|
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 |
On June 16 2020 12:17 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2020 03:26 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 16 2020 03:23 farvacola wrote:
Basically, SCOTUS said they won't take those cases and they basically never explain why. My guess is that they want lower courts to develop some splits and different takes on how the doctrine should be altered before they take a QI case. Thanks. I kept reading the article and never found why they tossed it and Thomas' explanation did nothing for me at all either. We'll have to see what the lower courts come up with in the coming months because you know there are going to be a ton of verdicts on this. If you want some of the inside baseball on it, basically Thomas has been calling QI bad law for his whole career. Over the last 20+ years the court has basically never taken a QI case, and instead summarily reverse just about every court that didn't grant QI with massive majorities on the court voting against, and of course without issuing an opinion. Thomas writes basically this exact same dissent every time. Mostly no one aside from the libertarians at Volokh Conspiracy and Bleeding Heart Libertarians ever paid him lipservice because QI protects an unholy alliance of cops, teachers, and public service employees. While the cops are the ones in high profile cases, because of the nature of the jobs, they aren't necessarily the majority. Thus you could never really get a coalition.
Wouldn't it be easier to separate out QI to the factions it protects? They make things more difficult than it really needs to be.
|
On June 16 2020 12:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2020 11:39 Fleetfeet wrote:
Isn't a fundamental aspect of being a conservative an inherent resistance to change? With that in mind, doesn't the answer "wear a mask (accept change)" or "Don't wear a mask(reject change)" become more clear? In their defense a lot of people were giving the advice that wearing the masks we're expected to now was more dangerous than not wearing them. Accepting the justification to expect people to wear them now is pretty damning of the initial discouraging of cloth masks.
For whatever its worth, every person with background in chemistry or biology knew with 100% confidence that this was to prevent shortages and just to prevent hoarding. The idea that masks might make it worse was pure bullshit that would never be true in any circumstance. It was an emergency measure to make sure hospitals had what they needed.
Also I would say that is unrelated to the dynamic I am describing, since many people understand that there is a benefit, they just explain that it isn't 100% necessary for a given situation. The idea is that for some people there is a perceived cost from wearing a mask. It is honestly unclear what that disadvantage/cost is.
|
On June 16 2020 12:46 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2020 12:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 16 2020 11:39 Fleetfeet wrote:
Isn't a fundamental aspect of being a conservative an inherent resistance to change? With that in mind, doesn't the answer "wear a mask (accept change)" or "Don't wear a mask(reject change)" become more clear? In their defense a lot of people were giving the advice that wearing the masks we're expected to now was more dangerous than not wearing them. Accepting the justification to expect people to wear them now is pretty damning of the initial discouraging of cloth masks. For whatever its worth, every person with background in chemistry or biology knew with 100% confidence that this was to prevent shortages and just to prevent hoarding. The idea that masks might make it worse was pure bullshit that would never be true in any circumstance. It was an emergency measure to make sure hospitals had what they needed. Also I would say that is unrelated to the dynamic I am describing, since many people understand that there is a benefit, they just explain that it isn't 100% necessary for a given situation. The idea is that for some people there is a perceived cost from wearing a mask. It is honestly unclear what that disadvantage/cost is.
So they were lied to once and you are expecting them to believe the same people? Not sure who's the dummy in that situation.
|
On June 16 2020 12:54 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2020 12:46 Mohdoo wrote:On June 16 2020 12:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 16 2020 11:39 Fleetfeet wrote:
Isn't a fundamental aspect of being a conservative an inherent resistance to change? With that in mind, doesn't the answer "wear a mask (accept change)" or "Don't wear a mask(reject change)" become more clear? In their defense a lot of people were giving the advice that wearing the masks we're expected to now was more dangerous than not wearing them. Accepting the justification to expect people to wear them now is pretty damning of the initial discouraging of cloth masks. For whatever its worth, every person with background in chemistry or biology knew with 100% confidence that this was to prevent shortages and just to prevent hoarding. The idea that masks might make it worse was pure bullshit that would never be true in any circumstance. It was an emergency measure to make sure hospitals had what they needed. Also I would say that is unrelated to the dynamic I am describing, since many people understand that there is a benefit, they just explain that it isn't 100% necessary for a given situation. The idea is that for some people there is a perceived cost from wearing a mask. It is honestly unclear what that disadvantage/cost is. So they were lied to once and you are expecting them to believe the same people? Not sure who's the dummy in that situation.
The government saying masks aren't necessary/bad is different than the scientific community saying that, which was never the case. There is a reason a large portion of people never bought that. It was actual nonsense. It was like they were saying water isn't actually water, it is liquid form of rugs. People take rugs and convert them to water. That is the equivalent of what the govt was saying, but Fauci even said they only said that to reduce the demand recently. Regardless, that doesn't change the fact that scientists never said that. Researchers at universities were still like "uh lol, def gonna wear a mask".
Covid isn't the first virus. We have understood this before.
Also, you are focusing on the republicans that say they'll never wear a mask no matter what.
Well Tom Rice, for example, explains that as long as he kept his distance, he didn't need to wear one, but that he did when he flies on planes. The idea that its like "Well I will wear one when it is absolutely necessary and blatantly saving my life, but if I am only decreasing my chances less than 90%, I should not". To me, it implies some sort of perceived cost of wearing a mask i think the idea of being skeptical of the government applies better to the ones who say "I will avoid masks no matter what" but not the ones who see them as rarely necessary
|
On June 16 2020 12:22 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2020 12:17 cLutZ wrote:On June 16 2020 03:26 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 16 2020 03:23 farvacola wrote:
Basically, SCOTUS said they won't take those cases and they basically never explain why. My guess is that they want lower courts to develop some splits and different takes on how the doctrine should be altered before they take a QI case. Thanks. I kept reading the article and never found why they tossed it and Thomas' explanation did nothing for me at all either. We'll have to see what the lower courts come up with in the coming months because you know there are going to be a ton of verdicts on this. If you want some of the inside baseball on it, basically Thomas has been calling QI bad law for his whole career. Over the last 20+ years the court has basically never taken a QI case, and instead summarily reverse just about every court that didn't grant QI with massive majorities on the court voting against, and of course without issuing an opinion. Thomas writes basically this exact same dissent every time. Mostly no one aside from the libertarians at Volokh Conspiracy and Bleeding Heart Libertarians ever paid him lipservice because QI protects an unholy alliance of cops, teachers, and public service employees. While the cops are the ones in high profile cases, because of the nature of the jobs, they aren't necessarily the majority. Thus you could never really get a coalition. Wouldn't it be easier to separate out QI to the factions it protects? They make things more difficult than it really needs to be.
Not really. Something like that would be a form of legislating from the bench only Sotomayor is likely willing to engage in. Breaking it down that way in a legal opinion has no rooting in the constitution or the 2 enabling civil rights acts. The court doing that would just be an indefensible move. Maybe they could defend categorizing acts, but people vastly underestimate the traumatic situations kids get put into by teachers, and underestimate the intentional, illegal, policies implemented by administrators. Police handbooks rarely codify explicitly unconstitutional acts, school handbooks regularly do such things. No, the only way you could reasonably do it is Congress itself.
Plus, lets say RBG and the left agree to join Thomas & Gorsuch's bandwagon, Thomas gets to pick who writes the majority, being the senior justice, all they can do is write a mealy mouthed concurrence about how this ruling should only apply to police, we should definitely not apply this to the tens of thousands of false imprisonment claims that will be brought against deans and schoolteachers. Then when the teacher who locked Johnny (who will probably also be a minority) in a closet for 48 hours with no food and no bathroom (this happens more than people expect, and is an actual example i recall from a casebook) her coalition won't have a leg to stand on when Thomas gets to write a follow up to his magnus opus. So her potential defect strategy (from the 7 person QI group) is foiled.
|
|
|
On June 16 2020 12:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2020 11:39 Fleetfeet wrote:
Isn't a fundamental aspect of being a conservative an inherent resistance to change? With that in mind, doesn't the answer "wear a mask (accept change)" or "Don't wear a mask(reject change)" become more clear? In their defense a lot of people were giving the advice that wearing the masks we're expected to now was more dangerous than not wearing them. Accepting the justification to expect people to wear them now is pretty damning of the initial discouraging of cloth masks.
I hope the subtext of my question isn't "And if so, BOY aren't conservatives STUPID?"
I'm just pointing to "Hey, maybe some people are naturally inclined towards resisting change, where some of us are quicker to accept change." The idea that being risk-inclined is also dangerous is not a new concept to the thread, so I hope my question wasn't taken to lean one way or the other.
|
On June 16 2020 13:19 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2020 12:46 Mohdoo wrote:On June 16 2020 12:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 16 2020 11:39 Fleetfeet wrote:
Isn't a fundamental aspect of being a conservative an inherent resistance to change? With that in mind, doesn't the answer "wear a mask (accept change)" or "Don't wear a mask(reject change)" become more clear? In their defense a lot of people were giving the advice that wearing the masks we're expected to now was more dangerous than not wearing them. Accepting the justification to expect people to wear them now is pretty damning of the initial discouraging of cloth masks. For whatever its worth, every person with background in chemistry or biology knew with 100% confidence that this was to prevent shortages and just to prevent hoarding. The idea that masks might make it worse was pure bullshit that would never be true in any circumstance. It was an emergency measure to make sure hospitals had what they needed. Also I would say that is unrelated to the dynamic I am describing, since many people understand that there is a benefit, they just explain that it isn't 100% necessary for a given situation. The idea is that for some people there is a perceived cost from wearing a mask. It is honestly unclear what that disadvantage/cost is. That is not what happened. Initially they thought one of the main ways this virus transmitted was from surfaces where it could live for a long time. But now they know it can't live for as long and touching surfaces is much safer. So initially some medical professionals thought the additional times touching the face could be more dangerous than not wearing a mask, especially for those who are not comfortable with them. They were not lying before, they just didn't know and now with more information they do. So almost all of the medical community who was on the no mask have moved to the mask. This is a good thing, you want people to change their opinion as they get more information.
It may have been both, then. Here is Fauci saying they tried to prevent shortages: https://www.businessinsider.com/fauci-mask-advice-was-because-doctors-shortages-from-the-start-2020-6
|
|
|
There have always been three questions on masks:
1. how many masks do we have?
2. does the mask protect others from you?
3. does the mask protect you from others?
(1) is a known variable.
(2) is "yes". Even when masks were in desperately short supply, COVID-positive patients were given masks.
(3) is the only answer that might be different now, and it changed, as Jimmi said, due to information that was not available at the time. Even now, crappy cloth masks are still poor at filtering the virus, and the extra fiddling and touching that the average person does managing a mask is a small extra risk.
If there is a shortage, it's quite reasonable to tell people not to hoard masks because masks won't protect them. Even now, this is still a fair statement for the kind of disposable cloth masks people were panic buying. The value of a cloth mask is to the people around the wearer.
If we were to go back and do it again, we might now suggest everyone wraps a T-shirt around their face. At the time, this seemed a 60-40 call because of the extra contact such makeshift things would generate. If the virus had turned out to be largely surface-borne, it's detrimental for infected people to be adjusting their face-wraps and touching handrails, then everyone else touching handrails and then their face-wraps.
|
Telling people not to hoard and telling people the cloth masks they should have been wearing weren't helpful/were potentially harmful (but should be required now) are different things.
Essentially the argument for the initial discouraging of mask usage was that the government had failed to adequately prepare or react and as a result the public was expected to put themselves at additional risk to ameliorate the risk/suffering that failure caused for healthcare workers. But they lied to people suggesting it didn't put them at any additional risk.
Also that the public was too ignorant to understand the limits of cloth masks and would put themselves at more risk by using them/hoarding n95's (because they are more effective than cloth) depriving healthcare workers of them.
The rest was basically spin to make it appear as if the public wasn't being put at additional risk because of bipartisan government failures (state and federal) and to keep them from competing with the governments for procuring proper PPE.
|
If you are the only person on a bus wearing a mask, and your mask is a cloth mask, it is doing almost nothing to protect you. The "additional risk" you are putting yourself in by going without a mask is negligible.
When everyone on the bus is wearing a mask, things change. However, in April, this was not possible.
Also, P2s were almost unobtainable back then, even for HCPs, so they are effectively irrelevant.
|
On June 16 2020 14:37 Belisarius wrote:
If you are the only person on a bus wearing a mask, and your mask is a cloth mask, it is doing almost nothing to protect you. The "additional risk" you are putting yourself in by going without a mask is negligible.
When everyone on the bus is wearing a mask, things change. However, in April, this was not possible.
Also, P2s were almost unobtainable back then, even for HCPs, so they are effectively irrelevant.
This isn't an argument against wearing a mask. This doesn't explain why someone would choose to not wear one. When there is a benefit, even if it is perceived as small (it sounds like you aren't aware of the actual effectiveness of cloth masks, there are papers you can read), it still implies that someone may see a disadvantage to wearing one. Lets assume you get a 5% (its much higher than that) reduced risk of infection. That is still a clear situation where you should wear one. In the absence of a cost, a small benefit means you do whatever is beneficial.
If you're interested, feel free to read here: https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/06/10/2009637117
However, the exact effectiveness of the mask isn't really what is worth discussing. What I am asking is why someone would choose to ignore a benefit, even if it is small, in the absence of a disadvantage. Even in my generous hypothetical where it only reduces transmission by 5%, it is still a good idea, right?
|
Jimmi literally just explained this to you.
When the route of transmission was not known, it was not clear that a cloth mask reduced the risk to yourself at all.
That paper is from June.
|
On June 16 2020 14:44 Belisarius wrote:
Jimmi literally just explained this to you.
When the route of transmission was not known, it was not clear that a cloth mask reduced the risk to yourself at all.
That paper is from June.
I am saying *today* there are people who don't wear masks and will only do so in situations where it is seen as a huge benefit. I am asking why, today, do people, such as Tom Rice, seem to have an aversion to wearing a mask, and only do so in situations that are considered high risk?
That to me is more of a cultural question than a science question. I am asking for people's perspectives/thoughts.
|
I mean we've already had like 10 pages of people complaining about conservatives, so if you want to continue go wild, but I don't see much point myself.
|
On June 16 2020 14:51 Belisarius wrote:
I mean we've already had like 10 pages of people complaining about conservatives, so if you want to continue go wild, but I don't see much point myself.
I’m not complaining, I’m asking people’s perspectives on what cultural differences they think lead to the difference
|
On June 16 2020 14:55 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2020 14:51 Belisarius wrote:
I mean we've already had like 10 pages of people complaining about conservatives, so if you want to continue go wild, but I don't see much point myself. I’m not complaining, I’m asking people’s perspectives on what cultural differences they think lead to the difference
I feel like the feeling of inevitability is one of the most widespread and non-partisan I've encountered. If not the inevitability then the unacceptability of the world as it exists without accepting that inevitability.
There's an undercurrent of personal invulnerability in there too.
|
On June 16 2020 14:55 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2020 14:51 Belisarius wrote:
I mean we've already had like 10 pages of people complaining about conservatives, so if you want to continue go wild, but I don't see much point myself. I’m not complaining, I’m asking people’s perspectives on what cultural differences they think lead to the difference
I personally dislike the masks and take them off any time I reasonably can. Wearing a mask is itchy and uncomfortable and makes it slightly harder than normal to breathe (the n95 ones are worse than surgical masks in this regard). I wear masks when indoors in public spaces. But most of the time take it off when outside. Also, the few social gatherings I have been to since Spain is deescalating had nobody wearing masks. And it is clear that that is the norm, not an exception, here.
Nevertheless, I obviously wear a mask inside shops, public transportation, etc. As do most other people.
|
On June 16 2020 14:55 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2020 14:51 Belisarius wrote:
I mean we've already had like 10 pages of people complaining about conservatives, so if you want to continue go wild, but I don't see much point myself. I’m not complaining, I’m asking people’s perspectives on what cultural differences they think lead to the difference
Oh, this is actually a fun one for me to answer:
The memetics on the conservative right consider the modern left to be a decadent movement spoiled by modern prosperity and now increasingly ferreting out minor violations of purity which they find increasingly offensive, which results in the over regulation or normal human activity which thereby actively corrupts the nation's institutions and its soul. Two sad, but classic cases are Eric Gardner and Rayshard Brooks. On the right, it is widely considered that the death of Gardener was an inevitable consequence of the cigarette policies enacted by Mayor Bloomberg and Andrew Cuomo. Rayshard Brooks' death is an anticipated consequence of the policies advocated by MADD.
Brooks is illustrative because the "take his keys" option being spouted by many people in these past few days is exactly what was effectively outlawed because of MADD's advocacy efforts. Go to any suburban bar. The cops wait outside in squadcars like jackals around a wounded animal. In many towns harsh DUI enforcement is the #1 police mission. The old trope of police pulling over a drunk driver and driving him home has been dead for my entire lifetime. The cops would have been fired just as fast if that had been found out.
Oh, and most of these minor regulations on normal human activity that conservatives find unnecessary and decadent: they are rarely enforced against the most obvious criminals. California conservatives like Victor Davis Hanson have written many pieces on this. It takes him 2 years to get a permit to remodel his garage, whereas other people remain unpunished for stacking piles of garbage about town. Obviously things like the Berkley and Portland protest incidents where antifa was given a hecklers veto by the police predate us by several years. Same pattern, normal person's legal and normal activity is harried by the state, clearly illegal other activity is ignored.
Mask wearing fits perfectly into this paradigm. Its a minor thing that is kinda effective, but also the act of wearing a mask is also nonconservative in a way, because they believe that responsibility is a very high good, and masks increase anonymity. Then you get the experts being two faced, the media being two faced (with the BLM exception) and masks just look like another meaningless nanny state plan by leftists akin to soda bans.
Edit: You have to remember, these same anti-maskers (largely, no group is uniform), have been told 2 weeks ago that its good for the police to break up their church services, but are being told today that the police should be defunded. This obviously creates more distrust, and foments the theory of a two tiered justice system that is allayed against them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
