251–260 of 363 posts
It's how Duterte murdered half of his opponents in the Philippines with the fictionalized drug war. Murder in the name of 'public safety'.
I'm sure there were people supporting Duterte saying it's just common sense as well.
Sad how easily influenced people are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> People aren't asking for authoritarian restrictions. People have been asking for common-sense coordinated and effective measures that we can all rally around (like wearing masks). It’s hard to find persistent daylight between those two things. (For the record, I wear masks outside and in grocery stores, which are the only shops I go to. I find this at least 75% common sense.) When it comes time though to force some…
When the vast majority of people agree that we should do something reasonable for the common good and you disagree loudly while flailing your arms about, then it doesn't make you a defender of liberty, it makes you an obnoxious moron.
I want science and data to backup policy decisions and not policy based on the "vast majority" of fear driven mental idiots believing something.
That's how you get crusades and genocides.
In this 'demon haunted' world science is indeed a candle in the dark.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>People aren't asking for authoritarian restrictions. People have been asking for common-sense coordinated and effective measures that we can all rally around (like wearing masks). Whether you agree with it or not, how would a mask mandate not be an authoritarian restriction?
Is a prohibition of setting your neighbours house on fire an authoritarian restriction? How about a mandate to clear the pavement/sidewalk in front of your house of snow so that pedestrians don't fall and break their hip? Having laws doesn't mean you're being oppressed.
The important part of a new rule or law is that we accept the trade offs. I’m not convinced we’ve reached consensus that we all need to be wearing masks but most are obliging.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The article makes it sound as if the erosion of democracy is coming from the top. In the USA, it’s coming from the bottom. It’s coming from everyday citizens. Is that not democracy, then?
I would say that, at least in current US politics, it's more like a tyranny of the minority, abusing the system to increase the relative disparity of power.
However, the loudest voices against lockdowns, masks, and other measures in the US seem to be associated with the minority-but-ruling party in this country.
It is true that the US is a federation of states, and it's a majority party in several states. In those ones, sure, I agree that a respect for the principles of democracy means that the people could choose differently. But if you've come to the point of arguing, "The real problem here is that anti-democratic policy X is being enacted with the support of the people," it's worth taking a moment to ask if policy X actually is democratic, and if saying "We should avoid policy X even if the people support it" is the actual tyranny of the minority.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven’t really understood the certain praise the EU has received by the USA media. The EU as a whole is similar to the USA and has done just as good/bad as the USA. Similar number of deaths. The USA has more cases but I suspect the EU has just not tested as much previously. There’s no reason to suspect the EU would have a higher death rate (USA has more confirmed cases but fewer deaths$. But today EU case totals ar…
This utopian view of the EU predates COVID. I’m not sure where it comes from.
In my country at least a lot of that has to do with the media and our current supreme court. Despite Brazil having the most advanced constitution in the world regarding human rights, local leaders have been ignoring it outright, and when the president complained the media portrayed the president as a genocidal dictator, and when the president sued the governors and mayors to force them to obey the constitution, the s…
> and when the president sued the governors and mayors to force them to obey the constitution, the supreme court literally ruled the Virus is so dangerous that ignoring the constitution and eroding rights is fine. Do you have a reference for that? The closest I could find is ADI 6341 ( http://portal.stf.jus.br/processos/detalhe.asp?incidente=588... which seems to be the one talked about by https://noticias.uol.com.br…
Just so you understand the context:
To prevent a dictator abusing executive powers to prevent protests and whatnot, the constitution allow quarantines and lockdowns only under very specific conditions:
1. Only the president can call for a lockdown, curfew or quarantine.
2. Only because of war or another very serious emergency.
3. After the president calls for it, the congress must approve or deny in 24 hours.
4. After congress approval, it must be approved by the Republic Council (it has people like the vice president, senate leader, minister of justice, etc...) And the Defense Council (it has in it ministers and commanders relates to military).
The supreme court decision is extremely dangerous, because the way it works is that now mayors and governors can literally suspend a citizen basic rights (free movement, free speech, right to assembly, etc...)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well put. There was a book from ages ago called The Ugly American which caused a big stir in US political circles because of the way it decried US foreign policy. It contrasted the US approach (dinner parties in the Embassy) withe the Russians - who learned the local languages, respected local cultural nuances and customs, and taught locals how to more effectively till their lands. That contrast caused a huge stir in…
> who learned the local languages, respected local cultural nuances and customs The US is the only country who requires every single Foreign service officer to learn the local language before being stationed in a country. The Foreign Service Language institute is the most prestigious language school in the world. US foreign policy has plenty of problems, but leaning the local culture and language is not one of them.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would argue it’s coming from the system. The national two party first-past-the-post system naturally leads to hyper-partisanship and constantly escalating stakes, meanwhile fewer and fewer Americans truly feel represented by the choices they have on offer - and very large numbers of people have their vote effectively ignored because their voting precinct is gerrymandered to ensure stable one-party rule. Because the…
I think it's funny to see people dismiss those who want to "tear down the system and replace it" as something untenable and hard to achieve, then go on to propose proportional representation. How do you see any sort of path forward for proportional representation being adopted as an amendment to the constitution? I see no path towards 2/3 majority voting for that.
However, there is only one president, so for this to really matter it needs to happen in Congress, which would require an amendment. The rationale that it could happen is simply that it has happened before: women’s suffrage, the direct election of senators, and the conversion from multi-member districts to single member districts, are all examples of major reform in the US process that were all “impossible” until they happened.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are plenty of religious folks who would debate the bit about Russians (I presume you’re referring to soviet Russia) respecting local culture. Cult (worship) is the root of culture, and the soviets were not well known for religious freedom. Edit: not a defense of US foreign policy, which has been abysmal. Just pointing out that the track record is abysmal across the board.
> Cult (worship) is the root of culture "cult" is indeed a substring of "culture", but the etymology is likely the other way around. both come from the latin verb "colo", which concretely means something like "till" or "care for" (in the sense of agriculture). it's used more abstractly to mean "worship", but this likely comes from the idea of caring for / tending to an actual effigy or temple of a deity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>People aren't asking for authoritarian restrictions. People have been asking for common-sense coordinated and effective measures that we can all rally around (like wearing masks). Whether you agree with it or not, how would a mask mandate not be an authoritarian restriction?
I can think of a few reasons: - 75% of Americans (incl. a majority of republicans) support mask mandates. (The US isn’t a direct democracy, but mask mandates have the green light from the general public). [ https://apnews.com/article/ap-top-news-understanding-the-out... ] - One of the main functions of any government is to mitigate the harm that people do to one another. This is the main thing that distinguishes it f…
Not a good test for policy decisions....what about science instead?
-"Not wearing a mask in crowded places causes harm to others.
Not happening in Sweden. Maybe the people in Sweden have troll blood so they don't need masks. or maybe the jury is still out on that statement.
- "Zero enforcement?" Half of the museums in the U.S. are shutting down permanently. 50% of restaurants in New York City are shuttering. 40 million additional Americans are jobless.
The level of critical thought in America is just so sad.