How did face masks become so political?

[Farm Boy]

Elders also tamp down the temperament. I'm convinced that part of the reason everything went off the rails in the way it did was removing so much senior input from the equation, replaced with frustrated youth.

 

[Lexicus]

Elders also tamp down the temperament. I'm convinced that part of the reason everything went off the rails in the way it did was removing so much senior input from the equation, replaced with frustrated youth.

In the US the entire country is already basically at the mercy of people who will almost certainly be dead in 20 years and you think the problem is that the geriatrics have insufficient power and influence?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Data?

i put one link earlier in thread, and also discussed the difficulty in attributing lockdowns to saving lives, with similar difficulty in separating covid policy impact from other sources of non-covid excess death.

one thing though: the burden of presenting evidence must be on those advocating force/policy to control behavior. in other words, i instead ask you to show longterm cost/benefit from various lockdowns. both how many people the policy saves, and how many die from it, and why/where those numbers came from. if you can't do it, you can't justify lockdown. you don't need to do it, but a credible government must.

Strictly speaking, children have more potential, and so you lose potential every time we lose a child. And the elders have more memories and embedded knowledge, so you're losing more knowledge whenever an elder dies.

world would have to be incredibly skewed (like, more children than resources to support them) before value of knowledge lost would outstrip damage to future productivity + knowledge acquisition. there were some concerns of this, but it looks like country populations are going to stabilize without much regulation given fertility trends as nations develop. fewer children as a % of population makes losing them even more brutal.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

i put one link earlier in thread, and also discussed the difficulty in attributing lockdowns to saving lives, with similar difficulty in separating covid policy impact from other sources of non-covid excess death.

It depends on what type of measures being discussed. Face masks, distancing, or simply lockdowns? There are also many types of lockdowns ranging from useless ones that the West use for pretty points to the Chinese ones that get demonized.

The Western-style lockdowns are pretty useless because there are too many gaps. It's like building a Maginot line along the Ardennes while leaving the Belgian border wide open. Expensive but really not that scientific. It's done for show.

Wuhan-style lockdowns are pretty effective. China was able to operate with essentially no COVID within its borders before Omicron. However, unless the rest of the world joins in on the effort, it's just delaying the inevitable. Given that people are bawling over wearing a mask, it'd be more likely for aliens to invade than for this to happen.

Also, please use capitalization in your writing. I believe you used to do that back in Paradox forums.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Wuhan-style lockdowns are pretty effective. China was able to operate with essentially no COVID within its borders before Omicron. However, unless the rest of the world joins in on the effort, it's just delaying the inevitable. Given that people are bawling over wearing a mask, it'd be more likely for aliens to invade than for this to happen.

i am sure china is aware or can reasonably anticipate policy of other countries, long-term, and made its policy decisions regardless of that fact. it seems their choice is better predicted by government trying to save face than a legit belief that (at any point) the world was going to successfully implement some kind of perfect draconian lockdown measure.

even masks have subsets, as i discussed earlier (single layer cloth doing next to nothing, surgical doing quite a lot, others in between that).

Also, please use capitalization in your writing. I believe you used to do that back in Paradox forums.

off topic is special so no

 

[Farm Boy]

In the US the entire country is already basically at the mercy of people who will almost certainly be dead in 20 years and you think the problem is that the geriatrics have insufficient power and influence?

No idea what you're talking about.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

i am sure china is aware or can reasonably anticipate policy of other countries, long-term, and made its policy decisions regardless of that fact. it seems their choice is better predicted by government trying to save face than a legit belief that (at any point) the world was going to successfully implement some kind of perfect draconian lockdown measure.

The measures taken by China are widely criticized largely because it's China and everything it does attracts negative spin. Aside from hard-lockdowns (e.g. Shanghai-style) Taiwan follows very similar measures and often gets praised in the press instead because Taiwan is the media darling.

Saving face is a very universal thing in this pandemic. The Western governments like to say what China did as "saving face" because they themselves had failed quite utterly in the face of this pandemic and are now just trying to re-write history by saying they did the appropriate thing.

Let us be real for a second. If COVID blows through China in the American style, the Chinese hospital system would collapse and you guys will munch popcorn and masturbate over the deaths of the Chinese, how the Chinese hospital system sucks, how their vaccines are useless, and how you guys are the best.

We already got a test run of this over in Hong Kong back in Spring 2022. Hong Kong had mRNA vaccines and a better hospital system and corpses were still piling up in the hospitals. All happening with the happy jeers of English social media because Hong Kong is part of the enemy tribe.

I don't think China really knows what's the right end-game for COVID. Most of the world don't either. Everyone's just improvising and some wanted to just pretend it's over when it's not.

Just this month, half my team (young healthy males) got knocked out by COVID again with some already suffering from long COVID beforehand. Even the Flu in its modern form is not this persistent.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I'm not asking that question to be a jerk, FFS, as I've already explained, I'm asking to find out the answer

If I try to put aside underlying issues/merits of folks self-describing, I lean towards the outlook that asking a person if they self describe that way comes off as a put-down, whether intended or not, for many of the essentially toxic reasons you yourself have identified.

Also, along that line of thought, the exchange that @Narz and @Senethro had, reminds me that the mere fact that someone was mean or insulting to another person, does not, in-and-of-itself justify or warrant sympathy or support of the insulted/attacked person. Sometimes, oftentimes, people get attacked, mocked, etc., with good reason... and you (the royal you) don't necessarily need to feel bad or unjustified in giving someone as good as they give, or calling them out for being wrong, sexist, bigoted, etc. I'd say society functioning partially depends on garbage ideas being rejected and criticized.

Also, FWIW I think its perfectly normal for a question to be a partial put-down, while simultaneously being a good faith question,, ie "So just so we're clear...you really think its OK to sacrifice your children to the volcano? I just want to be clear on that."

Valuing children over the elderly is actually very interesting. Societies that do it will probably perform societies that don't, given that the children will end up doing all the work as they age. Strictly speaking, children have more potential, and so you lose potential every time we lose a child. And the elders have more memories and embedded knowledge, so you're losing more knowledge whenever an elder dies.

I remember reading somewhere (I'm too lazy to try and find a cite), that the relative cuteness of babies/young creatures was an evolutionary defense mechanism that overcompensates for their relative lack of utilitarian usefulness vis-a-vis adults and elderly folks. People prioritize children because they're adorable and old people are less so.

I guess one of the issues with the view that as we get older we get more wisdom/experience/expertise, is that as we get older, we also get more set in our ways and resistant to critical new ideas and societal changes. The older folks are going to more resistant to the notion that the way they did or thought about things is obsolete, and a better way has been discovered/adopted.

The unavoidable dystopian extension of "the elderly are more valuable for their experience/knowledge, etc.", is a society (that has already been depicted in movies/shows) where babies are banned and the adults are given treatments make them live forever.

 

[Narz]

reminds me that the mere fact that someone was mean or insulting to another person, does not, in-and-of-itself justify or warrant sympathy or support of the insulted/attacked person. Sometimes, oftentimes, people get attacked, mocked, etc., with good reason... and you (the royal you) don't necessarily need to feel bad or unjustified in giving someone as good as they give, or calling them out for being wrong, sexist, bigoted, etc. I'd say society functioning partially depends on garbage ideas being rejected and criticized.

Sure you can engage in a flame war back but then you don't get to claim moral high ground.

Anyway, the guy is earnestly sharing his beliefs, I'm not above a gentle mocking or dismissing nonsense when I see it but I'm not claiming to be above & beyond "toxic" communication

 

[Senethro]

No. One doesn't "just" earnestly share one's beliefs about women and specific ethnicities.

You only get the benefit of the doubt if you give the benefit of the doubt, and bigots/racists/funny ideologues are those who have openly declared they won't give it to specific groups.

You're not obliged to cooperate with someone sharpening their knife by turning your back on them.

 

[Narz]

This guy is a racist?

 

[Farm Boy]

The unavoidable dystopian extension of "the elderly are more valuable for their experience/knowledge, etc.", is a society (that has already been depicted in movies/shows) where babies are banned and the adults are given treatments make them live forever.

Breeding chattel looms as the counterbalance?

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

This guy is a racist?

He said he enjoys blackface? I know pretty mild, but utterly bizarre to bring up without even being asked.

A troll or a sexist bigot, either way people are not going to respond politely to offence or dumb commentary.

 

[Lexicus]

Sure you can engage in a flame war back but then you don't get to claim moral high ground.

I'm not claiming the moral high ground
I am the abyss
I fight monsters on the internet, so that innocent civilians don't have to
I am the thin blue line

 

[Narz]

I'm not claiming the moral high ground
I am the abyss
I fight monsters on the internet, so that innocent civilians don't have to
I am the thin blue line

You're just bored, this isn't fighting, just a cheap dopamine fix distracting from impotence towards the things you actually care about

He said he enjoys blackface? I know pretty mild, but utterly bizarre to bring up without even being asked.

I enjoyed Tropic Thunder

 

[Lexicus]

You're just bored, this isn't fighting, just a cheap dopamine fix distracting from impotence towards the things you actually care about

Or maybe i just have a sense of humor

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

I enjoyed Tropic Thunder

Not at all relevant. RDJs character wasn't a tool to mock black people.

 

[Narz]

Neither is dressing up as Michael Jackson or whoever.

I show my age, I guess w MJ you'd need white face these days

 

[El_Machinae]

Tropic Thunder was meta in a way that the majority of blackface events are not. And it contains a Iron Man / Spider-Man Multiverse crossover event, which is nice in and of itself

 

[Uncle Paul]

They are... acceptable casualties for those who want to pretend COVID is not a big issue.

And those who do not obey orders and get shot by the military as part of an operation to restore order are acceptable casualties from my perspective.

Yo on the real are you a virgin

This is CivFanatics not AskQuestionsAboutUnclePaul'sVirginityStatusFanatics.

Masks always were gonna be political.

There’s value in masking to slow the spread of disease. Debateable value, value that must be weighed against the inconvenience of masking, the harm it does to the joy of living for many.

Who care about their "joy of living"? The world is far too soft these days. It's best to be cruel, but fair.

We saw the pros/cons debate play out with restaurants. Everybody knew it was ineffective to mask until you’re at your table, then remove it. But what was the alternative? To close restaraunts entirely? Is that worth it? That question was always going to have to be settled at the political level.

Outdoor dining?
Takeout?

As a society I suppose we fell into that ridiculous compromise: wear mask to the table, then take it off to eat and talk. It was ridiculous, but when it came down to it, we had insufficient collective will to shutter the entirety of the restaraunt industry, I suppose.

You don't need collective will, you just need to enable the Armed Forces to shoot people on the spot for noncompliance. We don't need freeDUMB or DUMBocracy.

quoted doesn't make sense to me. presumably, men pursue this for enjoyment as well, or are at least attempting to enjoy it. if they do not enjoy it, then what is it, compulsion? that doesn't make sense.

It's mostly something women do.

at best, you can say that if there are more men vs women, or more women vs men, that supply/demand predicts that the side with fewer people will "enjoy" it more because that group is able to be more picky while still meeting demand. i don't think "most men don't want to be in sausage fest clubs" is breaking any new ground conceptually though, lol. if you don't like it, don't go, then there are fewer men there.

I rather like sausage, especially boerewors.

i'm sorry to hear that. i don't think it should inform general policy, though. people lose relatives to many things we do not ban, with higher odds in some cases. while i would prefer if it were not true, it is unlikely that any of us are alive in 100 years no matter what (likely much less for most). if you try to optimize to maximize time alive vs risk, you won't get to experience much life has to offer, so you have to strike a balance. it is not good process to have the government force that balance preference onto individuals at scale.

Personally, I think using the computer or TV is far more enjoyable than socializing with others or clubbing, which is degenerate behavior.

maybe you believe that, but i don't see how "good of society" --> "elderly are more important than infants" can square, for most any functional definition of "good for society", and you certainly haven't provided any rationale that supports such a position yet.

Well, I like senior citizens better than children, senior citizens in my country are more likely to be members of my ethnic group than children are, senior citizens are more likely to share my political beliefs than children are, etc...

evidence suggests we should predict otherwise. where is your evidence that goes against such prediction?

Why were most maskless people in bars female last year? Or even in 2020?

or maybe those just don't want to *cause* more casualties than they save.

I'd rather have teenagers be depressed than have senior citizens die.

the sensible move would be to either shutter the place, or don't require what amounts to a signaling ritual. one or the other. which is the sensible answer depends on your belief about and acceptance of risk given what is known at the time, but one or the other of these must be more sensible than that nonsense.

Then shutter it!

Valuing children over the elderly is actually very interesting. Societies that do it will probably perform societies that don't, given that the children will end up doing all the work as they age. Strictly speaking, children have more potential, and so you lose potential every time we lose a child. And the elders have more memories and embedded knowledge, so you're losing more knowledge whenever an elder dies.

Children were very useful to society, back in "Oliver Twist" days.

In the US the entire country is already basically at the mercy of people who will almost certainly be dead in 20 years and you think the problem is that the geriatrics have insufficient power and influence?

Why should senior citizens have to take orders from snot-nosed kids?

It depends on what type of measures being discussed. Face masks, distancing, or simply lockdowns? There are also many types of lockdowns ranging from useless ones that the West use for pretty points to the Chinese ones that get demonized.

The Western-style lockdowns are pretty useless because there are too many gaps. It's like building a Maginot line along the Ardennes while leaving the Belgian border wide open. Expensive but really not that scientific. It's done for show.

Wuhan-style lockdowns are pretty effective. China was able to operate with essentially no COVID within its borders before Omicron. However, unless the rest of the world joins in on the effort, it's just delaying the inevitable. Given that people are bawling over wearing a mask, it'd be more likely for aliens to invade than for this to happen.

Also, please use capitalization in your writing. I believe you used to do that back in Paradox forums.

China's policies are good now, but let's not forget, that China inflicted the pandemic on the world back in 2020.

Not at all relevant. RDJs character wasn't a tool to mock black people.

There is no right to "not be mocked".