20 years after 9/11: Will we ever stop taking our shoes off at airports?

Post by Mandatum » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 11:40 PM UTC

stouset wrote: post #257

aww_dang wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I initially thought he was claiming the inverse, that mask proponents were extremists. From the perspective of 2019, that wouldn't be an unreasonable assumption, but here we are. Today people are advocating using the force of the state, in other words violence against those who do not share their views on mask mandates.

Can we kindly stop using hyperbole like “using the force of the state, in other words violence” as an argument against literally any governmental policy ever? In this same fantasy universe jack-booted government thugs are beating up people who don’t wear seat belts or who mislabel the nutritional contents on a package of cheese, except that’s just not what ever actually happens in the real world. These kinds of laws…

Post by angelzen » Thu, Sep 09, 2021, 12:13 AM UTC

newswasboring wrote: post #268

CountDrewku wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok then what's the target? Eradication of the virus is not achievable and neither is full vaccination of the entire population. I have yet to hear any hard numbers for removal of "safety" measures from any politician when enacting lockdowns/mandates. I think you're fooling yourself if you believe there's some hard target.

The target is to save lives. If the threat is still there, we need to keep the safety measures. And covid measures have always been dynamic. Safety measures have been removed or reintroduced based up on very hard statistics man. I don't know how you don't see that. edit: My first sentence was a bit garbage. The target is to save lives from covid and avoid its spread. Hospital utilization and mortality rate from the d…

Post by EricE » Thu, Sep 09, 2021, 12:31 AM UTC

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #807

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #759

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So you have all this talk of "bump stocks" and "ghost guns" and "assault weapons" and whatnot, but it's all just smoke and mirrors to assuage fears. The goal isn't to save lives. The goal is to assuage fears. I don't take any gun policy seriously that purports to save lives if it isn't focused on handguns and suicides. It's also politics. If you actually wanted to solve the problem, well, like two thirds of US fire…

> improve mental health I think that this is a poor target. How do you set out directly targeting mental health? What are the biggest causes of mental health issues? https://www.cdc.gov/mentalhealth/learn/index.htm CDC lists causes such as childhood trauma, trauma from medical issues, biological factors, alcohol or drugs, and loneliness or isolation. How do you set out to tackle loneliness or isolation? How do you he…

Post by angelzen » Thu, Sep 09, 2021, 12:39 AM UTC

titzer wrote: post #235

bedhead wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mass loss of life. Novel way in which people died. People dying randomly (hard to avoid). General hysteria. Paranoia over a minority group. Moral outrage against anyone not falling inline politically. Overreaching government plans to keep people safe. Petty symbolism (freedom fries/masks) to sort the moral from the immoral. Should I go on?

You think masks are petty symbolism? I think that kind of trolling just raises the temperature here, which I'd like to avoid, so no, please, do not go on.

Post by ineptech » Thu, Sep 09, 2021, 12:45 AM UTC

da_chicken wrote: post #791

pklausler wrote: post #766

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As well as the assumption that the kind of weaponry available to the population is effective against that available to the "tyrants".

We just spent 20 years in Afghanistan proving how effective and potent a modern military is against guerilla tactics. I think it's become pretty clear that if you're not willing to ignore the generally accepted rules of engagement, they will just outlast you.