|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Northern Ireland26301 Posts
On May 28 2020 18:11 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2020 11:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 28 2020 08:30 ChristianS wrote:On May 28 2020 08:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 28 2020 08:20 ChristianS wrote:On May 28 2020 07:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 28 2020 03:10 ChristianS wrote:On May 28 2020 00:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 27 2020 23:16 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:
How is he going to shutdown the social networks? Is he gonna build a firewall for the MAGA crowd?
edit: the firewall just got 10 feet higher Using his authority from the Communication Act would probably be the most straightforward option. You might think it could never happen here in the United States. But think again.
+ Show Spoiler +
To understand how, start with the Communications Act of 1934 — which, though it has been amended and updated several times, is essentially an 86-year-old law that is still the framework for U.S. communications policy today.
Section 706 of this law allows the president to shut down or take control of “any facility or station for wire communication” if he proclaims “that there exists a state or threat of war involving the United States.” With respect to wireless communications, suspending service is permitted not only in a “war or a threat of war,” but merely if there is a presidential proclamation of a “state of public peril” or simply a “disaster or other national emergency.” There is no requirement in the law for the president to provide any advance notice to Congress.
The language here is undeniably broad. The power it describes is virtually unchecked. That’s not surprising, since some of the last changes made to this section of the law were introduced in 1942, shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor, when Congress was laser-focused on protecting our safety and security.
These are, of course, different days. After all, back in 1942, “wire communication” meant telephone calls or telegrams, and “wireless” meant radio. But if you think this language, and what it authorizes, have faded into the dustbin of history, you’re wrong. Today those terms have generally been accepted as including access to the Internet. And as recently as 2010, a Senate committee report on protecting cyberspace concluded that section 706 “gives the President the authority to take over wire communications in the United States and, if the President so chooses, shut a network down.” That means if a sitting president wants to shut down the Internet or selectively cut off a social media outlet or other service, all it takes is an opinion from his attorney general that Section 706 gives him the authority to do so.
But presumably they'd come to terms before he resorted to that. That seems like an easy thing for Twitter to go to court for rather than settle. They’d probably win (at least to my rudimentary understanding of 1st amendment, IANAL obviously), and in the meantime it sounds like great PR. He's just got to shut them down for a few months before the election and liberals gave him a reason with Russiagate. We'd all know he's full of shit, but that won't matter even if he eventually loses in a court and decides to listen to them. Personally after 4 years of "this will get him" and "the institutions/adults in the room will stop him" and Democrat's impeachment efforts flopped while giving him his space force, money for caging kids, and the rest, it seems to be more wishful thinking that it would end differently than Twitter groveling. I think the most likely outcome is that any government action against Twitter would be halted while the case was pending (again, IANAL but I have trouble seeing how the court wouldn’t make him wait for the court case). I wouldn’t especially care if Twitter specifically got shut down anyway, aside from the free speech implications, and I certainly don’t think it would help Trump in November. Don’t get me wrong, I fully expect Twitter to back down on their “get the facts!” tag on false posts, there’s nothing in it for them. Anybody who was calling for them to shut down Trump will think it’s a spineless half-measure, and conservatives will still scream bloody murder in between Candy Crowley flashbacks. But I think “what if Trump uses this 86-year-old law to shut down Twitter” is a silly fear. He probably won’t, and I don’t think it would go well for him if he did. That's what I mean by groveling. In that case, sure, but I don’t think Trump threatening legal action has much to do with it. It was a pretty weak idea from the start. Nor do I, I don't think Jack gives a damn about what Trump tweets personally. My point was that Twitter will predictably back down to Trump. I'd also caution against falling back into the comfortable and repeatedly disproved notion that the system has checks that would stop him. On May 28 2020 03:06 Nyxisto wrote:On May 28 2020 00:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 27 2020 23:16 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:
How is he going to shutdown the social networks? Is he gonna build a firewall for the MAGA crowd?
edit: the firewall just got 10 feet higher Using his authority from the Communication Act would probably be the most straightforward option. You might think it could never happen here in the United States. But think again.
+ Show Spoiler +
To understand how, start with the Communications Act of 1934 — which, though it has been amended and updated several times, is essentially an 86-year-old law that is still the framework for U.S. communications policy today.
Section 706 of this law allows the president to shut down or take control of “any facility or station for wire communication” if he proclaims “that there exists a state or threat of war involving the United States.” With respect to wireless communications, suspending service is permitted not only in a “war or a threat of war,” but merely if there is a presidential proclamation of a “state of public peril” or simply a “disaster or other national emergency.” There is no requirement in the law for the president to provide any advance notice to Congress.
The language here is undeniably broad. The power it describes is virtually unchecked. That’s not surprising, since some of the last changes made to this section of the law were introduced in 1942, shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor, when Congress was laser-focused on protecting our safety and security.
These are, of course, different days. After all, back in 1942, “wire communication” meant telephone calls or telegrams, and “wireless” meant radio. But if you think this language, and what it authorizes, have faded into the dustbin of history, you’re wrong. Today those terms have generally been accepted as including access to the Internet. And as recently as 2010, a Senate committee report on protecting cyberspace concluded that section 706 “gives the President the authority to take over wire communications in the United States and, if the President so chooses, shut a network down.” That means if a sitting president wants to shut down the Internet or selectively cut off a social media outlet or other service, all it takes is an opinion from his attorney general that Section 706 gives him the authority to do so.
But presumably they'd come to terms before he resorted to that. The next time reasonable people are in charge of the legislative it'd probably be wise to remove some presidential powers and return them to congress because that's fucking ridiculous. It's like some kind of poor man's king I highly recommend countries with governments dependent on "norms" take this as a learning moment and put the norms on the books as laws (for whatever they're worth). Twitter isn't just doing this for America, maybe there was some fear initially after it became apparent how big the disinformation campaign from Russia had been during the 2016 election but nothing appears to have come from that, the few hearings congress held were large a disaster that only humiliated Congress and between Republicans defending them and their own ability to lobby against any regulation I think companies like Twitter are more scared of the EU going after them with regulations then the US.
Aye, not like Americans to be myopic and complain about the first amendment ad nauseam as it pertains to a global platform.
I don’t even see how ‘is this true in any way? Find out’ is any kind of impingement on speech freedoms anyway. Facebook, Twitter et al, while being much more besides are huge news and editorial platforms now, that are not regulated in anything like the ways the traditional media is and it’s long overdue that these things start being aligned.
Thinking seems rather fragmented on this topic to say the least from a certain segment of people though. Bakers shouldn’t be forced to bake a pro LGBT cake if they don’t want to, but private companies should be obligated to give a platform to almost any and all speech and viewpoints :S
|
On May 28 2020 18:08 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2020 15:31 Mohdoo wrote:
Being weirdly insecure about wearing masks is definitely getting added to the "dumb shit social conservatism thought was ok"
So far we've got:
- slavery is good
- women shouldn't vote
- black people shouldn't vote
- interracial marriage is bad
- gay marriage is bad
- wearing a mask is bad
If you would have asked me 6 months ago, I would not have guessed it. It's just amazing. I love that the party that claims to champion masculinity is so wildly insecure. It is perfect. I can't imagine how awful my life would be if I was basically hanging on by a thread like that. Imagine putting on a mask and suddenly having this wave of self conscious feelings. That's awful. The culture that birthed that is so sad. Somehow shoehorning slavery into a discussion about wearing a mask.Amazing. I've only heard about these Minneapolis protests on the radio but I sure hope those several thousand folk are practicing social distancing and wearing a mask.
I'm pointing out all the times social social conservatism has been on the wrong side of history. Do you disagree? Was conservatism on the right side of history on any of these cases? It is a consistent trend.
In this case, it is the insecurity that comes with unfounded ideals of masculinity that causes conservative men to be uncomfortable feeling like they are protecting themselves.
|
On May 28 2020 21:54 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2020 18:11 Gorsameth wrote:On May 28 2020 11:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 28 2020 08:30 ChristianS wrote:On May 28 2020 08:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 28 2020 08:20 ChristianS wrote:On May 28 2020 07:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 28 2020 03:10 ChristianS wrote:On May 28 2020 00:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 27 2020 23:16 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:
How is he going to shutdown the social networks? Is he gonna build a firewall for the MAGA crowd?
edit: the firewall just got 10 feet higher Using his authority from the Communication Act would probably be the most straightforward option. You might think it could never happen here in the United States. But think again.
+ Show Spoiler +
To understand how, start with the Communications Act of 1934 — which, though it has been amended and updated several times, is essentially an 86-year-old law that is still the framework for U.S. communications policy today.
Section 706 of this law allows the president to shut down or take control of “any facility or station for wire communication” if he proclaims “that there exists a state or threat of war involving the United States.” With respect to wireless communications, suspending service is permitted not only in a “war or a threat of war,” but merely if there is a presidential proclamation of a “state of public peril” or simply a “disaster or other national emergency.” There is no requirement in the law for the president to provide any advance notice to Congress.
The language here is undeniably broad. The power it describes is virtually unchecked. That’s not surprising, since some of the last changes made to this section of the law were introduced in 1942, shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor, when Congress was laser-focused on protecting our safety and security.
These are, of course, different days. After all, back in 1942, “wire communication” meant telephone calls or telegrams, and “wireless” meant radio. But if you think this language, and what it authorizes, have faded into the dustbin of history, you’re wrong. Today those terms have generally been accepted as including access to the Internet. And as recently as 2010, a Senate committee report on protecting cyberspace concluded that section 706 “gives the President the authority to take over wire communications in the United States and, if the President so chooses, shut a network down.” That means if a sitting president wants to shut down the Internet or selectively cut off a social media outlet or other service, all it takes is an opinion from his attorney general that Section 706 gives him the authority to do so.
But presumably they'd come to terms before he resorted to that. That seems like an easy thing for Twitter to go to court for rather than settle. They’d probably win (at least to my rudimentary understanding of 1st amendment, IANAL obviously), and in the meantime it sounds like great PR. He's just got to shut them down for a few months before the election and liberals gave him a reason with Russiagate. We'd all know he's full of shit, but that won't matter even if he eventually loses in a court and decides to listen to them. Personally after 4 years of "this will get him" and "the institutions/adults in the room will stop him" and Democrat's impeachment efforts flopped while giving him his space force, money for caging kids, and the rest, it seems to be more wishful thinking that it would end differently than Twitter groveling. I think the most likely outcome is that any government action against Twitter would be halted while the case was pending (again, IANAL but I have trouble seeing how the court wouldn’t make him wait for the court case). I wouldn’t especially care if Twitter specifically got shut down anyway, aside from the free speech implications, and I certainly don’t think it would help Trump in November. Don’t get me wrong, I fully expect Twitter to back down on their “get the facts!” tag on false posts, there’s nothing in it for them. Anybody who was calling for them to shut down Trump will think it’s a spineless half-measure, and conservatives will still scream bloody murder in between Candy Crowley flashbacks. But I think “what if Trump uses this 86-year-old law to shut down Twitter” is a silly fear. He probably won’t, and I don’t think it would go well for him if he did. That's what I mean by groveling. In that case, sure, but I don’t think Trump threatening legal action has much to do with it. It was a pretty weak idea from the start. Nor do I, I don't think Jack gives a damn about what Trump tweets personally. My point was that Twitter will predictably back down to Trump. I'd also caution against falling back into the comfortable and repeatedly disproved notion that the system has checks that would stop him. On May 28 2020 03:06 Nyxisto wrote:On May 28 2020 00:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 27 2020 23:16 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:
How is he going to shutdown the social networks? Is he gonna build a firewall for the MAGA crowd?
edit: the firewall just got 10 feet higher Using his authority from the Communication Act would probably be the most straightforward option. You might think it could never happen here in the United States. But think again.
+ Show Spoiler +
To understand how, start with the Communications Act of 1934 — which, though it has been amended and updated several times, is essentially an 86-year-old law that is still the framework for U.S. communications policy today.
Section 706 of this law allows the president to shut down or take control of “any facility or station for wire communication” if he proclaims “that there exists a state or threat of war involving the United States.” With respect to wireless communications, suspending service is permitted not only in a “war or a threat of war,” but merely if there is a presidential proclamation of a “state of public peril” or simply a “disaster or other national emergency.” There is no requirement in the law for the president to provide any advance notice to Congress.
The language here is undeniably broad. The power it describes is virtually unchecked. That’s not surprising, since some of the last changes made to this section of the law were introduced in 1942, shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor, when Congress was laser-focused on protecting our safety and security.
These are, of course, different days. After all, back in 1942, “wire communication” meant telephone calls or telegrams, and “wireless” meant radio. But if you think this language, and what it authorizes, have faded into the dustbin of history, you’re wrong. Today those terms have generally been accepted as including access to the Internet. And as recently as 2010, a Senate committee report on protecting cyberspace concluded that section 706 “gives the President the authority to take over wire communications in the United States and, if the President so chooses, shut a network down.” That means if a sitting president wants to shut down the Internet or selectively cut off a social media outlet or other service, all it takes is an opinion from his attorney general that Section 706 gives him the authority to do so.
But presumably they'd come to terms before he resorted to that. The next time reasonable people are in charge of the legislative it'd probably be wise to remove some presidential powers and return them to congress because that's fucking ridiculous. It's like some kind of poor man's king I highly recommend countries with governments dependent on "norms" take this as a learning moment and put the norms on the books as laws (for whatever they're worth). Twitter isn't just doing this for America, maybe there was some fear initially after it became apparent how big the disinformation campaign from Russia had been during the 2016 election but nothing appears to have come from that, the few hearings congress held were large a disaster that only humiliated Congress and between Republicans defending them and their own ability to lobby against any regulation I think companies like Twitter are more scared of the EU going after them with regulations then the US. Aye, not like Americans to be myopic and complain about the first amendment ad nauseam as it pertains to a global platform. I don’t even see how ‘is this true in any way? Find out’ is any kind of impingement on speech freedoms anyway. Facebook, Twitter et al, while being much more besides are huge news and editorial platforms now, that are not regulated in anything like the ways the traditional media is and it’s long overdue that these things start being aligned. Thinking seems rather fragmented on this topic to say the least from a certain segment of people though. Bakers shouldn’t be forced to bake a pro LGBT cake if they don’t want to, but private companies should be obligated to give a platform to almost any and all speech and viewpoints :S
It is not like the hypocrisy of the right has been obvious for ages. They are completely fine with claiming that they have principles, and equally fine with the opposite of their principle, whenever it suits their agenda.
All of the principles they claim to hold dear are just smokes and mirrors so they don't have to argue for the stuff they actually want. None of the principles actually matter to them.
It is all about free speech when the free speech contains being an asshole to gay people, but free speech is not important when that free speech is used to point out how stupid their president is. Obviously everyone should be allowed to fly a confederate flag, even though they personally don't agree with slavery, but if someone dares to put a shroud over a statue of washington, that is utterly horrific and should be pursued to the utmost of the law. It is all about states right when suppressing people who vote against them, but states rights are obsolete when those states do something that their dear leader doesn't approve of.
The hideous ideas which they hide behind a thin veil of principles is very obvious, and that those hideous ideas, and not the principles, are what they actually care about is also obvious to anyone with a single, half-blind eye in their head.
|
On May 28 2020 22:18 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2020 21:54 Wombat_NI wrote:On May 28 2020 18:11 Gorsameth wrote:On May 28 2020 11:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 28 2020 08:30 ChristianS wrote:On May 28 2020 08:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 28 2020 08:20 ChristianS wrote:On May 28 2020 07:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 28 2020 03:10 ChristianS wrote:On May 28 2020 00:02 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] Using his authority from the Communication Act would probably be the most straightforward option. [quote] + Show Spoiler +
To understand how, start with the Communications Act of 1934 — which, though it has been amended and updated several times, is essentially an 86-year-old law that is still the framework for U.S. communications policy today.
Section 706 of this law allows the president to shut down or take control of “any facility or station for wire communication” if he proclaims “that there exists a state or threat of war involving the United States.” With respect to wireless communications, suspending service is permitted not only in a “war or a threat of war,” but merely if there is a presidential proclamation of a “state of public peril” or simply a “disaster or other national emergency.” There is no requirement in the law for the president to provide any advance notice to Congress.
The language here is undeniably broad. The power it describes is virtually unchecked. That’s not surprising, since some of the last changes made to this section of the law were introduced in 1942, shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor, when Congress was laser-focused on protecting our safety and security.
These are, of course, different days. After all, back in 1942, “wire communication” meant telephone calls or telegrams, and “wireless” meant radio. But if you think this language, and what it authorizes, have faded into the dustbin of history, you’re wrong. Today those terms have generally been accepted as including access to the Internet. And as recently as 2010, a Senate committee report on protecting cyberspace concluded that section 706 “gives the President the authority to take over wire communications in the United States and, if the President so chooses, shut a network down.” That means if a sitting president wants to shut down the Internet or selectively cut off a social media outlet or other service, all it takes is an opinion from his attorney general that Section 706 gives him the authority to do so.
But presumably they'd come to terms before he resorted to that. That seems like an easy thing for Twitter to go to court for rather than settle. They’d probably win (at least to my rudimentary understanding of 1st amendment, IANAL obviously), and in the meantime it sounds like great PR. He's just got to shut them down for a few months before the election and liberals gave him a reason with Russiagate. We'd all know he's full of shit, but that won't matter even if he eventually loses in a court and decides to listen to them. Personally after 4 years of "this will get him" and "the institutions/adults in the room will stop him" and Democrat's impeachment efforts flopped while giving him his space force, money for caging kids, and the rest, it seems to be more wishful thinking that it would end differently than Twitter groveling. I think the most likely outcome is that any government action against Twitter would be halted while the case was pending (again, IANAL but I have trouble seeing how the court wouldn’t make him wait for the court case). I wouldn’t especially care if Twitter specifically got shut down anyway, aside from the free speech implications, and I certainly don’t think it would help Trump in November. Don’t get me wrong, I fully expect Twitter to back down on their “get the facts!” tag on false posts, there’s nothing in it for them. Anybody who was calling for them to shut down Trump will think it’s a spineless half-measure, and conservatives will still scream bloody murder in between Candy Crowley flashbacks. But I think “what if Trump uses this 86-year-old law to shut down Twitter” is a silly fear. He probably won’t, and I don’t think it would go well for him if he did. That's what I mean by groveling. In that case, sure, but I don’t think Trump threatening legal action has much to do with it. It was a pretty weak idea from the start. Nor do I, I don't think Jack gives a damn about what Trump tweets personally. My point was that Twitter will predictably back down to Trump. I'd also caution against falling back into the comfortable and repeatedly disproved notion that the system has checks that would stop him. On May 28 2020 03:06 Nyxisto wrote:On May 28 2020 00:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 27 2020 23:16 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:
How is he going to shutdown the social networks? Is he gonna build a firewall for the MAGA crowd?
edit: the firewall just got 10 feet higher Using his authority from the Communication Act would probably be the most straightforward option. You might think it could never happen here in the United States. But think again.
+ Show Spoiler +
To understand how, start with the Communications Act of 1934 — which, though it has been amended and updated several times, is essentially an 86-year-old law that is still the framework for U.S. communications policy today.
Section 706 of this law allows the president to shut down or take control of “any facility or station for wire communication” if he proclaims “that there exists a state or threat of war involving the United States.” With respect to wireless communications, suspending service is permitted not only in a “war or a threat of war,” but merely if there is a presidential proclamation of a “state of public peril” or simply a “disaster or other national emergency.” There is no requirement in the law for the president to provide any advance notice to Congress.
The language here is undeniably broad. The power it describes is virtually unchecked. That’s not surprising, since some of the last changes made to this section of the law were introduced in 1942, shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor, when Congress was laser-focused on protecting our safety and security.
These are, of course, different days. After all, back in 1942, “wire communication” meant telephone calls or telegrams, and “wireless” meant radio. But if you think this language, and what it authorizes, have faded into the dustbin of history, you’re wrong. Today those terms have generally been accepted as including access to the Internet. And as recently as 2010, a Senate committee report on protecting cyberspace concluded that section 706 “gives the President the authority to take over wire communications in the United States and, if the President so chooses, shut a network down.” That means if a sitting president wants to shut down the Internet or selectively cut off a social media outlet or other service, all it takes is an opinion from his attorney general that Section 706 gives him the authority to do so.
But presumably they'd come to terms before he resorted to that. The next time reasonable people are in charge of the legislative it'd probably be wise to remove some presidential powers and return them to congress because that's fucking ridiculous. It's like some kind of poor man's king I highly recommend countries with governments dependent on "norms" take this as a learning moment and put the norms on the books as laws (for whatever they're worth). Twitter isn't just doing this for America, maybe there was some fear initially after it became apparent how big the disinformation campaign from Russia had been during the 2016 election but nothing appears to have come from that, the few hearings congress held were large a disaster that only humiliated Congress and between Republicans defending them and their own ability to lobby against any regulation I think companies like Twitter are more scared of the EU going after them with regulations then the US. Aye, not like Americans to be myopic and complain about the first amendment ad nauseam as it pertains to a global platform. I don’t even see how ‘is this true in any way? Find out’ is any kind of impingement on speech freedoms anyway. Facebook, Twitter et al, while being much more besides are huge news and editorial platforms now, that are not regulated in anything like the ways the traditional media is and it’s long overdue that these things start being aligned. Thinking seems rather fragmented on this topic to say the least from a certain segment of people though. Bakers shouldn’t be forced to bake a pro LGBT cake if they don’t want to, but private companies should be obligated to give a platform to almost any and all speech and viewpoints :S It is not like the hypocrisy of the right has been obvious for ages. They are completely fine with claiming that they have principles, and equally fine with the opposite of their principle, whenever it suits their agenda. All of the principles they claim to hold dear are just smokes and mirrors so they don't have to argue for the stuff they actually want. None of the principles actually matter to them. It is all about free speech when the free speech contains being an asshole to gay people, but free speech is not important when that free speech is used to point out how stupid their president is. Obviously everyone should be allowed to fly a confederate flag, even though they personally don't agree with slavery, but if someone dares to put a shroud over a statue of washington, that is utterly horrific and should be pursued to the utmost of the law. It is all about states right when suppressing people who vote against them, but states rights are obsolete when those states do something that their dear leader doesn't approve of. The hideous ideas which they hide behind a thin veil of principles is very obvious, and that those hideous ideas, and not the principles, are what they actually care about is also obvious to anyone with a single, half-blind eye in their head.
Yet the "opposition" party leader can't even rule out picking a VP from their flock (even if it was just a cynical political ploy with 0 sincerity). That's emblematic of a major reason why the Democrat run city of Minneapolis looks like it does right now.
|
On May 28 2020 15:31 Mohdoo wrote:
Being weirdly insecure about wearing masks is definitely getting added to the "dumb shit social conservatism thought was ok"
So far we've got:
- slavery is good
- women shouldn't vote
- black people shouldn't vote
- interracial marriage is bad
- gay marriage is bad
- wearing a mask is bad
If you would have asked me 6 months ago, I would not have guessed it. It's just amazing. I love that the party that claims to champion masculinity is so wildly insecure. It is perfect. I can't imagine how awful my life would be if I was basically hanging on by a thread like that. Imagine putting on a mask and suddenly having this wave of self conscious feelings. That's awful. The culture that birthed that is so sad.
Remember a couple months ago when people (on this forum) were saying that wearing masks was worse than not wearing masks?
|
United States24755 Posts
On May 29 2020 00:04 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2020 15:31 Mohdoo wrote:
Being weirdly insecure about wearing masks is definitely getting added to the "dumb shit social conservatism thought was ok"
So far we've got:
- slavery is good
- women shouldn't vote
- black people shouldn't vote
- interracial marriage is bad
- gay marriage is bad
- wearing a mask is bad
If you would have asked me 6 months ago, I would not have guessed it. It's just amazing. I love that the party that claims to champion masculinity is so wildly insecure. It is perfect. I can't imagine how awful my life would be if I was basically hanging on by a thread like that. Imagine putting on a mask and suddenly having this wave of self conscious feelings. That's awful. The culture that birthed that is so sad. Remember a couple months ago when people (on this forum) were saying that wearing masks was worse than not wearing masks?
I don't remember the details, but I recall people were saying don't go out and buy masks because first responders and medical personnel need them and there is a shortage. Is that what you are referring to, or were you referring to an argument that wearing masks is bad, even when there is not a shortage of masks? That argument could possibly be made depending on how improperly masks get used by the general public, and what other behavior mask wearing encourages.
|
On May 29 2020 00:04 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2020 15:31 Mohdoo wrote:
Being weirdly insecure about wearing masks is definitely getting added to the "dumb shit social conservatism thought was ok"
So far we've got:
- slavery is good
- women shouldn't vote
- black people shouldn't vote
- interracial marriage is bad
- gay marriage is bad
- wearing a mask is bad
If you would have asked me 6 months ago, I would not have guessed it. It's just amazing. I love that the party that claims to champion masculinity is so wildly insecure. It is perfect. I can't imagine how awful my life would be if I was basically hanging on by a thread like that. Imagine putting on a mask and suddenly having this wave of self conscious feelings. That's awful. The culture that birthed that is so sad. Remember a couple months ago when people (on this forum) were saying that wearing masks was worse than not wearing masks?
I don't, but I take breaks from this forum sometimes so I take your word for it. Not sure what that means though. There was an insane amount of disinformation at first and only people with a direct science background pertaining to filtration or contaminant/infection protocol would really know better.
I don't blame people for the first month of complete mayhem. What I DO blame people for is perpetuating a culture that makes men completely crushed under the weight of their own insecurities by trying to fit into weird definitions of masculinity.
I think a lot of people aren't fully understanding what it means for these guys on Alabama beaches to be uncomfortable wearing masks. Its extremely sad. It is a men's rights issue that I think needs legitimate attention, but the blame falls of conservatism for pushing it so hard.
One thing you'll notice in interviews with social conservatives about masks is that they only answer "why not mask" in regards to their own health and they assure people they aren't worried about what happens to them. They are forced to always pretend they feel a complete, internal sense of safety. When a man feels like they can't determine their own destiny and need to rely on protective equipment, they feel diminished in a way. I've seen the same dynamic at play in rural Oregon regarding other types of safety equipment. It would be emasculating for them and I think that is insanely sad. Not in a pathetic sad way, but I feel bad for them. Watch the interviews. The guys are really adamant about how they aren't afraid.
|
On May 29 2020 00:04 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2020 15:31 Mohdoo wrote:
Being weirdly insecure about wearing masks is definitely getting added to the "dumb shit social conservatism thought was ok"
So far we've got:
- slavery is good
- women shouldn't vote
- black people shouldn't vote
- interracial marriage is bad
- gay marriage is bad
- wearing a mask is bad
If you would have asked me 6 months ago, I would not have guessed it. It's just amazing. I love that the party that claims to champion masculinity is so wildly insecure. It is perfect. I can't imagine how awful my life would be if I was basically hanging on by a thread like that. Imagine putting on a mask and suddenly having this wave of self conscious feelings. That's awful. The culture that birthed that is so sad. Remember a couple months ago when people (on this forum) were saying that wearing masks was worse than not wearing masks?
I think it was a lot of people in the Rona thread that were making these claims that masks (if not the N95) didn't really offer any real protection and even then, that it would just cause people to regard you suspiciously. There may have also been some people claiming that herd immunity was the better way to go because Sweden was doing a good job of it (false) and that masks weren't necessary.
I don't think people who've thought critically about the situation were ever against masks.
|
Iirc, the people against masks at the time were a two fold of not depleting the stock for the professionals that need them, since there was a massive scare buy up like there was with toilet paper, and the concern that if somebody had a mask they'd neglect social distancing.
|
On May 29 2020 00:25 Gahlo wrote:
Iirc, the people against masks at the time were a two fold of not depleting the stock for the professionals that need them, since there was a massive scare buy up like there was with toilet paper, and the concern that if somebody had a mask they'd neglect social distancing.
And they do. I've had to run to the store to grab things and people will line up/stand right behind me. I've had to restrain from turning and giving that "Would you mind backing the HFIL up?" look more than a few times. And even when social distancing, they're still liable to walk near or stand near you.
|
On May 28 2020 21:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2020 20:51 farvacola wrote:
The "arguments" against mask wearing parallel those raised against mandatory seatbelt laws back in the late '60s. Also, just to quibble needlessly with your point, DPB, not wearing a seatbelt raises the risk that an individual in a car cash is ejected or thrown about the cabin, so there is some increased risk towards others :D Fair point; I appreciate the needless quibble  Now I'm picturing an exponentially-growing chain reaction of drivers being launched out of their seats, through windshields, into other cars, all because of one idiot who didn't wear his seat belt.
You do end up with a chain reaction, only it’s a whole lot more gruesome because people make decent enough projectiles. People just fly into each other, push people into hard furniture and move body parts in ways they’re not meant to move. Anyone who knows Newton’s laws of motions knows why wearing seatbelts can save the lives of others.
I don’t know what it says about the United States when some surveys say that only 66% of respondents admit to wearing seatbelts on short trips when riding in the rear. It would be an unbelievable number but there’s enough people who chase clout on Instagram that do not wear seatbelts that I actually believe that figure.
|
On April 22 2020 12:57 Wegandi wrote:Gov. Kemp had the CDC sign off on his plans (if that matters for you). Honestly, people advocating for lockdown until a vaccine comes (ya'll know how coronaviruses work, right?) are unaware how damaging that will be compared to the virus itself. People can tolerate a month at most before you see people say fuck you I need to feed, house, and live my damn life. Draconian policies are only going to have the opposite intended effect (it's like telling a teenager, you're forbidden to drink, have sex, or smoke), but hey, intentions are the only thing that matters, or you can bitch about how people aren't automatons and don't obey Government edicts with 100% veracity. Also, I get a kick out of the people wearing cloth masks. Do people even know that cloth masks *increase* your risk of infection and spreading it (if you want proof I'll post a litany of NIH studies for your perusal)? Ironically, Government mandated mask wearing will do more harm than good. I work with the most at-risk population (geriatric with significant co-morbidities as an OT), we should take precautions to safeguard them, for the rest of us we need to get on with our lives over a relatively minor virus.
|
On May 29 2020 00:04 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2020 15:31 Mohdoo wrote:
Being weirdly insecure about wearing masks is definitely getting added to the "dumb shit social conservatism thought was ok"
So far we've got:
- slavery is good
- women shouldn't vote
- black people shouldn't vote
- interracial marriage is bad
- gay marriage is bad
- wearing a mask is bad
If you would have asked me 6 months ago, I would not have guessed it. It's just amazing. I love that the party that claims to champion masculinity is so wildly insecure. It is perfect. I can't imagine how awful my life would be if I was basically hanging on by a thread like that. Imagine putting on a mask and suddenly having this wave of self conscious feelings. That's awful. The culture that birthed that is so sad. Remember a couple months ago when people (on this forum) were saying that wearing masks was worse than not wearing masks?
I do.
And according to my observations of how people use the masks, they would not help if they were the sole layer of protection that had to work.
|
On May 29 2020 00:41 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2020 12:57 Wegandi wrote:Gov. Kemp had the CDC sign off on his plans (if that matters for you). Honestly, people advocating for lockdown until a vaccine comes (ya'll know how coronaviruses work, right?) are unaware how damaging that will be compared to the virus itself. People can tolerate a month at most before you see people say fuck you I need to feed, house, and live my damn life. Draconian policies are only going to have the opposite intended effect (it's like telling a teenager, you're forbidden to drink, have sex, or smoke), but hey, intentions are the only thing that matters, or you can bitch about how people aren't automatons and don't obey Government edicts with 100% veracity. Also, I get a kick out of the people wearing cloth masks. Do people even know that cloth masks *increase* your risk of infection and spreading it (if you want proof I'll post a litany of NIH studies for your perusal)? Ironically, Government mandated mask wearing will do more harm than good. I work with the most at-risk population (geriatric with significant co-morbidities as an OT), we should take precautions to safeguard them, for the rest of us we need to get on with our lives over a relatively minor virus.
Wegandi is a libertarian so I don't think it is fair to use that as evidence.
|
On May 29 2020 00:41 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2020 12:57 Wegandi wrote:Gov. Kemp had the CDC sign off on his plans (if that matters for you). Honestly, people advocating for lockdown until a vaccine comes (ya'll know how coronaviruses work, right?) are unaware how damaging that will be compared to the virus itself. People can tolerate a month at most before you see people say fuck you I need to feed, house, and live my damn life. Draconian policies are only going to have the opposite intended effect (it's like telling a teenager, you're forbidden to drink, have sex, or smoke), but hey, intentions are the only thing that matters, or you can bitch about how people aren't automatons and don't obey Government edicts with 100% veracity. Also, I get a kick out of the people wearing cloth masks. Do people even know that cloth masks *increase* your risk of infection and spreading it (if you want proof I'll post a litany of NIH studies for your perusal)? Ironically, Government mandated mask wearing will do more harm than good. I work with the most at-risk population (geriatric with significant co-morbidities as an OT), we should take precautions to safeguard them, for the rest of us we need to get on with our lives over a relatively minor virus.
I don't think you can disregard that last statement either as to how much stock you should put into the bolded words. 100k (most likely far higher) isn't a minor virus in any sense of the word.
|
Wegandi wasn't alone
On April 16 2020 04:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2020 04:07 GreenHorizons wrote:
Yeah, culture matters too (see the mask issue where wearing masks to protect others just didn't even compute here). Well, it helps to have a culture that allows people to quietly ignore to that wearing masks increases the infection risk for non-infected people (particularly the elderly). It's not clear to me at all that with the current low levels of ambient infection in SK masks are doing more good than harm.
Not to mention WHO: Don’t Wear Face Masks
I remember thinking it odd at the time I got so much pushback for pointing out masks would be a common sense part of any reopening/mitigation plan.
|
On May 29 2020 00:31 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2020 00:25 Gahlo wrote:
Iirc, the people against masks at the time were a two fold of not depleting the stock for the professionals that need them, since there was a massive scare buy up like there was with toilet paper, and the concern that if somebody had a mask they'd neglect social distancing. And they do. I've had to run to the store to grab things and people will line up/stand right behind me. I've had to restrain from turning and giving that "Would you mind backing the HFIL up?" look more than a few times. And even when social distancing, they're still liable to walk near or stand near you.
Yeah, I luckily don't have to leave the house very often right now and how willing people were to be close to me when I had to go to Home Depot was infuriating.
|
On May 29 2020 00:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Wegandi wasn't alone Show nested quote +On April 16 2020 04:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 16 2020 04:07 GreenHorizons wrote:
Yeah, culture matters too (see the mask issue where wearing masks to protect others just didn't even compute here). Well, it helps to have a culture that allows people to quietly ignore to that wearing masks increases the infection risk for non-infected people (particularly the elderly). It's not clear to me at all that with the current low levels of ambient infection in SK masks are doing more good than harm. Not to mention WHO: Don’t Wear Face MasksI remember thinking it odd at the time I got so much pushback for pointing out masks would be a common sense part of any reopening/mitigation plan.
WHO in my eyes was protecting medical workers by making sure people didn't go toilet paper on masks. It was the right call. But everyone educated on the topic completely disregarded it.
|
On May 29 2020 00:58 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2020 00:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Wegandi wasn't alone On April 16 2020 04:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 16 2020 04:07 GreenHorizons wrote:
Yeah, culture matters too (see the mask issue where wearing masks to protect others just didn't even compute here). Well, it helps to have a culture that allows people to quietly ignore to that wearing masks increases the infection risk for non-infected people (particularly the elderly). It's not clear to me at all that with the current low levels of ambient infection in SK masks are doing more good than harm. Not to mention WHO: Don’t Wear Face MasksI remember thinking it odd at the time I got so much pushback for pointing out masks would be a common sense part of any reopening/mitigation plan. WHO in my eyes was protecting medical workers by making sure people didn't go toilet paper on masks. It was the right call. But everyone educated on the topic completely disregarded it.
That was my point back then too, maybe people were playing dumb to help the medical workers (who still don't have adequate ppe gear despite the increased mandating of masks)?
But I vividly remember people saying that wasn't the motive, it was the stuff about them not working and/or making things worse.
|
On May 29 2020 01:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2020 00:58 Mohdoo wrote:On May 29 2020 00:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Wegandi wasn't alone On April 16 2020 04:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 16 2020 04:07 GreenHorizons wrote:
Yeah, culture matters too (see the mask issue where wearing masks to protect others just didn't even compute here). Well, it helps to have a culture that allows people to quietly ignore to that wearing masks increases the infection risk for non-infected people (particularly the elderly). It's not clear to me at all that with the current low levels of ambient infection in SK masks are doing more good than harm. Not to mention WHO: Don’t Wear Face MasksI remember thinking it odd at the time I got so much pushback for pointing out masks would be a common sense part of any reopening/mitigation plan. WHO in my eyes was protecting medical workers by making sure people didn't go toilet paper on masks. It was the right call. But everyone educated on the topic completely disregarded it. That was my point back then too, maybe people were playing dumb to help the medical workers (who still don't have adequate ppe gear despite the increased mandating of masks)? But I vividly remember people saying that wasn't the motive, it was the stuff about them not working and/or making things worse.
I don't see why that wouldn't be true. Lots of disinformation. It was a weird situation and I don't blame people for not knowing what is true. But once all the dust settled, as we are now, conservatives are not declining masks because of the WHO. It is a deep insecurity that they perpetuate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
