Coronavirus (COVID-19 Outbreak) (41 Viewers)
- Thread starter Bjerknes
- Start date
It's all the satisfaction of white supremacy with 30% fewer lynchings.
Well, in the first case it was before the deadline, and the second dude can't make any bigger rules beyond the ones for the pet dog now.
I get the hypocrisy griping. But who didn't get the memo that our politicians aren't role models?
Certainly not men who haven't already been emasculated.
I've had to do it indoors in Portugal for the past couple of weeks. But France is like here. Almost all cases are typically "proof of vaccine or negative Covid test within 72 hours", but all the media coverage has been lazy and compressed it to "vaccines required" for shorter headlines. Which changes the perspective entirely and makes a lot of people break out their goosestepping shoes.
that's so fucking sick. It's like a huge animal farm.
Well, have you ever seen a French person bathe?
No?
I rest my case.
Well, in the first case it was before the deadline, and the second dude can't make any bigger rules beyond the ones for the pet dog now.
I get the hypocrisy griping. But who didn't get the memo that our politicians aren't role models?
Certainly not men who haven't already been emasculated.
So in France you need vaccine in order to enter cafe shops, bars, malls, food stores? LOL.
vaccines are optional
vaccines are optional
that's so fucking sick. It's like a huge animal farm.
No?
I rest my case.
Fair point. But you could make the case that catching the virus isn’t entirely involuntary. If you entrust people with a degree of agency, such as voluntary social distancing and mask wearing, then by definition that comes with culpability in their decisions.
That’s still independent of any rights for the people who are otherwise exposed to them or smokers.
That’s still independent of any rights for the people who are otherwise exposed to them or smokers.
Fair question. You could argue that closing the saunas wouldn't turn gay men asexual... it would just surface somewhere else unregulated and particularly more harmful.
But that's not entirely how that played out -- at least from my impressions. If anything, there were a lot of reckless fook-ass-til-I-die people among gays who would not be changed. But the shift made people more cautious and took precautionary measures more seriously. Probably saving a number of lives, but you really can't prove that scientifically without tests that would ring a number of Nazi-adjacent ethical alarm bells.
Should that mean we don't try anything on the chance of getting it wrong? That's where I disagree. Governments and public agencies are known for not innovating crap for the most part. But that has to do more with a standard of failure that is allowed for private businesses but not for governments.
I think we need to encourage state actors to take more safe-to-fail gambles to learn from, because a lot of this crap is too complicated to successfully model in a lab and thinking behavior might lean one way doesn't make it so in action. That means citizens need to allow programs to try and fail in the interest of learning more for the next attempt. Instead, there is such a hostility to failure that nobody takes reasonable risks.
But that's not entirely how that played out -- at least from my impressions. If anything, there were a lot of reckless fook-ass-til-I-die people among gays who would not be changed. But the shift made people more cautious and took precautionary measures more seriously. Probably saving a number of lives, but you really can't prove that scientifically without tests that would ring a number of Nazi-adjacent ethical alarm bells.
Should that mean we don't try anything on the chance of getting it wrong? That's where I disagree. Governments and public agencies are known for not innovating crap for the most part. But that has to do more with a standard of failure that is allowed for private businesses but not for governments.
I think we need to encourage state actors to take more safe-to-fail gambles to learn from, because a lot of this crap is too complicated to successfully model in a lab and thinking behavior might lean one way doesn't make it so in action. That means citizens need to allow programs to try and fail in the interest of learning more for the next attempt. Instead, there is such a hostility to failure that nobody takes reasonable risks.
I think the very opposite i think policy makers who get it wrong should face punishment, the majority of the policy problems are because the bureaucrats and politicians who "engineered" them do so knowing all it takes is for it to sound good on paper. Failure and its concequences are an eventuality in every aspect of our lives. Politicians and bureaucrats shouldn't be exempt.
But you're talking more about Big Failure though. Big Failure is what bureaucracies always protect, deflect, and thrive on. It absolutely should be punished, but politics run deep and voters seem to have short memories for many of those flavors.
I'm talking about small failure. Failure with a lower-case 'f'. I think nobody should be allowed to even attempt Big Failure without first proof of learning and analysis from small failure. For example -- whether or not you think UBI is a horrible idea, I like the fact that there have been pilots to question it and learn from at smaller, localized scales with only limited investment.
That doesn't solve the problem of Big Failure accountability. But hopefully it weeds out more of the bad ideas sooner and with less investment.
I'm talking about small failure. Failure with a lower-case 'f'. I think nobody should be allowed to even attempt Big Failure without first proof of learning and analysis from small failure. For example -- whether or not you think UBI is a horrible idea, I like the fact that there have been pilots to question it and learn from at smaller, localized scales with only limited investment.
That doesn't solve the problem of Big Failure accountability. But hopefully it weeds out more of the bad ideas sooner and with less investment.
