1,486 karma · joined May 31, 2018
https://sourceforge.net/projects/syncterm/
https://lunduke.locals.com/post/264191/the-house-of-lunduke-...
There are a couple of problems with this line of reasoning. Cultural attitudes and mores and standards of decency shift constantly. Something you say today that seems within the bounds of good taste could be taken out of context or deemed racist/harassing later by different people. I trust you are a good citizen online and don't touch controversy, but you can't possibly know how language will evolve. I've seen simple and honest disagreements on Twitter turn into accusations of harassment in real time. The threat of misinformation is even more elusive and mercurial. I remember just a year ago when saying SARS-CoV-2 might have accidentally leaked from a lab was WIDELY considered dangerous information that should be scrubbed from the internet. Now it's at least acceptable to discuss in congress and on legacy media outlets. The "don't be a dick" model of speech regulation is full of traps and loopholes and problems that make it a bad guideline in many circumstances.
https://www.dailymoth.com/blog/the-washington-post-recognize...
Reporting on lockdown/mask/covid protests has been so egregious and lopsided as to put Poe's Law to the test. Peacefully protesting business closures and weird, shifting mitigation mandates are apparently the worst kind of racist (journos' favorite smear). [1][2] If by "simple steps" you mean people losing their jobs because they can't Zoom into work from their pajamas or the "simple step" of showing medical papers to get sushi or the "simple step" of not seeing a dying loved one because of a bonkers government covid policy -- we might have different ideas of simple.
I'm not conservative, so the persecution complex insult doesn't really work on me, but I agree. Partisans love to feel persecuted because it gives them a sense of purpose. Conservatives are full of hypocrisy, just like liberals. But leftists and liberals are certainly not against abuses of power. They simply want state power to come down on political enemies in the right-wing.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/08/08/trump-sent-...
[1] https://www.salon.com/2020/05/04/anti-lockdown-movement-powe...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/08/opinion/sunday/anti-lockd...
It's nearly impossible to analyze this because each person can point to their personally curated news feed and "prove" any sort of bias. If you listen to a lot of Chapo Trap House, you are getting one view. If you listen to a lot of Daily Wire you are getting another. The point here is how the big, mainstream, corporate news rooms reacted to the aftermath of the George Floyd killing. You can show the editorial decisions to not use the word "rioter" or "looter" in favor of "protester". You can see how many of them gave air time to radical left-wing positions such as "In Defense of Looting"[0]. My personal read of the situation lines up with Matt Taibbi's. Basically, you had to publicly show support for all BLM riots/protests or risk losing your reputation or job.
[0] https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2020/08/27/906642178...
edit: I see, we're in the U.S.
It's important to note that this isn't some worldwide, universal practice. Many countries, such as the UK, do not have vaccine mandates to enter their school system. There are also different rules in different U.S. states. It's also quite unfair to compare vaccines that have 1-3 doses to essentially vaccinate children for a lifetime against horrible and deadly diseases to a vaccine that needs endless boosters for a disease which presents very little risk for children or immune adults. My child isn't required to get an annual flu shot to go to school and I don't see how this is much different.
So I agree it is contextual and I think this is the proper context.
[1] https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/08/long-cov...
I think the "no nothing" solution has more to do with a desire to return to normal than it is a refusal to "get effective masks" and just wear them forever or until some agency says not to anymore. There is a valid point to be made that once you're vaccinated and most people around you are vaccinated it's time to start learning to live with the reality of covid being a mild disease you get once in a while. I suppose a masked up future is one of better public health for some, but for many it is psychologically exhausting to see your friends and coworkers as potentially dangerous vectors of contamination. This is especially dystopian when the government forces you to do this whether it's sensible or not.
"There are those who deny that the pandemic even exists, there are those who think that wearing a mask will literally suffocate you, there are those who think it's no worse than a regular flu virus, that it's a bioweapon, and everything in between."
And everything in between? How do I possibly know what idea is "approved" and what is off-limits? There was a time when saying you didn't need to disinfect surfaces every hour was fringe. Lab leak was WILDLY fringe and now it's at least a viable topic. These things evolve because we don't allow them to become dogma, but instead present evidence. Take mask efficacy. It's a hot debate right now but they link to a couple of papers and act as if that means it's settled science. What if I have a couple of peer-reviewed articles saying otherwise? How do I present that without being banned in this world?