the COVID virus and issues of public health there are many better and more authoritative sources on the internet he could consult than discussing it here.

These ideas and the open sharing of them are abhorrent, dangerous and directly lead to people's deaths. I only need to point to the death toll in countries where these selfish and dangerous anti-science, anti-intellectual, and "personal freedom" ideas have taken root, compared to those where they have not. Look at the close to 600,000 dead in the US compared to the toll in places like Taiwan or South Korea (effectively zero over the same time period). How many of those deaths would have been avoided had the same public health policies been enacted there, or had idiotic fringe groups not fought against the even laughably minor ones that were enacted, such as - shock horror - wearing a small mask sometimes? There is no middle course here. No common ground. The notion that any extreme view is worthy of debate as long as it is done in a civil manner is pure bothsidesism. Polarisation is the natural position when one side is holding opinions that might literally kill the other side.

Where exactly is the line here? Should this forum be open to discussing any issue as long as it is done in balanced, polite fashion? Racist ideals? Misogynistic opinions? Anti-science views? Should we try to find common ground with all these people?

In my experience people with fringe views are so entrenched no amount of discussion will ever convince them otherwise. Such views should not be given a safe haven, should not be made acceptable through being unchallenged, and should not pass without comment. These people should be shunned, made to feel unwelcome, told in no uncertain terms how stupid their ideas are. Such public shaming is the most effective strategy because at least it reduces the chances they will infect others with their dangerous, ill-informed views.

User avatar
Posts Quantity
Status: Offline
Posts: 151
Joined: 4 Feb 2021
Location: Brazil
I think it's a bit too late for that, man. Nowadays i'd have to ditch my entire city if i wanted to shun dangerous views and the likes. The prions are already underway!
We'll all have to face reality in a few years anyway...

User avatar
Dayvan Cowboy
Status: Offline
Posts: 1366
Joined: 21 Apr 2013
niknak wrote:
Aesthetics wrote: Foul language and pigeonholing certainly do not help to get closer in point of view.
I really wonder how you would argue in real life... do you, sitting in front of each other, also use expletives to fortify your point?


Well, actually yes. Frequently. I call my closest friends all sorts of foul cursewords in the course of heated discussions, but that's quite cultural. :lol:

But i take your point. Online is not the same, so tone and context can be lost. I should have framed my opinions of arvy and his views better.

However, I am not going to have a conversation about the COVID pandemic when the starting point of a participant is that the virus does not exist, or that public mask wearing is "barbaric" or some sort of assault on freedom and something to be fought against, like some countries fought the Nazis (and this is not the first time he has spouted these fringe conspiracy views, by the way). He has already shown he can't keep any discussion separate from Nationalistic nonsense, as if that had anything to do with anything. If arvy really wants to, and more importantly is open to, truly learning about the COVID virus and issues of public health there are many better and more authoritative sources on the internet he could consult than discussing it here.

These ideas and the open sharing of them are abhorrent, dangerous and directly lead to people's deaths. I only need to point to the death toll in countries where these selfish and dangerous anti-science, anti-intellectual, and "personal freedom" ideas have taken root, compared to those where they have not. Look at the close to 600,000 dead in the US compared to the toll in places like Taiwan or South Korea (effectively zero over the same time period). How many of those deaths would have been avoided had the same public health policies been enacted there, or had idiotic fringe groups not fought against the even laughably minor ones that were enacted, such as - shock horror - wearing a small mask sometimes? There is no middle course here. No common ground. The notion that any extreme view is worthy of debate as long as it is done in a civil manner is pure bothsidesism. Polarisation is the natural position when one side is holding opinions that might literally kill the other side.

Where exactly is the line here? Should this forum be open to discussing any issue as long as it is done in balanced, polite fashion? Racist ideals? Misogynistic opinions? Anti-science views? Should we try to find common ground with all these people?

In my experience people with fringe views are so entrenched no amount of discussion will ever convince them otherwise. Such views should not be given a safe haven, should not be made acceptable through being unchallenged, and should not pass without comment. These people should be shunned, made to feel unwelcome, told in no uncertain terms how stupid their ideas are. Such public shaming is the most effective strategy because at least it reduces the chances they will infect others with their dangerous, ill-informed views.


It has anyhting and everything to do with Nationalistic theme, cause this is where your family name come from and more important, this is where it will continue. Your homeland, heritage and bloodline. But it may vary, as you mentioned before, it is also part of the culture.

Nationalism is peoples chance rise to the ocation and change social-political course, without burocratic maze build in front of them. Goverment is a assemblage of institutions regulated by law, the foundation of this regulative construct is a constitution. And the foundation of the constitution it self, is the people. As the people ellect the goverment, they still have the power to otherthrow it, if happens that, the goverment no longer represent the people.

In the corridors of thegoverment apparatus, the personal freedom is usually begins with signed document. In other words, the people freedom and ultimately lives are just a piece of paper. Combined it with scientific-technological order, (ultimately technocracy), this is there you should be cautios. Not the personal foul believes, which may spread.

I think the real danger would be, if the scientific proves, become more powerfull, than a common sense.

Should I stand up, on saying, that wearing masks is attack on a personal freedom, hidden with the wall of burocratic language, by the system which can digress from human nature, I would say even unhuman, unfortunetaly yes.
Image

User avatar
Posts Quantity
Status: Offline
Posts: 151
Joined: 4 Feb 2021
Location: Brazil
arvy wrote:Should I stand up, on saying, that wearing masks is attack on a personal freedom, hidden with the wall of burocratic language, by the system which can digress from human nature, I would say even unhuman, unfortunetaly yes.

Im a sansei, and before the big covid my family still made me and my sister wear masks when we had the flu and stuff. The teachers thought it was fancy. The bastards! This is inhuman!!! :evil: :evil: :evil:

arvy wrote:I think the real danger would be, if the scientific proves, become more powerfull, than a common sense.

Too bad! It already happened around the time when germ theory, plate tectonics, and atom theory became accepted! :cry:

User avatar
Eagle Minded
Status: Offline
Posts: 299
Joined: 9 Dec 2019
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Well, the moon might as well be made of cheese until I can see it with my own eyes and know for sure!

User avatar
Happy Cycler
Status: Offline
Posts: 3345
Joined: 25 Mar 2011
Location: BPR. OG
Inconvenience should push us together, yet it drives us apart.
mechanismj wrote:'Round these parts they would tend to be meatheads and jocks. Never could figure that out.

Okay...now...wait for fog machine.

User avatar
Eagle Minded
Status: Offline
Posts: 432
Joined: 2 Jun 2012
Location: Netherlands
Jonse wrote:Inconvenience should push us together, yet it drives us apart.


Well if you only follow the news yes, all you see is suffering. I actually think there are also a lot of people who are taking advantage of this whole event in a positive way.

Also, for a faster and bigger change to occur a period of chaos is needed first most of the time, to bridge the old and the new. I think it's a great and interesting time to be alive and am pretty optimistic for the future!
"I do actually believe that there are powers in music that are almost supernatural. I think you actually manipulate people with music, and that is definitely what we are trying to do."

User avatar
Dayvan Cowboy
Status: Offline
Posts: 1366
Joined: 21 Apr 2013
Gazebo4 wrote:
Jonse wrote:Inconvenience should push us together, yet it drives us apart.


Well if you only follow the news yes, all you see is suffering. I actually think there are also a lot of people who are taking advantage of this whole event in a positive way.

Also, for a faster and bigger change to occur a period of chaos is needed first most of the time, to bridge the old and the new. I think it's a great and interesting time to be alive and am pretty optimistic for the future!


Good post, I may agree, you have to be optimistic, there's no other way. As for the media news, it is almost like a temporary fever dream experience, while your central nerve system is completely out of control and your brain trying to proceed the same message again and again.
Image

User avatar
Sherbet Head
Status: Offline
Posts: 750
Joined: 14 Mar 2018
arvy wrote:I think the real danger would be, if the scientific proves, become more powerfull, than a common sense.

Science is just the systematic application of common sense.

Wearing masks to prevent the spread of a respiratory disease is common sense. The virus primarily spreads through droplets that come from your nose and mouth, so it's sensible to cover your nose and mouth.

I agree that the government forcing people to wear masks or get vaccinated is very much an attack on personal freedom. I don't think it's right for the government to threaten us to earn compliance, and any time new criminal regulations are introduced, inevitably poor and marginalized people suffer the most. So I'm against mask mandates and forced vaccination.

But -- and here's the big BUT -- I think that NOT wearing a mask or getting vaccinated is extremely selfish and irresponsible. I don't think it's something we should be forced into by the government, but I absolutely will tell my friends, family, and acquaintances how important vaccines and masks are, and I will definitely lose respect for anyone who can't sacrifice a little bit of comfort to help keep their community safe. I will keep anyone who disregards pandemic safety away from me and my family. I will tell them they're being ignorant, foolish, and putting people's lives at risk. That's me exercising MY freedom of association and speech.

User avatar
Posts Quantity
Status: Offline
Posts: 151
Joined: 4 Feb 2021
Location: Brazil
The old man who sold us produce has died from covid. We'll have to buy them from the market now.

User avatar
Dayvan Cowboy
Status: Offline
Posts: 1156
Joined: 21 May 2013
SamuraiDrifter wrote:
arvy wrote:I think the real danger would be, if the scientific proves, become more powerfull, than a common sense.

Science is just the systematic application of common sense.

Wearing masks to prevent the spread of a respiratory disease is common sense. The virus primarily spreads through droplets that come from your nose and mouth, so it's sensible to cover your nose and mouth.

I agree that the government forcing people to wear masks or get vaccinated is very much an attack on personal freedom. I don't think it's right for the government to threaten us to earn compliance, and any time new criminal regulations are introduced, inevitably poor and marginalized people suffer the most. So I'm against mask mandates and forced vaccination.

But -- and here's the big BUT -- I think that NOT wearing a mask or getting vaccinated is extremely selfish and irresponsible. I don't think it's something we should be forced into by the government, but I absolutely will tell my friends, family, and acquaintances how important vaccines and masks are, and I will definitely lose respect for anyone who can't sacrifice a little bit of comfort to help keep their community safe. I will keep anyone who disregards pandemic safety away from me and my family. I will tell them they're being ignorant, foolish, and putting people's lives at risk. That's me exercising MY freedom of association and speech.


Agree with all of this and while I do agree that government shouldn't legislate to enforce mask wearing and vaccinations, it's interesting that these days no-one protests against the government enforcing, for example, the wearing of seatbelts, which isn't even about protecting other people.

User avatar
Sherbet Head
Status: Offline
Posts: 750
Joined: 14 Mar 2018
To be fair I am also against legislation requiring seatbelts, etc., but I'm typically more invested in protesting the thousand other worse things the government is doing at any given time.

User avatar
Dayvan Cowboy
Status: Offline
Posts: 1366
Joined: 21 Apr 2013
jcnporter wrote:
SamuraiDrifter wrote:
arvy wrote:I think the real danger would be, if the scientific proves, become more powerfull, than a common sense.

Science is just the systematic application of common sense.

Wearing masks to prevent the spread of a respiratory disease is common sense. The virus primarily spreads through droplets that come from your nose and mouth, so it's sensible to cover your nose and mouth.

I agree that the government forcing people to wear masks or get vaccinated is very much an attack on personal freedom. I don't think it's right for the government to threaten us to earn compliance, and any time new criminal regulations are introduced, inevitably poor and marginalized people suffer the most. So I'm against mask mandates and forced vaccination.

But -- and here's the big BUT -- I think that NOT wearing a mask or getting vaccinated is extremely selfish and irresponsible. I don't think it's something we should be forced into by the government, but I absolutely will tell my friends, family, and acquaintances how important vaccines and masks are, and I will definitely lose respect for anyone who can't sacrifice a little bit of comfort to help keep their community safe. I will keep anyone who disregards pandemic safety away from me and my family. I will tell them they're being ignorant, foolish, and putting people's lives at risk. That's me exercising MY freedom of association and speech.


Agree with all of this and while I do agree that government shouldn't legislate to enforce mask wearing and vaccinations, it's interesting that these days no-one protests against the government enforcing, for example, the wearing of seatbelts, which isn't even about protecting other people.



As some here start to take on that "non-goverment intervention", I probably should clarify a little. I think, that to keep our social contract, the government regulation is necessary. Starting from helping regulate civili terms, or use goverment force to prosecute the violation of the law. The real concern for me is, that as is seems many willingly to give some of the social behavior, which can be agreed without the law, to the goverment.

Lets take an example, some people think that drugs are nothing bad or even a secret doorway of somekind -"the answer". Other people a completely opposite, thinking that this is some sort of degradation, not just for a person, but the whole society. But this ultimately not ending there, one countries pushing for that legislation to free the drug use, or they already just did that. Others countries have "class a drugs", for which you can get a life sentence, or even death penalty.

This is a perfect example, for keeping completely different opinion, but the goverment already taken a one step futher. You can think whatever you want about drugs, but ultimately the goverment voice on this quesiton will be pivotal. Do we need the same approach with mask policy. I honestly don't know, this is a still an open question. I think what is happening now, the social behavior norms are slowly taken roots, until this can be succesfylly implemented in to law. As the written law is usually originated from the common law.

I really don't want to go in to that "selfish and irresposinble" teritorry, as I really don't want to moralise anything. As you can relly easily turn the tables on this. For example, some business already not planning the get along with the covid passes, as they think, that segregate people with vaccinated or not, is immoral it self. You can still bring those scary numbers and show finger on how you should and not should be doing, or even feeling.

I would say only thing, don't agree just for the agreement sake. I know it's tempting, but it is important to question things. That at the end, if all these all changes were necessary, we can all sit down at the end and say, there were was a resistance. But we made it, we made people to believe in newer system, on an older beliefs.

I came with that funny conclusion, that all these arguments who is right or wrong, usually ends with those scary numbers and you really don't have anything to say about it, without going in to that " dangerous to society-fringe" teritorry. But is it something really different from someone questioning "the regime". And, as soon as this happens, there are armed guys knocking at your door, and suddenly there are no questions.
Image

User avatar
Dayvan Cowboy
Status: Offline
Posts: 1612
Joined: 14 Feb 2009
They say you're supposed to become more right wing with age but I've found myself in recent years being more convinced by anarchism. So I'm a lefty, true, but know that I'm one with no great love for the state. I have relatives that fled communist countries with horror stories but I look at the country I live in getting increasingly right wing and authoritarian and my hackles are raised too. I've thought about getting out and where I'd get out to.

Still though it feels like the choice to see the covid response as authoritarian overreach is personal framing people are bringing to the party. The virus doesn't care who you vote for or whether you believe the government has the right to compel you to act in a certain way. There is only the science of how it moves from person to person, how it mutates in a population, how our methods of fighting it work, what the consequences of not doing that makes possible.

The governments of the world can suggest or demand, lock us down or let us travel freely, downplay or overreact, it doesn't matter. They do not have a hand on the dial here, all that matters is what we do in response whether we do it out of petulance or defiance, compliance or social responsibility.

If you want to make the argument that governments shouldn't have the power to compel people to do things that's your right and it might be one that even springs naturally to mind when we live under a pandemic but it doesn't change the science of what's actually going on.

It doesn't change whether it's a good idea for you to wear a mask today or the next day. That's a choice you make whether it lines up with whatever government you're living under says or not. The state might want to arrest you or ignore you, doesn't make a difference. All that matters is the interactions you have with people you meet and the invisible virions they leave hanging in the air, on surfaces.

Standing up to state overreach is a fine and even brave thing to do. Just don't kid yourself you can stand up to a virus the same way

User avatar
Sherbet Head
Status: Offline
Posts: 750
Joined: 14 Mar 2018
^I pretty much entirely agree Negamuse.

I am an avowed anarchist. I don't think that the State should have the power to force people into compliance for anything. However, that doesn't change the fact that the measures they're recommending and enforcing happen to be scientifically sound, well-tested and proven ways to fight the spread of disease.

I choose to follow those guidelines not because the State says to, but because I care about my friends, family, and community. To me being an anarchist means making responsible decisions of my own volition, regardless of what any external authority says one way or the other.

User avatar
Posts Quantity
Status: Offline
Posts: 151
Joined: 4 Feb 2021
Location: Brazil
Im not sure where i land politically but having lost a few people i knew kind of makes me wish the state had done a bit more than just suggest we stay at home or whatever. I am aware that it could lead to unreasonable control and all that stuff, but imagining that those guys could've been here still makes me feel bad about taking the libertarian approach. I'm really unsure as to what we should do.

Also arvy sorry about being an ass to you earlier

User avatar
Eagle Minded
Status: Offline
Posts: 366
Joined: 29 Dec 2011
I am not so sure that vaccination is voluntary. I have nothing against it but people will have to do it if they want to go anywhere or have any sort of normal life again. That doesn't sound like voluntary to me.

PreviousNext

Return to The Playground

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests