|
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 April 30 2021 18:51 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2021 18:48 Gorsameth wrote:On April 30 2021 18:40 BlackJack wrote:On April 30 2021 18:28 maybenexttime wrote:On April 30 2021 14:27 BlackJack wrote:On April 30 2021 14:13 NewSunshine wrote:On April 30 2021 14:10 BlackJack wrote:
Let me spell out my position for you as simply as I can: It's wrong to think one should not get vaccinated, but people should be entitled to their wrong opinion without having the truth police crack down on them. People are entitled to be wrong, but to convince other people of your wrong opinion and put their lives at risk is something entirely different. This isn't just a discussion about whether the sky is blue, it's a bloody pandemic. It's like if there were a section on the internet of people who like to make arguments about why you should drive drunk. There's consequences to having certain opinions, as well as to letting people proliferate beliefs that are objectively dangerous. You haven't addressed that. You're right, it's not a discussion about whether the sky is blue. We don't have a 1st amendment so that we can talk about the sky being blue. Free speech is freaking useless if it only gives us the right to talk about things that aren't controversial. The fact that you're willing to to go full blown authoritarian at the first sign of danger shows exactly why we need a 1st amendment and people to stand up for it. It's not a matter of saying controversial things. It's literally the pandemic equivalent of crying "FIRE" in a packed theater, causing people to trample one another. I just took 2 pages of shit for arguing that "temporarily stop administering a vaccine" is the same as "temporarily stop taking a vaccine." People are honestly going to come here and say that saying something anti-vax is literally the same as inciting violence or yelling fire in a packed theater? If people let this shit slide I'm gonna be upset lol anti-vaxxers are intentionally trying to inflict potential harm to people, so yeah I see no problem with throwing them in with inciting violence and yelling fire in a packed theater. Wait wait. Intentionally trying to inflict harm? I'd like to see some evidence of that. I could see that maybe a tiny minority of them are intentionally trying to inflict harm, but in general they are people who believe what they are saying and believe that it is good, and right, but they are misinformed. In fact I'm going to go further and say that what you're saying here is reprehensible, and is the entire reason I am participating in this discussion. People have labelled them as awful people because of their beliefs. Its the easiest way to create an outgroup so you can justify creating exceptions for them in law to treat them worse than others. Its the first step to tyranny. The idea that anti-vaxxers want everyone else to suffer and die is MORE misinformed than the anti-vaxxers are, or at least on par with it.
I honestly don't give a shit if someone genuinely believes there is a fire or not. The damage is pretty fucking real... And as a matter of fact, people who are at the core of this misinformation (alternative medicine charlatans, Russian trolls, etc.) are doing it intentionally, to their own benefit.
I do appreciate the fact that most anti-vaxxers are victims of misinformation. But censoring them I find justified, because they are causing real harm. The question is only whether censoring is an effective way of fighting this phenomenon. Perhaps differentiating between malicious actors and victims of misinformation would be necessary to determine the right punishment. I'm very much in favor of dealing harshly with the charlatans who are at the core of this.
|
On April 30 2021 19:04 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2021 18:51 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 30 2021 18:48 Gorsameth wrote:On April 30 2021 18:40 BlackJack wrote:On April 30 2021 18:28 maybenexttime wrote:On April 30 2021 14:27 BlackJack wrote:On April 30 2021 14:13 NewSunshine wrote:On April 30 2021 14:10 BlackJack wrote:
Let me spell out my position for you as simply as I can: It's wrong to think one should not get vaccinated, but people should be entitled to their wrong opinion without having the truth police crack down on them. People are entitled to be wrong, but to convince other people of your wrong opinion and put their lives at risk is something entirely different. This isn't just a discussion about whether the sky is blue, it's a bloody pandemic. It's like if there were a section on the internet of people who like to make arguments about why you should drive drunk. There's consequences to having certain opinions, as well as to letting people proliferate beliefs that are objectively dangerous. You haven't addressed that. You're right, it's not a discussion about whether the sky is blue. We don't have a 1st amendment so that we can talk about the sky being blue. Free speech is freaking useless if it only gives us the right to talk about things that aren't controversial. The fact that you're willing to to go full blown authoritarian at the first sign of danger shows exactly why we need a 1st amendment and people to stand up for it. It's not a matter of saying controversial things. It's literally the pandemic equivalent of crying "FIRE" in a packed theater, causing people to trample one another. I just took 2 pages of shit for arguing that "temporarily stop administering a vaccine" is the same as "temporarily stop taking a vaccine." People are honestly going to come here and say that saying something anti-vax is literally the same as inciting violence or yelling fire in a packed theater? If people let this shit slide I'm gonna be upset lol anti-vaxxers are intentionally trying to inflict potential harm to people, so yeah I see no problem with throwing them in with inciting violence and yelling fire in a packed theater. Wait wait. Intentionally trying to inflict harm? I'd like to see some evidence of that. I could see that maybe a tiny minority of them are intentionally trying to inflict harm, but in general they are people who believe what they are saying and believe that it is good, and right. Being delusion doesn't change what they are doing. Nor do I think police would simply let you go if you tell them you thought was a fire despite 0 evidence to suggest it. Besides, didn't we see with Covid that public influencers trying to downplay everything while running to be first in line for the vaccine themselves?
Hmm... I think you might be focusing on a different type of antivaxxer than I am. I'm talking about your average person who talks about antivax stuff on facebook or whatever.
Also, I think you are confusing 0 evidence for bad evidence. There is evidence that could be used to try and support things that antivaxxers say, its just bad evidence and they draw bad conclusions. Its a much more complex issue than shouting fire in a theatre.
People need to get their heads around the fact that no matter what you do, people will believe things that you don't want them to believe. You can't legislate it away, you can't censor them, and if you try even more people will start believing it, and it further reinforces their belief that there is some conspiracy going on. This is something that we can try and change long term (like drone said) but there is no short term solution. We have to accept it, and try and change minds if possible.
No matter what your belief is, there are people who think the opposite. They won't go away because of strong language.
On April 30 2021 19:15 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2021 18:51 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 30 2021 18:48 Gorsameth wrote:On April 30 2021 18:40 BlackJack wrote:On April 30 2021 18:28 maybenexttime wrote:On April 30 2021 14:27 BlackJack wrote:On April 30 2021 14:13 NewSunshine wrote:On April 30 2021 14:10 BlackJack wrote:
Let me spell out my position for you as simply as I can: It's wrong to think one should not get vaccinated, but people should be entitled to their wrong opinion without having the truth police crack down on them. People are entitled to be wrong, but to convince other people of your wrong opinion and put their lives at risk is something entirely different. This isn't just a discussion about whether the sky is blue, it's a bloody pandemic. It's like if there were a section on the internet of people who like to make arguments about why you should drive drunk. There's consequences to having certain opinions, as well as to letting people proliferate beliefs that are objectively dangerous. You haven't addressed that. You're right, it's not a discussion about whether the sky is blue. We don't have a 1st amendment so that we can talk about the sky being blue. Free speech is freaking useless if it only gives us the right to talk about things that aren't controversial. The fact that you're willing to to go full blown authoritarian at the first sign of danger shows exactly why we need a 1st amendment and people to stand up for it. It's not a matter of saying controversial things. It's literally the pandemic equivalent of crying "FIRE" in a packed theater, causing people to trample one another. I just took 2 pages of shit for arguing that "temporarily stop administering a vaccine" is the same as "temporarily stop taking a vaccine." People are honestly going to come here and say that saying something anti-vax is literally the same as inciting violence or yelling fire in a packed theater? If people let this shit slide I'm gonna be upset lol anti-vaxxers are intentionally trying to inflict potential harm to people, so yeah I see no problem with throwing them in with inciting violence and yelling fire in a packed theater. Wait wait. Intentionally trying to inflict harm? I'd like to see some evidence of that. I could see that maybe a tiny minority of them are intentionally trying to inflict harm, but in general they are people who believe what they are saying and believe that it is good, and right, but they are misinformed. In fact I'm going to go further and say that what you're saying here is reprehensible, and is the entire reason I am participating in this discussion. People have labelled them as awful people because of their beliefs. Its the easiest way to create an outgroup so you can justify creating exceptions for them in law to treat them worse than others. Its the first step to tyranny. The idea that anti-vaxxers want everyone else to suffer and die is MORE misinformed than the anti-vaxxers are, or at least on par with it. I honestly don't give a shit if someone genuinely believes there is a fire or not. The damage is pretty fucking real... And as a matter of fact, people who are at the core of this misinformation (alternative medicine charlatans, Russian trolls, etc.) are doing it intentionally, to their own benefit.
This has absolutely nothing to do with fire. Its a completely different issue with different variables and different aspects to it. I wish everyone would stop equating things as if they are the same.
Also, I disagree with who is at the core of the misinformation. I think you'll find churches and mosques are where most of it comes from.
I do appreciate the fact that most anti-vaxxers are victims of misinformation. But censoring them I find justified, because they are causing real harm. The question is only whether censoring is an effective way of fighting this phenomenon. Perhaps differentiating between malicious actors and victims of misinformation would be necessary to determine the right punishment. I'm very much in favor of dealing harshly with the charlatans who are at the core of this.
When it comes to censoring, if Facebook want to take posts down, fair enough. If the government intervenes and wants to determine what is/is not true and what should be censored then they can fuck off, frankly, because I'm more likely to believe an anti-vaxxer than the government. Especially here in the UK, the government tells more lies than every anti-vaxxer combined.
|
|
|
On April 30 2021 19:19 Jockmcplop wrote:
This has absolutely nothing to do with fire. Its a completely different issue with different variables and different aspects to it. I wish everyone would stop equating things as if they are the same.
How are these things not comparable? They're crying "vaccines/masks will kill you/do you harm" in the middle of a pandemic, which causes the victims of their misinformation to act recklessly and spread the infection. Others are telling people there is no fire when in fact there is one ("it's a hoax, there is no pandemic").
Also, I disagree with who is at the core of the misinformation. I think you'll find churches and mosques are where most of it comes from.
We are talking about two different things. I'm talking about the people who invent this misinformation, not potential superspreaders.
|
Can I also point out that if we are talking about punishments for people spreading antivax ideology (which I think some people are), then that will disproportionately affect black and middle eastern people, at least it would here in the UK, where vaccine uptake much lower among black and middle eastern people.
It might have something to do with historical mistreatment of these groups by our government and medical establishments.
This is why its a more complex issue than shouting fire in a theatre. You need to take into account history, religion etc. and all these things that contribute to people's beliefs.
|
|
|
On April 30 2021 19:31 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2021 19:19 Jockmcplop wrote:
This has absolutely nothing to do with fire. Its a completely different issue with different variables and different aspects to it. I wish everyone would stop equating things as if they are the same. How are these things not comparable? They're crying "vaccines/masks will kill you/do you harm" in the middle of a pandemic, which causes the victims of their misinformation to act recklessly and spread the infection. Others are telling people there is no fire when in fact there is one ("it's a hoax, there is no pandemic"). Show nested quote +Also, I disagree with who is at the core of the misinformation. I think you'll find churches and mosques are where most of it comes from. We are talking about two different things. I'm talking about the people who invent this misinformation, not potential superspreaders.
Okay. I think the people you are talking about are a tiny number, and I agree that what they are doing is awful. Honestly though, I haven't looked deeply into antivax misinformation, so I wouldn't even be able to start to tell you where it comes from, but I would imagine its sources upon sources, chinese whispers etc.
Of course there are other issues in today's social media climate, such as bots and viral content farms who just invent this type of stuff for views. I would be fine with platforms deleting their content, but I don't see how you can go further than that. This stuff is just hard to prove and most of it probably comes from small, poor countries where the youth are getting rich from making stuff up on social media.
|
|
|
On April 30 2021 19:31 Jockmcplop wrote:
Can I also point out that if we are talking about punishments for people spreading antivax ideology (which I think some people are), then that will disproportionately affect black and middle eastern people, at least it would here in the UK, where vaccine uptake much lower among black and middle eastern people.
I am talking about punishing people who invent those lies, not people who fall victim to this misinformation. And censoring the latter only if it proves effective.
It might have something to do with historical mistreatment of these groups by our government and medical establishments.
This is why its a more complex issue than shouting fire in a theatre. You need to take into account history, religion etc. and all these things that contribute to people's beliefs.
No, you don't. That's nonsense. Should we decriminalise child molesting because it disproportionately affects men?
|
On April 30 2021 19:57 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2021 19:31 Jockmcplop wrote:
Can I also point out that if we are talking about punishments for people spreading antivax ideology (which I think some people are), then that will disproportionately affect black and middle eastern people, at least it would here in the UK, where vaccine uptake much lower among black and middle eastern people. I am talking about punishing people who invent those lies, not people who fall victim to this misinformation. And censoring the latter only if it proves effective. Show nested quote +It might have something to do with historical mistreatment of these groups by our government and medical establishments.
This is why its a more complex issue than shouting fire in a theatre. You need to take into account history, religion etc. and all these things that contribute to people's beliefs. No, you don't. That's nonsense. Should we decriminalise child molesting because it disproportionately affects men?
This is the point where I stop engaging.
|
On April 30 2021 19:19 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2021 19:04 Gorsameth wrote:On April 30 2021 18:51 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 30 2021 18:48 Gorsameth wrote:On April 30 2021 18:40 BlackJack wrote:On April 30 2021 18:28 maybenexttime wrote:On April 30 2021 14:27 BlackJack wrote:On April 30 2021 14:13 NewSunshine wrote:On April 30 2021 14:10 BlackJack wrote:
Let me spell out my position for you as simply as I can: It's wrong to think one should not get vaccinated, but people should be entitled to their wrong opinion without having the truth police crack down on them. People are entitled to be wrong, but to convince other people of your wrong opinion and put their lives at risk is something entirely different. This isn't just a discussion about whether the sky is blue, it's a bloody pandemic. It's like if there were a section on the internet of people who like to make arguments about why you should drive drunk. There's consequences to having certain opinions, as well as to letting people proliferate beliefs that are objectively dangerous. You haven't addressed that. You're right, it's not a discussion about whether the sky is blue. We don't have a 1st amendment so that we can talk about the sky being blue. Free speech is freaking useless if it only gives us the right to talk about things that aren't controversial. The fact that you're willing to to go full blown authoritarian at the first sign of danger shows exactly why we need a 1st amendment and people to stand up for it. It's not a matter of saying controversial things. It's literally the pandemic equivalent of crying "FIRE" in a packed theater, causing people to trample one another. I just took 2 pages of shit for arguing that "temporarily stop administering a vaccine" is the same as "temporarily stop taking a vaccine." People are honestly going to come here and say that saying something anti-vax is literally the same as inciting violence or yelling fire in a packed theater? If people let this shit slide I'm gonna be upset lol anti-vaxxers are intentionally trying to inflict potential harm to people, so yeah I see no problem with throwing them in with inciting violence and yelling fire in a packed theater. Wait wait. Intentionally trying to inflict harm? I'd like to see some evidence of that. I could see that maybe a tiny minority of them are intentionally trying to inflict harm, but in general they are people who believe what they are saying and believe that it is good, and right. Being delusion doesn't change what they are doing. Nor do I think police would simply let you go if you tell them you thought was a fire despite 0 evidence to suggest it. Besides, didn't we see with Covid that public influencers trying to downplay everything while running to be first in line for the vaccine themselves? Hmm... I think you might be focusing on a different type of antivaxxer than I am. I'm talking about your average person who talks about antivax stuff on facebook or whatever. Also, I think you are confusing 0 evidence for bad evidence. There is evidence that could be used to try and support things that antivaxxers say, its just bad evidence and they draw bad conclusions. Its a much more complex issue than shouting fire in a theatre. People need to get their heads around the fact that no matter what you do, people will believe things that you don't want them to believe. You can't legislate it away, you can't censor them, and if you try even more people will start believing it, and it further reinforces their belief that there is some conspiracy going on. This is something that we can try and change long term (like drone said) but there is no short term solution. We have to accept it, and try and change minds if possible. No matter what your belief is, there are people who think the opposite. They won't go away because of strong language. Show nested quote +On April 30 2021 19:15 maybenexttime wrote:On April 30 2021 18:51 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 30 2021 18:48 Gorsameth wrote:On April 30 2021 18:40 BlackJack wrote:On April 30 2021 18:28 maybenexttime wrote:On April 30 2021 14:27 BlackJack wrote:On April 30 2021 14:13 NewSunshine wrote:On April 30 2021 14:10 BlackJack wrote:
Let me spell out my position for you as simply as I can: It's wrong to think one should not get vaccinated, but people should be entitled to their wrong opinion without having the truth police crack down on them. People are entitled to be wrong, but to convince other people of your wrong opinion and put their lives at risk is something entirely different. This isn't just a discussion about whether the sky is blue, it's a bloody pandemic. It's like if there were a section on the internet of people who like to make arguments about why you should drive drunk. There's consequences to having certain opinions, as well as to letting people proliferate beliefs that are objectively dangerous. You haven't addressed that. You're right, it's not a discussion about whether the sky is blue. We don't have a 1st amendment so that we can talk about the sky being blue. Free speech is freaking useless if it only gives us the right to talk about things that aren't controversial. The fact that you're willing to to go full blown authoritarian at the first sign of danger shows exactly why we need a 1st amendment and people to stand up for it. It's not a matter of saying controversial things. It's literally the pandemic equivalent of crying "FIRE" in a packed theater, causing people to trample one another. I just took 2 pages of shit for arguing that "temporarily stop administering a vaccine" is the same as "temporarily stop taking a vaccine." People are honestly going to come here and say that saying something anti-vax is literally the same as inciting violence or yelling fire in a packed theater? If people let this shit slide I'm gonna be upset lol anti-vaxxers are intentionally trying to inflict potential harm to people, so yeah I see no problem with throwing them in with inciting violence and yelling fire in a packed theater. Wait wait. Intentionally trying to inflict harm? I'd like to see some evidence of that. I could see that maybe a tiny minority of them are intentionally trying to inflict harm, but in general they are people who believe what they are saying and believe that it is good, and right, but they are misinformed. In fact I'm going to go further and say that what you're saying here is reprehensible, and is the entire reason I am participating in this discussion. People have labelled them as awful people because of their beliefs. Its the easiest way to create an outgroup so you can justify creating exceptions for them in law to treat them worse than others. Its the first step to tyranny. The idea that anti-vaxxers want everyone else to suffer and die is MORE misinformed than the anti-vaxxers are, or at least on par with it. I honestly don't give a shit if someone genuinely believes there is a fire or not. The damage is pretty fucking real... And as a matter of fact, people who are at the core of this misinformation (alternative medicine charlatans, Russian trolls, etc.) are doing it intentionally, to their own benefit. This has absolutely nothing to do with fire. Its a completely different issue with different variables and different aspects to it. I wish everyone would stop equating things as if they are the same. Also, I disagree with who is at the core of the misinformation. I think you'll find churches and mosques are where most of it comes from. Show nested quote +I do appreciate the fact that most anti-vaxxers are victims of misinformation. But censoring them I find justified, because they are causing real harm. The question is only whether censoring is an effective way of fighting this phenomenon. Perhaps differentiating between malicious actors and victims of misinformation would be necessary to determine the right punishment. I'm very much in favor of dealing harshly with the charlatans who are at the core of this. When it comes to censoring, if Facebook want to take posts down, fair enough. If the government intervenes and wants to determine what is/is not true and what should be censored then they can fuck off, frankly, because I'm more likely to believe an anti-vaxxer than the government. Especially here in the UK, the government tells more lies than every anti-vaxxer combined. Yes people will always believe the 'wrong' thing and in generally I don't have a problem with that.
I don't care if someone thinks the Earth is flat or whether or not jet fuel can melt steel beams, they are not hurting anyone with that, but anti-vaxxers are, especially in the middle of a global pandemic.
We have diseases that were supposed to be eradicated making a comeback because of it.
How much damage does someone need to do with their 'wrong' belief before something should be done about it? Should we just let it run around on the internet converting more and more people and doing more and more harm because "censoring it would only make it worse"?
As for Facebook or Google doing the censoring being fine but the government being bad. Make no mistakes, it might be indirectly but its still the government. Google and Facebook are not targeting Covid, and before that Trump's claims of election fraud, because they think these specific topics are bad. They are doing it because they fear if they don't tackle these specific topics the governments will come in and force them to do it and more.
If they are topics that they think the government won't care about Facebook and Google are not going to do a damn thing.
(tho I agree that we should be very careful with government censoring).
|
btw, Jockmcplop nails it when he asks who are going to be the arbiters of truth. In the USA, our arbiter of what is true/false or safe/unsafe for drugs/vaccines is the FDA. Anyone that wanted to legislate this idea would probably surely have the FDA as the main arbiter if not the sole aribter.
The FDA for decades said artificial trans fats were safe to put in foods. The WHO estimates trans fats kill 500,000 people annually and have called for them to be eliminated in all foods. Even after the FDA banned trans fats they gave the corporations several years to phase them out. A few more years of letting corporations put shit on our food that is proven to kill us because it might cost the corporations too much money to change too abruptly. They literally let corporations poison for a few more years after they decided something was unsafe just to protect the corporation's profits. Now we are going to start silencing people for not agreeing with the FDA? Bonkers.
|
|
|
On April 30 2021 20:20 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2021 20:06 BlackJack wrote:
btw, Jockmcplop nails it when he asks who are going to be the arbiters of truth. In the USA, our arbiter of what is true/false or safe/unsafe for drugs/vaccines is the FDA. Anyone that wanted to legislate this idea would probably surely have the FDA as the main arbiter if not the sole aribter.
The FDA for decades said artificial trans fats were safe to put in foods. The WHO estimates trans fats kill 500,000 people annually and have called for them to be eliminated in all foods. Even after the FDA banned trans fats they gave the corporations several years to phase them out. A few more years of letting corporations put shit on our food that is proven to kill us because it might cost the corporations too much money to change too abruptly. They literally let corporations poison for a few more years after they decided something was unsafe just to protect the corporation's profits. Now we are going to start silencing people for not agreeing with the FDA? Bonkers. So if we get rid of the FDA then what would happen with the artificial trans fat? By this post it appears that you think they are bad, it is clear that the corporations would have kept using them without them regulating people. People suggesting regulating are not suggesting that it is perfect they are suggesting it is better than not. Perfection is the enemy of progress. You improve and then you try to improve more, you don't do nothing until you find the magic bullet that fixes everything.
No, I am not suggesting the FDA is bad. I am suggesting they are not infallible and they aren't only looking after the health of the public. Drugs get taken off the market all the time when they are later discovered to be dangerous. The reason they are sometimes later discovered to be dangerous is because we don't silence everyone that's bothering to ask whether they are dangerous.
|
Btw am I the only one here that would be less inclined to take a COVID vaccine if I knew I lived in a country that actively censored dissenting or negative opinions about the COVID vaccine?
No offense to anyone here, but if you live in a country with a truth police and you knew the discourse you partook in was being filtered to remove all the "wrong" or dissenting opinions, and it made you more likely to trust the official narrative of the government, then you're an imbecile.
|
|
|
|
|
On April 30 2021 20:39 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2021 20:37 BlackJack wrote:
Btw am I the only one here that would be less inclined to take a COVID vaccine if I knew I lived in a country that actively censored dissenting or negative opinions about the COVID vaccine?
No offense to anyone here, but if you live in a country with a truth police and you knew the discourse you partook in was being filtered to remove all the "wrong" or dissenting opinions, and it made you more likely to trust the official narrative of the government, then you're an imbecile. Do all the free countries that ban hate speech make you hate people more? Or do you trust the official narrative that it is bad and bad for society?
Actually this is a real thing, as silly as it sounds.
I've seen it happen. People who were perfectly fine before the movement against hate speech, who suddenly went all 'US right wing' on me because of Count Dankula or whatever.
It doesn't take much to get people started down a path that leads to hate.
|
|
|
On April 30 2021 20:02 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2021 19:57 maybenexttime wrote:On April 30 2021 19:31 Jockmcplop wrote:
Can I also point out that if we are talking about punishments for people spreading antivax ideology (which I think some people are), then that will disproportionately affect black and middle eastern people, at least it would here in the UK, where vaccine uptake much lower among black and middle eastern people. I am talking about punishing people who invent those lies, not people who fall victim to this misinformation. And censoring the latter only if it proves effective. It might have something to do with historical mistreatment of these groups by our government and medical establishments.
This is why its a more complex issue than shouting fire in a theatre. You need to take into account history, religion etc. and all these things that contribute to people's beliefs. No, you don't. That's nonsense. Should we decriminalise child molesting because it disproportionately affects men? This is the point where I stop engaging.
Why? Bad example? Is criminalising something done predominantly by men fair game, but doing the same to minorities is not okay? Or is the example bad because child molesting is so obviously evil whereas creating anti-vax misinformation is not? How about FGM? Should we not criminalise it because doing so affects only certain minorities?
My point is that whether criminalising some behaviour disproportionately affects a certain group should be completely irrelevant. The only thing that should matter is whether it's harmful to others.
On April 30 2021 16:33 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2021 16:26 Artisreal wrote:On April 30 2021 15:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 30 2021 15:31 Artisreal wrote:
If I tell you the bridge is safe to cross even though I know it isn't, would you want me to be prosecuted or at least ensured that I stop telling people to cross the bridge?
What if I think the bridge looks fine and there's just incompetence at work as I mightn't be a qualified structural engineer -and a bit of ideology because these bridges they want to rebuild, they are expensive and these are my taxes after all? Would that warrant the police stopping me from telling people to cross the bridge? I don't know how much of this is a genuine question and how much is just analogy making but the sensible solution is to put a barrier across the bridge that stops people from crossing it with a giant sign saying 'unsafe bridge'. That way the guy can keep telling people to cross it anyway and probably no-one would. At that point, even if they did, with terrible consequences, it would be their fault for believing the guy. Another point is that there's a fundamental difference between encouraging people to do something dangerous and encouraging people not to do something that will grant safety. you can't put a fence around covid deniers to go with your apt response. Putting up a sign and barring the bridge would be a sensible thing do, I agree  Though the point I was trying to make is, that in some situations there has to be a line of public endagerment where the state has to protect its citicens from another. That is done through regulation of what they are allowed to impose on others. It's called the law. Not censure. It becomes censure when you're 6 feet apart, protesting against lockdown restrictions and go to prison for that. Like in Russia. But connected to Covid, we're as far away from that as the sun is from melting ice on Pluto. On a related note: We had a landmark ruling here in Germany yesterday. Our supreme court ruled, that the goverment has to be more precise in how they want to engage in climate action after 2030, because failure to do so will result in endangerment of the liveliehoods of the younger generation. When the law involves regulating what private citizens can and can't say, that is censorship. They are not mutually exclusive. I get your point, but i disagree that the government should be making law to protect its citizens from each others words (unless harassment/stalking is the issue). This applies doubly to political speech, and i suppose anti-vax does fall into that category.
Does that mean you are also against any anti-hate speech laws? Should people be allowed to spread lies about Jews or LGBT people, as long as they're not directly inciting violence, but merely causing other people to believe those groups are evil and as a result encourage them to act violently towards those groups?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
