Please consider not allowing anti-mask threads here at MR

[planteater]

It's simple, really. Find some pretext to remove all the mask resisters from PRSI, and remove all discussion of COVID-19 to PRSI. Problem solved.

So your idea for people that disagree with you is to purge them. That's been tried in societies in the past with bad results. You may find that you get better traction if you make convincing arguments, but why bother when you can just censor or purge.

Ironically, you mention Nazi's in your post footer. Just, wow.

 

[jerwin]

You may find that you get better traction if you make convincing arguments, but why bother when you can just censor or purge.

I'm not the one moderating this board.

 

[jerwin]

The issue is humanity, not money or love or money or politics or religion. People kill for love. People kill for a team. People kill for politics. People kill for the defense of honor. People kill for drugs. People even kill for a disagreement on the philosophy of Immanuel Kant!

I like the subhead: Attacker now faces ten years' incarceration to contemplate the ethics of his actions

 

[yaxomoxay]

I like the subhead: Attacker now faces ten years' incarceration to contemplate the ethics of his actions

Just don’t mention Sartre ok?? 😂

 

[throAU]

So your idea for people that disagree with you is to purge them. That's been tried in societies in the past with bad results. You may find that you get better traction if you make convincing arguments, but why bother when you can just censor or purge.

Ironically, you mention Nazi's in your post footer. Just, wow.

Exactly.

I find it ironic that people calling for censorship are doing so over something they are justifying with "science".

Well... science is about open discussion, and scientists have previously been silenced/suppressed over their ideas being controversial.

People arguing over masks is not always a personal attack. Agree to disagree, attempt to prove your point, or argue until you're blue in the face. But suppression of ideas (as in banning discussion of them - even if you think they're wrong at the time) is never good for society.

 

[planteater]

Exactly.

I find it ironic that people calling for censorship are doing so over something they are justifying with "science".

Well... science is about open discussion, and scientists have previously been silenced/suppressed over their ideas being controversial.

People arguing over masks is not always a personal attack. Agree to disagree, attempt to prove your point, or argue until you're blue in the face. But suppression of ideas (even if you think they're wrong at the time) is never good for society.

Yep, unfortunately the broad bucket of science is used to squash debate. When the term is used without qualifying a position, it can be a whistle for the weak to use, basically implying; I'm right, you're wrong and unworthy of the discussion. But by nature, science is unsettled. That goes for mask usage and other pet interests of various groups. The same group of people like to shut down anything or one that is brave enough to question their beliefs.

As for masks, there are many subtleties in opinion. We don't all fall into the two extremes. Personally, I have no problem wearing them when I feel they are appropriate or when a buisness requires them. Although, I support people that object to it. And I'll argue against requiring them by governments. So I'm not pure and would be purged or censored by some of those in this thread, if they could get away with it.

 

[throAU]

But by nature, science is unsettled.

Also a valid point.

Personally I think wearing a mask - if you can, if you are in a high risk area is a very good idea.

Personally I think that in some situations they should be legally enforceable in public areas; it is in the best interests of society and currently the evidence suggests they help contain this pandemic.

But that's my opinion, and I'm not representative of the rest of society.

 

[jerwin]

But suppression of ideas (even if you think they're wrong at the time) is never good for society.

I look forward to seeing lots of sex, profanity, and spam in PRSI then.

 

[planteater]

I look forward to seeing lots of sex, profanity, and spam in PRSI then.

I suspect those things are forbidden by the rules. Ideas, probably not.

 

[jerwin]

1) You can't fully understand antimasking politics if you can't speak of a certain antimasker's stranger ideas-- which involve sex with demons.
2) Numerous political magazines are quite willing to breach macrumor's sense of decorum-- and inserted asterisks will make urls useless, Plus you'll receive the infamous "We're not prudes, but" letter.
3) as for spam, first amendment law based on the the marketplace of ideas paradigm has been friendly to marketplace of products.
so while the neoliberal idea of complex discourse emerging out of simple intuitive rules may be romantically appealing, it doesn't really work in practice. Moreover, it's not a model that is embraced by this server's management, for good or ill.

So all these paeons to the first amendment seem naive-- it's not binding here. And if it's not binding here, why appeal to it to defend information, that if taken seriously, is likely to result in death or serious injury?

 

[C DM]

Curious, do posts that pretty much completely downplay and/or mischaracterize the nature of the pandemic (often enough in rather noticeably sarcastic tones, seemingly even on purpose), or ones that basically go down the path of almost (if not actually) just calling it all a hoax fall into a similar type of category?

 

[jerwin]

This speaks volumes about the priorities of macrumors.

 

[arn]

not sure it says anything except mask/corona discussions always trend toward politics. So rather than deleting political posts for a day and then finally moving the thread to politics, we decided to skip that step and just start in politics.

 

[jerwin]

"as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1"

 

[the8thark]

not sure it says anything except mask/corona discussions always trend toward politics. So rather than deleting political posts for a day and then finally moving the thread to politics, we decided to skip that step and just start in politics.

I think this is a good move. I only ask that all such topics are put into political news. Quite a few of the obviously political news topics aren't.

 

[giv-as-a-ciggy-kent]

This is not a topic that should be up for debate and while I get it has turned political and there are differing opinions. The spread of misinformation can cost lives, please consider adding this to your rules.

You need to know that stifling discussion doesn't eliminate it, it only takes it underground. Your people have lost control of the narrative and the harder you go, the more extreme the reaction will be and I say this as a person who always masks up.

Do you remember when the media was screeching about masks being unnecessary and only paranoid conspiracy nuts wear masks, and that washing your hands is sufficient? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

 

[C DM]

You need to know that stifling discussion doesn't eliminate it, it only takes it underground. Your people have lost control of the narrative and the harder you go, the more extreme the reaction will be and I say this as a person who always masks up.

Do you remember when the media was screeching about masks being unnecessary and only paranoid conspiracy nuts wear masks, and that washing your hands is sufficient? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

"Your people"? Shouldn't this be something that involves all people?

 

[Doc C]

Yet MR is actively allowing this video to be posted in PRSI, this tells you all you need to know about their stance on this issue.

Ultimately, this is a private business, and they can choose to allow or disallow anything they want. Nonetheless, there has generally been an effort to keep censorship to a reasonable level (consistent with typical community standards.) I would point you to some of my prior posts regarding COVID -- the moderators had an opportunity to suppress or remove them if they actively disagreed, but still, the posts remain.

Free speech should make you uncomfortable at times. Exposure to different opinions should (ideally) force a re-evaluation of our own opinions. This is how we learn and grow - as long as it remains a discussion, and not something more adversarial. My experience is that most contributors to this site are capable of thinking logically and formulating cogent arguments supporting their point of view.

The most effective way to change someone's mind is to listen to them, ask questions, and get them to justify their viewpoint. It is then easier to find out where the differences lie, and to provide information that may convince them to rethink their opinion. Blocking them or censoring them will only harden the resolve, and often causes people to become more fixed in their beliefs.

 

[C DM]

Free speech should make you uncomfortable at times. Exposure to different opinions should (ideally) force a re-evaluation of our own opinions.

But that's not something that generally applies universally either. Some things aren't really subjective even if some somehow want them to be subjective so somehow different views can be presented as if they have some validity to them simply because of the supposed subjective nature even if one isn't really there.

 

[Doc C]

But that's not something that generally applies universally either. Some things aren't really subjective even if some somehow want them to be subjective so somehow different views can be presented as if they have some validity to them simply because of the supposed subjective nature even if one isn't really there.

Agreed.
That's why I used "at times"

 

[djlythium]

MR should ban threads demanding to ban threads.

Very meta!

 

[ShugShug]

Both of those should be out.

My wife is an ER physician. Anti-masking is actively endangering her.

If anything, we should ban PRSI and be done with it.

I am a trauma nurse and wear appropriate PPE for work. However, the masks most are wearing offer no protection for themselves or to others. Also, the pro-mask population have a sense of themselves being in the position to police the public. They do not. Police officers can not enforce wearing a mask. Businesses might require them but that is private business. It is becoming dangerous to accost an anti-masker in some ways. There may be a reason for no mask. The fashion masks and the blue medical mask do nothing. People are not going to enjoy attacking an anti-masker if that person has reason to not wear a mask. There is social distancing for a reason. If someone isn't in your personal space and several feet away, stay out of their business. Both are unnecessary and the contagious people wearing masks in public should face severe penalties for endangering the public with WHATEVER they are contagious with.

 

[ShugShug]

Very meta!

Best response ever! Thank you for clearing thinking!

 

[arn]

old topic