The Next Decade Could Be Even Worse

[Antiganon]

Gosh, I remember when the political valiance of this pandemic was the complete opposite. Remember when we were told lockdowns don't work and Conservatives were being racist and alarmist back at the start of this thing? Gosh how times shift.

You forget that locking down travel by Chinese nationals is not the same as locking down travel from China.

Guess which one Trump did?

[Kaleredar]

The first might be simple class analysis, why would these elite people actually have the best interests of those outside of that class in mind? That is a remarkable stance of believing the two share any sort of common interest.

Ah yes, the "rich, ivory tower scientists" rolling around in their porches.

We should obviously trust the folksy wisdom of the small-town billionaires like Trump.

[Theodarzna]

Ah yes, the "rich, ivory tower scientists" rolling around in their porches.

We should obviously trust the folksy wisdom of the small-town billionaires like Trump.

I didn't say they were rich or ivory towered, I said they have different interests.

Do you believe in competing interests? Or do you believe there exists this quasi supernatural class of "Experts", borderline Gods among us mortals here to offer completely ideologically free, entirely factual, and in no way self serving guidance and solutions? If so, I'd say you view "Experts" the same way a primitive tribe might view a shaman or something.

- - - Updated - - -

You forget that locking down travel by Chinese nationals is not the same as locking down travel from China.

Guess which one Trump did?

Can you prove this or is this like the "ACA is actually our first step to UHS" fanfiction of yours?

[Zython]

The first might be simple class analysis, why would these elite people actually have the best interests of those outside of that class in mind? That is a remarkable stance of believing the two share any sort of common interest.

When did "expert" become "elite"?

[Antiganon]

I didn't say they were rich or ivory towered, I said they have different interests.

Do you believe in competing interests? Or do you believe there exists this quasi supernatural class of "Experts", borderline Gods among us mortals here to offer completely ideologically free, entirely factual, and in no way self serving guidance and solutions? If so, I'd say you view "Experts" the same way a primitive tribe might view a shaman or something.

- - - Updated - - -



Can you prove this or is this like the "ACA is actually our first step to UHS" fanfiction of yours?

His travel ban was only for Chinese nationals...Americans and Europeans in China at the beginning of the outbreak were allowed to travel freely without quarantine procedures if they didn't present with symptoms.

Edit: My mistake, it applied to foreign nationals in China, regardless of country of citizenship, but it did not include any quarantine procedures for Americans who had been in China.

[Elegiac]

When did "expert" become "elite"?

The minute said experts stopped supporting traditional conservative morality, lol. Hence the concerted pushing of that "secular experts have become the new clergy" bullshit. Replace "papists" with "technocrats" in traditional American demagoguery and you get idiots like Matt Taibbi.

[Theodarzna]

His travel ban was only for Chinese nationals...Americans and Europeans in China at the beginning of the outbreak were allowed to travel freely without quarantine procedures if they didn't present with symptoms.

Yes I recall Foreign Policy mag for example didn't like travel bans because they went against trade laws, and the proffered up this:

When the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the coronavirus epidemic “a public health emergency of international concern” (PHEIC), more than 70 countries responded by imposing travel restrictions against China. Global health experts overwhelmingly decry travel and trade restrictions as bad policy and irresponsible violations of international law. Yet governments continue to implement them, even though scientific evidence—and economic self-interest—advises otherwise. If experts can’t reliably prevent such restrictions, they must take steps to mitigating their most harmful effects.

Travel and trade restrictions take various forms. With this coronavirus, governments are warning citizens not travel to China, and instructing those already there to leave; closing borders and banning flights; barring visitors who have recently been to China from entering the country; and implementing mandatory quarantines for returning residents. In past epidemics, governments have also imposed trade restrictions, such as bans on importing pork during the 2009 swine flu pandemic. Such restrictions are ineffective and economically costly for all sides. Initial estimates are that U.S. travel restrictions against China will cost the U.S. economy $10.3 billion. They also have more insidious downsides: incentivizing countries to conceal outbreaks, hindering response efforts, infringing on human rights, and fueling the spread of xenophobia.

Basically their reasoning was less about any kind of science, but all economic problems caused be decreased trade, concerns over xenophobia, and a concern for some sort of human rights claims. So in February the liberal position was against such restrictions on movement, for a variety of reasons. Today, the idea of internally restricting the population, economic costs be damned, is greeted with absolute delight by Liberals but economic costs were proffered up as a reason against travel restrictions back in February. Which is amazing, we cannot stop the spread of the virus with restrictions, but then we magically can. Other sources from the time, mostly February show essentially the concerns were primarily the economics and it causing bigotry were the reasons travel bans were bad, and a belief at the time that probably the virus was already everywhere since it might? does? can? incubate for weeks before actually making one sick.

Of-course this is also the time when vaunted experts told us masks weren't effective and to only get one if you were sick, you know before we were told that not wearing a mask was the worst sin imaginable and it was admitted that past statements were outright lies.

[Kaleredar]

I didn't say they were rich or ivory towered, I said they have different interests.

Do you believe in competing interests? Or do you believe there exists this quasi supernatural class of "Experts", borderline Gods among us mortals here to offer completely ideologically free, entirely factual, and in no way self serving guidance and solutions? If so, I'd say you view "Experts" the same way a primitive tribe might view a shaman or something.

Yeah, no.

Scientists study their disciplines for years. The purview of a scientist is to seek fact, and we as humans have done a damn good job of developing the ability to suss out fact from fiction and empirical methods with which to separate these analyses from the trappings of subjectivity. You can doubt the "moral impetus" of scientists who study vaccines, or anything else for that matter, all you want. That doesn't change the fact that they work.

You randomly opining on their philosophical merits as some random schmuck on the internet holds zero weight. See my post a page or two back; your lack of understanding of the scientific method or misconstruing the motives of the scientific community as needing to be some stinted morality or profit-driven venture does not make your concerns valid.


As Neil Degrasse Tyson said it: "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."

You don't have to believe in the theory of gravity, but the earth will continue revolving around the sun because of gravity whether you believe it or not. Same with climate change. Same with evolution. Same with wearing masks to prevent the spread of coronavirus. Same with vaccines.

[Theodarzna]

Yeah, no.

Scientists study their disciplines for years. The purview of a scientist is to seek fact, and we as humans have done a damn good job of developing the ability to suss out fact from fiction. You can doubt the "moral impetus" of scientists who study vaccines all you want. That doesn't change the fact that they work.

You randomly opining on their philosophical merits as some random schmuck on the internet holds zero weight. See my post a page or two back; your lack of understanding of the scientific method or misconstruing the motives of the scientific community as needing to be some stinted morality or profit-driven venture does not make your concerns valid.


As Neil Degrasse tyson said it: "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."

You don't have to believe in the theory of gravity, but the earth will continue revolving around the sun whether you believe it or not. Same with climate change. Same with wearing masks to prevent the spread of coronavirus. Same with vaccines.

"Scientists study hard" doesn't actually prove their morality, or trustworthiness. Again this isn't that different from "The Holy Man is very pious, why would you question their intentions".

Because what you are offering is essentially a non-politics; a case that there exists some people out there whom will solve political problems but in an objectively correct way, free from ideology. The claim of being free from ideology is itself a radically ideological statement. There isn't a community of humans not tinted by self interest, nor is their a scientific method that answers basic political questions, that is the realm of deliberation, debate and peoples interests.

[Kaleredar]

"Scientists study hard" doesn't actually prove their morality, or trustworthiness. Again this isn't that different from "The Holy Man is very pious, why would you question their intentions".

Because what you are offering is essentially a non-politics; a case that there exists some people out there whom will solve political problems but in an objectively correct way, free from ideology. The claim of being free from ideology is itself a radically ideological statement. There isn't a community of humans not tinted by self interest, nor is their a scientific method that answers basic political questions, that is the realm of deliberation, debate and peoples interests.

None of this tripe is important. Or meaningful. It is not science's place to get bogged down in "but what is the greater good?!?!" Again, you're projecting your own inability to assess things from an empirical standpoint, which really serves to denigrate why anyone should give a flying fig about your opinions on what you clearly lack any particular understanding in.

Scientists aren't here to answer what is "morally right." That is not their job. Scientists exist to observe phenomenon, formulate theories as to why those phenomena exist and then formulate further hypothesis to test the limits of those phenomena.

That's. It.

What was Galileo's "self interest" when he displayed that the earth revolved around the sun? Was Einstein seeking personal glory and fulfillment when he presented special relativity? Was Alexander Fleming really just in it for the money when he presented the life-saving penicillin? Are we to mistrust these tried and true observations because you are convinced that the scientists that discovered and described these things simply must have had ulterior motives?


You know, you remind me of this guy in one of my anthropology classes back in college. He could not understand that an anthropologist reporting on the existence of Female Genital mutilation practices in some culture could not serve up said observations without doing so as a simultaneous condemnation of any such culture as savage and amoral. He couldn't understand that wasn't the Anthropologist's job. It is not a scientist's job to opine on the rightness or wrongness of a phenomena; only to report that it exists and formulate a theory as to why.

This was a guy that also argued, with the professor during a class lecture, that he thought that the sphinx was far older than archaeologists were reporting because of some article he read online about erosion patterns and that best way to explain this discrepancy was that archaeologists and egyptologists who had dedicated their lives to studying these things must be lying "because they didn't want to have appeared wrong or challenge the conventional wisdom."


You really smack to me of the way that guy acted. Someone with no training or formal understanding who will argue with experts and call into question their findings not from some place of education or legitimate contention, but simply because you misunderstand the point completely.

[Howel]

It is a health care system, sure, just like a Cow and a Squid are both animals of some type. But they are not the same thing. One produces ink another milk, if I want milk I'm not getting it from a squid.

The ACA is a private marketplace, a glorified mandate to buy a shitty substandard product and feed profits. An NHS is a health service, the two are not actually at all the same thing. Nor is an ACA just a watered down NHS. That is patently ridiculous.

They are both the political stance on how to treat health care, be it full nationalized or leave it to the free market, it is in the exact same box that a political test would have you check for political leaning. They might be very different in their base model, but... why was this a point again? It is not a point against political leanings deviating from each other, with "extremes" at either end.

[Theodarzna]

They are both the political stance on how to treat health care, be it full nationalized or leave it to the free market, it is in the exact same box that a political test would have you check for political leaning. They might be very different in their base model, but... why was this a point again? It is not a point against political leanings deviating from each other, with "extremes" at either end.

Again, you characterize the ACA as just a moderate position, that is your characterization. It is a fundamentally different position. You seem to maintain a belief that NHS would be just a "Super Liberal" position, when its obviously not. The ACA isn't just a moderate NHS, its just plain not an NHS nor did its creators design it to be as such.

Functionally there are not moderates on the field, they are instead articulating their own distinct ideological position, they are as a matter of fact, their own camp.

[Howel]

Again, you characterize the ACA as just a moderate position, that is your characterization. It is a fundamentally different position. You seem to maintain a belief that NHS would be just a "Super Liberal" position, when its obviously not. The ACA isn't just a moderate NHS, its just plain not an NHS nor did its creators design it to be as such.

Functionally there are not moderates on the field, they are instead articulating their own distinct ideological position, they are as a matter of fact, their own camp.

I never made the claim that the ACA was a moderate position. That's a conversation you've dragged from a different poster.

But the point still stands, since moderate, is not a position from the entire spectrum, if the entire spectrum is not represented. It is why we call, people from backassward countries, who want to treat women with an inkling of respect, moderate.

[Cthulhu 2020]

None of this tripe is important. Or meaningful. It is not science's place to get bogged down in "but what is the greater good?!?!" Again, you're projecting your own inability to assess things from an empirical standpoint, which really serves to denigrate why anyone should give a flying fig about your opinions on what you clearly lack any particular understanding in.

Scientists aren't here to answer what is "morally right." That is not their job. Scientists exist to observe phenomenon, formulate theories as to why those phenomena exist and then formulate further hypothesis to test the limits of those phenomena.

That's. It.

What was Galileo's "self interest" when he displayed that the earth revolved around the sun? Was Einstein seeking personal glory and fulfillment when he presented special relativity? Was Alexander Fleming really just in it for the money when he presented the life-saving penicillin? Are we to mistrust these tried and true observations because you are convinced that the scientists that discovered and described these things simply must have had ulterior motives?


You know, you remind me of this guy in one of my anthropology classes back in college. He could not understand that an anthropologist reporting on the existence of Female Genital mutilation practices in some culture could not serve up said observations without doing so as a simultaneous condemnation of any such culture as savage and amoral. He couldn't understand that wasn't the Anthropologist's job. It is not a scientist's job to opine on the rightness or wrongness of a phenomena; only to report that it exists and formulate a theory as to why.

This was a guy that also argued, with the professor during a class lecture, that he thought that the sphinx was far older than archaeologists were reporting because of some article he read online about erosion patterns and that best way to explain this discrepancy was that archaeologists and egyptologists who had dedicated their lives to studying these things must be lying "because they didn't want to have appeared wrong or challenge the conventional wisdom."


You really smack to me of the way that guy acted. Someone with no training or formal understanding who will argue with experts and call into question their findings not from some place of education or legitimate contention, but simply because you misunderstand the point completely.

This is probably by far the best description I have seen yet on Theo. She derives her view of scientists and experts in the same way that most conservatives view climate scientists, with distrust and disdain. It reminds me of that John Oliver episode where he talks about how conservatives believe climate scientists are in it for the money and only show positive results for climate change to chase grants. It displays a fundamental complete lack of understanding. A willful ignorance for which there is no remedy. Only the ability to wallow in the pig shit that is her own opinion. But is it really such a surprise that Theo treats experts with disgust when they constantly prove her wrong? When her entire world view is challenged at its very basic foundations by facts? I can understand why she'd try to shame people for looking to scientific experts. Not that it's any less idiotic. But I can at least understand the thought processes of a person who has a poor relationship with reality.

[szechuan]

Another reason why the years ahead of America will be horrible.
5-4, When America fails to separate church and state.


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...es/3767379001/

[Felya]

This is probably by far the best description I have seen yet on Theo. She derives her view of scientists and experts in the same way that most conservatives view climate scientists, with distrust and disdain. It reminds me of that John Oliver episode where he talks about how conservatives believe climate scientists are in it for the money and only show positive results for climate change to chase grants. It displays a fundamental complete lack of understanding. A willful ignorance for which there is no remedy. Only the ability to wallow in the pig shit that is her own opinion. But is it really such a surprise that Theo treats experts with disgust when they constantly prove her wrong? When her entire world view is challenged at its very basic foundations by facts? I can understand why she'd try to shame people for looking to scientific experts. Not that it's any less idiotic. But I can at least understand the thought processes of a person who has a poor relationship with reality.

It’s basic altright... aka... Classic Liberals...

[wunksta]

There isn't a community of humans not tinted by self interest, nor is their a scientific method that answers basic political questions, that is the realm of deliberation, debate and peoples interests.

And you can't have a meaningful debate if people are rejecting evidence that has been peer reviewed by scientists. How can you have a debate on the political questions about how to address climate change for example, when there are still people who reject the evidence of humans having an impact or that climate change is even happening?

Sure, all humans have self-interest but the scientific method is a self-correcting process to gain information about the world around us. It doesn't matter what political views a scientist has, all that matters is if their claims are testable, verifiable and repeatable.

[Shadowferal]

Another reason why the years ahead of America will be horrible.
5-4, When America fails to separate church and state.


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...es/3767379001/

No.
As I posted in the relevant thread;

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote of his ruling that it seemed contradictory to say it was unsafe to go to church but not to shop for a new bike.

"So, at least according to the Governor, it may be unsafe to go to church, but it is always fine to pick up another bottle of wine, shop for a new bike," Gorsuch wrote
----
If the governor wants restrictions then he needs to apply them equally.

[Theodarzna]

You really smack to me of the way that guy acted. Someone with no training or formal understanding who will argue with experts and call into question their findings not from some place of education or legitimate contention, but simply because you misunderstand the point completely.

No, you misrepresent but that is typical for MMO-C.

I'm the person at the Climate Change panel pointing out that plans like the Carbon Tax and Taxes on food are just putting the burden of stopping Climate Change on the poor and asking why the solutions proposed by said anointed experts seem to fall into "It is on individuals to do things".

- - - Updated - - -

I never made the claim that the ACA was a moderate position. That's a conversation you've dragged from a different poster.

But the point still stands, since moderate, is not a position from the entire spectrum, if the entire spectrum is not represented. It is why we call, people from backassward countries, who want to treat women with an inkling of respect, moderate.

You are the one initially stating I need to be working with these "moderates" as you term it, because you are viewing things as a spectrum.

[wunksta]

No, you misrepresent but that is typical for MMO-C.

I'm the person at the Climate Change panel pointing out that plans like the Carbon Tax and Taxes on food are just putting the burden of stopping Climate Change on the poor and asking why the solutions proposed by said anointed experts seem to fall into "It is on individuals to do things".

Those were largely pushed as solutions by economists.