You Can't Fight Campus Illiberalism With More Illiberalism
Free speech on campus is in jeopardy. But many people on the left and the right are rising to fight for our liberal democratic values.

I consider my children to be extraordinarily lucky to be born and live in the United States. When I moved here from France in 1999, I believed that, while far from perfect, America still very much embraced the values held by its founders, especially a respect for pluralism and viewpoint diversity.
In fact, I've long believed that the First Amendment's protections for freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition are indispensable ingredients for the success of a country with hundreds of millions of diverse people whose ancestors arrived here from all over the world. By the time I moved here, many battles to extend freedoms to black and other minority citizens, as well as to religious associations on American campuses and elsewhere, had already been won by First Amendment litigators. As a result, I took this extension of freedom for granted. But I know now that it took much too long for these rights to be extended to all, and there's still a lot to be done.
As my eldest daughter just started college, I've found myself worrying that academic freedom and viewpoint diversity are now in jeopardy. The deterioration of the culture of free speech is documented by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt in their 2015 book, The Coddling of the American Mind. They explain how students, who not too long ago had to be protected from speech codes on campus, are now asking administrators to protect them from speech they don't want to hear. They believe that words that don't conform to their constantly shifting standards are a form of violence. As a result, incidents on college campuses have multiplied, leaving many students and faculty terrified of saying the wrong thing.
Sadly, some conservatives are fighting this left-wing illiberalism with their own illiberalism. Some even argue that liberal democracy's time has passed. They embrace nationalists like former President Donald Trump and Hungarian strongman Prime Minister Viktor Orban as role models in the hope of rescuing America from what they see as the degenerate culture of the left. In response to abusive mask mandates, they impose anti-mask mandates extending to the private sector, and they fight the teaching of critical race theory in K-12 schools with problematic and illiberal bans of their own.
No matter who wins this illiberal arm wrestling, our liberal culture will be lost. Unfortunately, this illiberalism also limits the production of knowledge in academia and in public policy. The sum of it all means that my daughters, with all of us, will be worse off.
But I haven't lost all hope. Many people on the left and the right are rising to fight for our liberal democratic values. Organizations like Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE)* are defending students and professors of all stripes against persecution by fellow students and zealous administrators.
Recognizing the threat of rising illiberalism, five alumni groups from Cornell University, Davidson College, Princeton University, the University of Virginia, and Washington and Lee University just created the Alumni Free Speech Alliance to fight for open inquiry on campus. Also, as of now, 82 institutions or faculty bodies have adopted or endorsed the Chicago Statement or a substantially similar statement to show their commitment to free speech on campus. Also, Princeton is stepping up to host a conference by the University of Chicago's Dorian Abbot, whose lecture at MIT was canceled under pressure from activists who objected to his political views.
My own employer, the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, launched a program on Pluralism and Civil Exchange aimed at restoring liberalism in America. Writing for The Dispatch, former First Amendment litigator David French makes the case almost daily that fighting illiberalism of the left or the right is better opposed with liberal values and federal civil rights statutes rather than intolerance. Left-leaning writers like Jonathan Chait and Matt Yglesias are also doing their part. Finally, there's a courageous and persistent battle against illiberalism led by very diverse thinkers like the Brookings Institution's Jonathan Rauch, Bari Weiss, Columbia University professor John McWhorter, Brown University economist Glenn Loury, and Andrew Sullivan. That's just a small sample of those rising to the challenge.
The late Congressman and civil rights activist John Lewis said, "Get in good trouble, necessary trouble, and help redeem the soul of America." While the situation may not be as dire as when Lewis spoke these words, many people are doing this right now, and in the name of my daughters, I thank them.
COPYRIGHT 2021 CREATORS.COM
*CORRECTION: The original version of this story misstated FIRE's full name.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Too late.
Hey Guys, I know you read many news comments and posts to earn money online jobs. Some people don’t know how to earn money and are saying to fake it. You trust me. I just started this 4 weeks ago. I’ve got my FIRST check total of $3850, pretty cool. I hope you tried it.WDz You don’t need to invest anything. Just click and open the page to click the first statement and check jobs .. ..
Go Here..............Earn App
So the both sides angle in this article is the Texas law that has nothing to do with the title synopsis of this article.
This is why Reason and most of their authors suck.
Can’t call the left to task on their total control over US educational institutions. So afraid of offending liberal controlled media establishments for future jobs she has to put square pegs in round holes.
Journalism is not an occupation worthy of respect.
"Journalism is not an occupation worthy of respect."
Journalist have throughout history put their lives and livelihood on the line to keep the public informed. In a great many part of the world it a very dangerous profession and yet people keep doing the job. Your suggestion is stupid.
Maybe that was the way it used to be, but not now. Their job is to stir up controversy so that the public will watch, listen or read what they have to say. That's the business that they are in. Informing the public has nothing to do with it anymore.
I am making a good salary online from home. I’ve made 97,999 dollar’s so for last 5 months working online and I’m a full time student.VHn I’m using an online business opportunity I’m just so happy that I found out about it.
Try it, you won't regret it!........ VISIT HERE
Welcome to the twenty-first century, Grandpa. You'll find what passes for "journalism" is radically different from your time.
Yeah that’s not what journalism is now and you know it.
"...Your suggestion is stupid."
You're full of shit.
Journalist have throughout history put their lives and livelihood on the line to keep the public informed.
It's revealing you recognize journalism's contributions were in other times and places than ours, but still try to use their contribution to cover for people whose contributions are propaganda. In fact, this effort is the essence of propaganda.
M4E: BOTH SIDES because while the LEFT may get it wrong occasionally the RIGHT is truly evil; so it was in my day and so it must be.
"Journalist have throughout history put their lives and livelihood on the line ..."
Trolling twitter isn't that dangerous.
The "profession" doesn't get to claim the sacrifices of a few historical people. Individuals have done a good job. Those types are people are increasingly unwelcome among modern "journalists".
Have you never been not-invited to the best cocktail parties? The horror!
The fact that so-called "journalists" shun truth-tellers isn't an appeal for sympathy for truth-tellers, jackass.
I think it was supposed to be a riff on the dangers modern journalists face. I.e.: The threat of not being invited to the party.
and yet people keep doing the job
Let's Go Brandon. They demonstrate everyday what their job is, to lie their asses off. And it didn't start in 2016. Go look up Walter Duranty.
Embarrassing take man. You know damn well modern journalists especially in the US are basically in the opposite situation. They talk about commoners with contempt, tell them what to think, disregard any counter arguments as "misinformation" and go to cocktail parties with the elites that they run propaganda for while they all suck each other off.
You could not be further out of touch with what journalism has become. If anything, its those that the media and big tech actively go after and attempt to silence that have differing opinions that actually show some bravery. Some of these people risk their livelihood by going against the "correct opinion" yet you prop up the lackeys pushing statist propaganda.
An extremely tiny number of journalists 'put their lives on the line.' Get a grip, it's not a dangerous profession.
To them it is never the left's illiberalism and totalitarianism that is a problem, the problem only occurs when there is pushback or negative consequences for the Left. Freedom and liberty imare bad when it is a reaction to Leftist oppression to these apologists.
Well, in this case they are definitely saying that the left's illiberalism is a problem. And they have been quite consistent on that.
I do agree, though, that the attempts to equate "both sides" is a bit ridiculous at this point. Both sides do suck, but there is a big difference when it comes to free speech and there is a big difference between forcing people to do things and not allowing forcing people to do things.
you mean like when the nyt covered up the holocaust in the 30/40s? is that the journalism you laud?
Just a NYT warm up for the Ukraine starvation.
That's assuming you're dumb enough to believe there is a "left" that "controls" US educational institutions.
Perhaps you're just offended by people that don't think like you?
You clearly are.
I am just offended by people that don’t think, like you.
While I'm sure there are some who are stupid enough to believe that words are the same thing as physical violence - because they're morons who will uncritically accept whatever bilge they're told to believe - I think there's also a lot of people who have, over the last ~10 years or so, used that "words = violence" bullshit as a pretext to justify violence against their political enemies.
Or just a naked power play to shut down opposition or otherwise get their way.
That is definitely true. How else can you justify "punch a Nazi" (assuming the Nazi in question isn't actually assaulting you)?
that “words = violence” bullshit as a pretext
Yes. These are code words to let others know this is an in-group vs out-group conflict and therefore rules of logic and reason are suspended.
As usual the left has tried to cover both sides of the field. First it was words = violence and then silence = violence, just as hot air and storms = global warming and cold air and snow also prove global warming.
Sadly, some conservatives are fighting this left-wing illiberalism with their own illiberalism.
...
In response to abusive mask mandates, they impose anti-mask mandates extending to the private sector, and they fight the teaching of critical race theory in K-12 schools with problematic and illiberal bans of their own.
Fuck that noise. They aren't banning surgical masks in ORs. They aren't banning OSHA masks for HAZMAT operations or spraypainting crews. They aren't banning private employees from collectively choosing to wear masks. They are banning the co-opting of corporations and industries to implement the neo-national socialist agenda to build America back better.
Go ahead. Tell me John Stuart Mill isn't a classical liberal.
In De Ruby’s view you can’t fight illiberalism with any methods that might be effective. No, her answer is as it always is for reason, let the left win.
And this article follows the reason rule that whenever the left is so bad it can’t be defended, make a false equivalence and argue the right is just as bad.
I am willing to accept that some of the Republican reactions are less liberal than Libertarians would prefer. But the answer from Libertarians needs to by, "Here, let's do this together in a better way" rather than, "Hey stupid redneck, stop fighting back so much!"
You would think so yes. It would also be nice if reason ever had a plan of action beyond let the left win and feel righteous
I am sure that progressives, like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, will someday realize they went too far. And then apologize, or something.
"They are banning the co-opting of corporations and industries to implement the neo-national socialist agenda to build America back better."
When you say gobbledygook like this, do you even care if you understand what you're saying?
Mandates are to be judged by the political party of the person issuing the mandate. Republican good. Democrat bad. See? It's really easy.
And Republican mandates aren't really mandates. Well they are, but they're on employers who are all evil Democrats. Or something. I dunno. Just stop judging actions on merit or principle, and solely on the politics of the person doing it. It's so much easier than thinking.
Well, things like not allowing vaccination requirements aren't mandates. They are a ban on specific actions, which is a power that states do generally have, though libertarians may rightly object to how they use it.
What do you have in mind when you say "republican mandates"?
I betting our favorite fry-cook isn't actually sure what "mandate" means. He probably thinks that it means laws.
Dishwasher. He's still training.
He's cuddling up to Tony. Next he'll be bringing him flowers and candy.
FWIW, I do know sarcasmic and consider him a friend and you are pretty far from the mark on many of your assumptions about him. I don't expect you to give a shit, and I can't blame you because he keeps shit posting too, but my 2 cents.
Donald Trump's CDC's mandate to stop evictions in June/July 2020?
Donald Trump's mandates for increased tariffs?
Those two stick out to me, at least. And nary a word was said against those unconstitutional mandates by many of his supporters. Still doesn't beat out the worst offender* Obama and the 2nd worst Biden. Hell Trump isn't even the worst Republican, that would fall to GWB.
*during my adult life
Yeah, good examples. I was thinking of recently. There have been plenty of Republican backed mandates of various kinds going back.
So you see nothing wrong with the actions of Chna and cannot recall what was going on in May/June of 2020 that might inform a short term moratorium on evictions? OK then.
The eviction ban was bad but had reasons given the uncertainty at the time. Not lifting them before leaving is where I'd fault him.
Are you trying to say, after watching everything that's happened over the past nine months, that the Democrats aren't evil?
What a ridiculous clown you are. No matter how hard you simp, Tony isn't going to be your friend... or at least the kind of friend you're looking for.
But Tony is definitely a fan of man dates.
I imagine they look evil from this side of OAN, but you gotta stop watching trash right-wing propaganda and start watching some real news.
The Democratic party is a run-of-the-mill left-of-center political party so pressured by right-wing media for so long that it is virtually scandal-free. There could be so many more scandals before they even approach the vile anti-human psychopathy of Republicans, who are actually encouraging their supporters to get sick and die out of political spite.
When you say gobbledygook like this, do you even care if you understand what you’re saying?
APA requires me to cite Tony but this is a much more apt use.
The scandal is they want to shove the IRS up the asses up poor people because "rich people have to pay their fair share", i.e., they're mendacious cunts and you cover for them.
I don't even know what OAN is, but I do know you watch way too much CNN, Tony, which is just as bad as any of the conservative stuff that you cry about.
And maybe you want to tell us how many "run-of-the-mill left-of-center political parties" fought for slavery? and sent Native Americans on the Trail of Tears? and ran the KKK? and segregated the civil service? and interned the Japanese? and filibustered the Civil Rights Act? and stuffed Blacks into ghettos? and proxy censored the internet? and preach CRT?
After the Nazis, the Democrats are the second most evil political party in Western history. Worse than the Italian and Spanish fascists even.
When you say gobbledygook like this, do you even care if you understand what you’re saying?
Go ahead, tell me good men opposing fascism is clasically illiberal.
The problem is that people like Tony and Sarc can't identify gobbledygook anymore.
They are banning the co-opting of corporations and industries to implement the neo-national socialist agenda to build America back better.
Every word in that sentence has a distinct meaning. The words in that order communicates an unambiguous premise. But they choose to ignore that and pretend that you are doing what their side does. Confuse and conflate.
They want to isolate Abbott's mandate out of context. The context being that Biden's declaration to OSHA came first and Abbott's was a direct response intended to counteract it.
It is the equivalent of separating the first two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence from the rest: "What do you mean you have to right to separate from King George and institute a new government? What did he ever do to you?"
If Abbott had written out his list of grievances instead of letting the context speak for itself, Texas would most likely be at war with the United States.
"When you say gobbledygook like this, do you even care if you understand what you’re saying?"
Shitstain seems to think calling an argument 'gobbledygook' excuses his lack of reading comprehension.
Bitch, you don't even know your own region's environmental history, and you're going to suggest that mad possess a deficit of understanding?
Made sense to me. Maybe the problem isn't with mr. casual.
> They aren’t banning private employees from collectively choosing to wear masks.
But they are banning private employers from collectively choosing to require vaccinations.
Brandyshit, we know you're near capsizing to port, but you ought to read up on who has ownership of a person's medical information.
That person does.
Prohibiting an employer or a restaurant from demanding that information is simply re-stating the HIPAA.
Someone wants to know what vaxxes I've had? Strictly my choice as to tell them or not WITHOUT PENATLY.
Oh, and Brandyshit? Stuff this up your ass with your TDS.
But they are banning private employers from collectively choosing to require vaccinations.
That is provably false. Texas is a right to work state. Employers can terminate employees for any reason or without a reason. They can require testing, masks and vaccines and terminate those who refuse to comply.
What Abbott's mandate does is prevent employers from using the OSHA rules to avoid their contractual obligation for benefits and unemployment insurance. They can't claim that those employees were terminated for cause and can't avoid liability under the ADA.
Thanks for peeling back this extra layer, which is easy to miss.
Those with masks over their eyes will never see it.
https://www.littler.com/publication-press/publication/texas-governor-abbott-bars-employers-and-individuals-compelling-covid
From there...
"The order also establishes a maximum criminal penalty of $1,000 ..." Doesn't sound so laissez faire to me!
Also...
"The order’s criminal provision has previously been interpreted by a few Texas prosecutors to mean $1000 per day in the context of earlier pandemic-related orders."
The new law is vague as all git-out, but it COULD mean the employer is on the hook for $1 K PER DAY that the employee has been fired for!
Chuckles the Smug-Pig, PLEASE stop LYING!!!!
The point is that's a vaccine mandate ban, not an anti-vaccine mandate.
It's not an equal and opposite intrusion into liberty as a mask mandate the way a no-mask mandate would be.
People should remember that private entities like private colleges can set whatever requirements they wish for access to their private property under freedom of association - unless a contract says otherwise.
Or a law?
People should remember that Freedom of Expression is not just a right, it is a value. I accept that Private Universities do not have a LEGAL obligation to allow Freedom of Expression, but their failure to uphold it as a value should be criticized. And other private entities, including FIRE and, yes even Reason, should be applauded for bringing attention to any University, or Tech Company that sells itself on these values while failing to live up to them. *shrug*
So, "No Colored People" is OK.
Private universities are turning away Asians, and the last I checked every person was one color or another.
So in the fight for free speech -
Do you use facebook?
Do you use twitter?
Do you regularly write the board of the NYT and WaPo to point out their suppression of facts and their promotion of lies?
Or do you just drop an occasional line on reason?
Or do you just drop an occasional line on reason?
And not just any occasional line on Reason a "People who think it's the government's job to defend individual liberty aren't classical liberals." line one Reason.
FFS, it's moved beyond the bad-faith arguments of "Why should we be forced to choose the lesser of two evils?" to "The people who choose the lesser of two evils are as bad as the greater evil."
Sarcasmic was just saying that immediately above.
As long as the boxcars and camps are run by the private sector, anyone who objects to getting in the boxcar just isn’t a classical liberal.
This is what DeRugy actually believes
Well said.
The people who voted for Von Hindenburg in opposition to Hitler were the moral equavalent to the people who voted for Hitler.
It's "Excuse me, but I have trouble seeing an essential difference between Chris Kyle did and Adam Lanza"s all the way down.
I don't think this is the case. I don't agree w/ much, maybe most of her logic, but your summation is extreme. She seems too willing to extend the NAP and courtesy to those who do not do the same to her, or fellow libertarians, much less conservatives. And making that error is not merely faulty judgement, it is how one loses everything. Life, livelihood, family. Perhaps not all, and perhaps not all at once, but there is little doubt that the progressives and the ideologues and activists that are in the same orbit will not stop until there is zero resistance to their ideas and ideals.
"Or do you just drop an occasional line on reason?"
Methinks you need to get out a bit more:
"Veronique de Rugy is the George Gibbs Chair in Political Economy and Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and a nationally syndicated columnist. Her primary research interests include the US economy, the federal budget, taxation, tax competition, and cronyism. Her popular weekly columns address economic issues ranging from lessons on creating sustainable economic growth to the implications of government tax and fiscal policies. She has testified numerous times in front of Congress on the effects of fiscal stimulus, debt and deficits, and regulation on the economy.
"De Rugy is the author of a weekly opinion column for the Creators Syndicate, writes regular columns for Reason magazine, and she blogs about economics at National Review Online’s the Corner. Her charts, articles, and commentary have been featured in a wide range of media outlets, including the Reality Check segment on Bloomberg Television’s Street Smart, the New York Times’ Room for Debate, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, CNN International, Stossel, 20/20, C-SPAN’s Washington Journal, and Fox News. In 2015, she was named in Politico Magazine's Guide to the Top 50 thinkers, doers and visionaries transforming American Politics.
Previously, de Rugy has been a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a policy analyst at the Cato Institute, and a research fellow at the Atlas Economic Research Foundation. Before moving to the United States, she oversaw academic programs in France for the Institute for Humane Studies Europe. She received her MA in economics from the Paris Dauphine University and her PhD in economics from the Pantheon-Sorbonne University."
https://www.mercatus.org/scholars/veronique-de-rugy
What have YOU done lately?
What have YOU done lately?
He didn't equate National Socialists with people who oppose them.
What have YOU done lately?
I have contributed to society by working and leaving others the fuck alone.
Not by writing shitty quibbling articles
Yep, has the all-important credentials.
Her credentials make her ignorance all that much more indefensible.
Beyond that, those credentials are less than impressive in my view. DeRugy seems to have never done anything beyond get paid to talk out of her ass in ways her bosses prefer. Good work if you can get it but hardly admirable or anything that accords her views any special authority.
Fuck You
The Rape of Nanking was a Both Sides problem
If you don’t want Google to rape you, stop wearing that short skirt.
Really, you're just as much of a rapist as Google because you wear a short skirt sometimes.
Best comment.
So it is illiberal for to state to tell its own schools that it funds they can’t force students to wear masks.
This is what passes for thinking at reason
"...They embrace nationalists like former President Donald Trump..."
Gee, and you were doing so well until the mask dropped and it became obvious that you're a TDS-addled asshole.
Oh noes! VDR article! She doesn't hate immigrants! She said mean things about Trump! That means she voted for Biden and she wants this! If you didn't vote for Trump you want this! She wants this! Mean tweets! If you didn't vote for Trump you can't complain about anything! She wants this! It's all her fault!
Fuck off and die, steaming pile of lefty shit.
But, she did vote for Biden.
You just can't spend a couple of minutes without making a fool of yourself, huh.
sarc is ALWAYS a fool and an ass; problem is s/he can't spend more than a short time before making it public.
And here I thought perhaps you had some actual info that she voted for Biden instead of just talking out of your butt. So I decided to check it out. Let's see what she was writing in 2020.
Here's from October 2020. It is from an article titled "Fool Us Once, Shame On You. Fool Us Forever, Shame On Us All".
"So, again, I ask, why do people trust politicians? Are our memories so faulty? Case in point: During the last presidential debate, Joe Biden claimed that no one lost insurance due to the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. That's a bold claim to make. That same statement, when made by former President Barack Obama as he pushed for the legislation before its implementation, was once named the "Lie of the Year" by PolitiFact. But Biden still felt it was safe to make such a claim.
"If it's the case that politicians don't really try to pass policies that will succeed, keep the deficit low and tell the truth -- because they can get away with bad policies, misleading claims and spectacular deficits -- then shame on them. But if we keep letting them get away with this ruse, then the shame ultimately lies with us."
I don't think she voted for Biden, Mother's Lament. 😉
Nice try:
The Voters Eschewed Extremism on Election Day
Veronique De Rugy | 11.19.2020 12:01 AM
Good article and it is good to see people taking up the challenge. One of the biggest challenges we (and I mean far to many of us) face today is that we don't want to listen to people we disagree with. People hold up in silos of information that only put forth the things as they desire to see them.
The comedian Bill Maher has offered a simple test to liberals and I think that test could be applied across the political spectrum. If what you are saying sounds like a headline from the Onion, you are wrong.
"...One of the biggest challenges we (and I mean far to many of us) face today is that we don’t want to listen to people we disagree with..."
This from the stupid sumbitch who mutes anyone who calls him on his bullshit.
Why is it a "challenge" if people don't want to listen to socialists, progressives, and fascists? I really don't care about what people like Biden, Pelosi, Schumer or Sanders have to say.
People hold up in silos of information that only put forth the things as they desire to see them.
People who murder the language this bad need to have their internet privileges revoked. This is a magical confluence of mistakenly used homonyms and vague metaphors that Orwell would have proudly mocked in his essay Politics and the English Language.
I am not nor have ever been an English major. I do have opinions and I will continue to express them even if not expressed in the best way possible.
I do have opinions and I will continue to express them
You are using words you clearly don't understand to create metaphors more vague than whatever language they supposedly replace.
That is obfuscation, the opposite of expression.
Orwell is direct and uses plain language. It is only 5400 words, 13 pages. You might actually learn something if you bothered to read it. Or you could simply revel in your ignorance. The lack of an English degree has never hampered my determination to communicate effectively.
If it is illiberal for the government to prohibit employers from discriminating against employees who won’t get vaccinated or wear a mask, why is it also not illiberal to prohibit employers from discrimination against gays? Reason is all for the inclusion of gays as a protected class because they claim that as long as we are going to have protected classes, that should include gays. Why not other people?
Not getting vaccinated and-or not wearing a mask can spread diseases, especially to victims of immune disorders. A person near and dear to me will soon have her immune system knocked out for 1 month for a bone marrow transplant. The likes of Governor Dipshit in Texas would MANDATE that she (if she lives in Texas) may NOT pick a hospital where she KNOWS that medical barbarians and savages (who don't believe in the medical "tech" that they dispense) are NOT allowed near her during this time!
Gays don't spread AIDS in the air as COVID can be spread. Some discrimination is GOOD and needed. Some is stupid, unjust, and pointless. We discriminate against blind drivers and pilots, for example.
Next question?
spaz flag
dude that squirrel necklace ditty was funny.
Thanks!
I kinda stole the "SQRL necklace" idea from Chumby the mushroom, I mean fungi, funigi, guy... I hope that's not too sporing!
"Not getting vaccinated and-or not wearing a mask can spread diseases, especially to victims of immune disorders"
That applies to the common cold and flu too, not just Covid 19. It's the immunocomprimised's job to protect themselves. Not to force the rest of humanity into masks and lockdowns.
Do you think that my wife should have the FREEDOM to chose a hospital where medical savages, witch-doctors, and vaccine and mask refusers are NOT allowed to be employed in taking care of her while her immune system is knocked out? And no, I am NOT making this up!
Do you think Catholics should be allowed to go to churches where they KNOW that atheists (and Satan-worshipers) are NOT allowed to be priests? Do you believe in individual FREEDOM, in us being allowed to make our own informed choices?
two more spaz flags.
I don't have the freedom to choose a hospital where witch doctors are allowed to be employed. So, no, I don't see why you should have that freedom.
I do. But with you it's "freedom for me but not for thee".
Who do you think you're kidding?
Your tinfoil hat is malfunctioning because I am serious and truthful on this matter, no joke.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pharmacist-who-intentionally-destroyed-500-covid-vaccine-doses-gets-three-n1269944
Pharmacist who 'intentionally' destroyed 500 Covid vaccine doses gets three years in prison
This is what you get when you are required to keep hiring (and not firing) ideological idiots and brainwashed savages. Does fascist Noy-Boy-Toy believe that auto mechanics who believe in saltwater, not oil, for lubrication, should be allowed to service Noy-Boy-Toy's car?
I have no idea what "tinfoil hat" you are speaking of. I'm simply pointing out that none of us has the freedom to choose which hospital to go to because hospitals are tightly regulated by the state. We all have to deal with it.
The anti-vaccination and anti-mask mandates in Texas do not affect the health of your "wife", no matter how much your addled and superstitious mind may believe otherwise.
Really? How does prohibiting employer mask mandates lead to people destroying private property? Texas didn't pass a law legalizing the destruction of other people's COVID vaccines AFAIK.
That's cute: our fascist in residence, SQRLSY, is trying to accuse others of being fascists.
And, yes, I believe that bad auto mechanics "should be allowed" to service my car. It's not the job of government to determine whether auto mechanics or doctors are good or bad.
spastic asshole flag!
"should have the FREEDOM to chose a hospital where medical savages, witch-doctors, and vaccine and mask refusers are NOT allowed to be employed in taking care of her while her immune system is knocked out?"
You *do* have the freedom to choose that. Go find one that satisfies your desires.
If there aren't any, either modify your desires or do without. Your desires for a business to provide you with particular services does not impose an obligation on anyone to actually provide them.
"I demand treatment in a hospital employing only left handed Basques!"
Well, good luck with that.
Meant as a reply to the Squirrel, of course.
Those who lack bread? Let them eat cake!
Those who lack painkiller pills for their chemo and cancer pains? Let them have yoga!
(At the point of the All-Loving guns of Government Almighty, of course).
So says perlhaqr, the whackier cracker-hacker, who tramples pearls of wisdom into the poop and mud, which are all sucked up into the abysmal vortex of perlhaqr’s own upper GI tract!! Do NOT cast your pearl necklaces into the whackiest hacker-back-upper of no-longer-pearly necklaces!
spaz flag
"vaccinated" people spread the virus just like the "unvaccinated". try to keep up with current events.
That's false just. Vaccinated people are less likely to be infected by Covid, which is a necessary precondition for infecting others, except for exceedingly rare instances of "surface" infections.
you're ignorant. here's one source for you:
Although fully vaccinated people with a breakthrough infection can infect others, the CDC reports that the amount of viral genetic material may decrease faster in vaccinated people—so, while they have been found to carry the same amount of virus in their noses and throats as unvaccinated people, studies have also found they may spread virus for a shorter time.
https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/5-things-to-know-delta-variant-covid
Suggest engaging Joe is every bit as productive as engaging a random handful of dirt.
Best solution:
Fuck off and die, Joe.
Not getting vaccinated and-or not wearing a mask can spread diseases
Uh, no. Being infected and in close contact with people can spread diseases. Vaccinated and masked people can spread diseases. If you are that seriously immune compromised, you need to be very careful around everyone. Pretending that it's just the unvaccinated or unmasked who you need to worry about is just going to create a false sense of safety. The difference in risk of being infected by any random vaccinated or unvaccinated person is very small.
And a lot of those barbarians and savages you talk about are people who have worked very hard through the epidemics and have natural immunity that is better than that from a vaccine.
Why should my (and my wife's) medical beliefs be treated any differently than our religious beliefs? Governor Dipshit (and supporters) say our medical beliefs aren't true, so we need to accept whatever caretakers that Governor Dipshit (and supporters) say is true about our providers' qualifications? Yet Governor Dipshit doesn't even have a medical degree! But really, now, is Governor Dipshit free, next, to say that our religious beliefs aren't valid either, so we need to accept "whoever" as our priest? WHAT is the difference? Can Government Almighty PLEASE step aside, and let US decide a few things?
No, dude, you aren't making sense. You get to make a free choice of what's available, not demand that whatever choice you want to make be made available to you. Sadly, we are in a world where government has their hands in everything and makes it all worse.
A hospital employee has just as much right to demand employment that doesn't mandate vaccination as you do to demand hospitals that do.
And I'm sorry if your wife is unwell. But in that condition she needs to be very careful about any infection, not just this one virus. Believing that vaccines and masks will make all the difference is a faulty assumption. Someone with no working immune system needs to be protected by a whole lot more than just vaccines that don't work that well to stop infection, and paper masks.
Well I hope I am not revealing too much, and I hope that Nardz doesn't come and fire-bomb me in the middle of the night, one of these days. But I do actually live in Texas, and my wife does need that bone marrow transplant. For real.
We would feel a wee tad better if Governor Rabbit allowed us the choice of choosing a hospital where we KNOW they are WAY serious about "fencing out" disease carriers, with every reasonable method available. We trust our doctors FAR more in these matters, than we trust Governor Rabbit!
By the way, wishing for you that her surgery goes well.
Thanks! She'll be hospitalized for a whole month, this December or Jan of 2022... Wow! 2022! Where does the time go?
Spastic asshole gets three flags!
Fuck off and die.
Well I would certainly hope than any hospital would take extra measures to exclude disease carriers from contact with seriously immune compromised people. And I'm pretty sure that they have been doing so since well before Covid. As far as I know, most hospital employees are vaccinated (or had a real case of covid at some point, which is as good) and there is no rule forbidding hospitals from only putting vaccinated people in wards where people at high risk are. Plus I assume that people who tend to someone in that condition will be using real masks, properly fitted and tested and whatever protective gear they can use.
I think you are overreacting a bit (understandably, perhaps, given your personal situation).
Zeb, "having a case" is not as good as being vaccinated, since as many as 1/3 of infected do not develop antibodies, it is unknown how long immunity lasts if they do, and those infected benefit from being vaccinated (after an appropriate time period).
If you are going to put stuff in quotes, you should actually quote what the person wrote.
I think we have a pretty good idea at this point. And I mean people who actually got sick, not just had a positive test. We do know that natural immunity is more effective and lasts longer than the vaccines.
you're free to move to another state if you hate it that much. try uhaul.com for a start
"We trust our doctors FAR more in these matters, than we trust Governor Rabbit!"
Obviously not, because you seem to think that those doctors are incapable of protecting your wife absent a vaccination that doesn't even prevent transmission.
Governor Rabbit has assumed Vast Powers, and will NOT allow doctors to have fired, those who don't "feel like" being bothered to believe in the germ theory of disease! Ideology is more important to them than preventing the spread of disease? Governor Rabbit says that the doctors may NOT fire them! My doctors ARE capable of using modern medicine, but The Superior One, Governor Rabbit, gets in the WAY!
PS... eating food is NOT a sure-fire, infallible preventer of DEATH!!! Let's give UP on food! Food isn't "medically necessary", because the "breatharians" said so! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inedia ... Move OVER, stupid doctors, with your bullshit, superfluous "food" therapies!!! We WISE Breatharians SNEER in your general direction!
" being bothered to believe in the germ theory of disease!"
Please spare me this ignorant statement, SQRLSY. In your repeated attempts to imply that Vaccinated people pose no threat of infection to you, *YOU* have demonstrated that you don't understand germ theory. Whatever you believe in, it isn't scientifically based.
I get it. Because you are not thinking correctly, you feel that the only way to protect your wife is to fire people who won't stick needles in their arms at your request.
But it is an unreasonable request. The vaccinated can still give your wife COVID. And so any hospital will need to follow procedures to avoid INFECTED people (regardless of vaccination status) coming in contact with her. Vaccination status doesn't matter, and yet you continue banging this drum.
"Vaccination status doesn’t matter..."
Because vaccinated folks can get the disease, and can spread the virus. I get it. Nothing is perfect. Vaccination status DOES matter! It cuts WAAAY back on disease spread! And when we get ideologically motivated "my tribal team members are always RIGHT!" people in nurse's jobs, or pharmacists, for example, we get stuff like https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pharmacist-who-intentionally-destroyed-500-covid-vaccine-doses-gets-three-n1269944 for example... These folks will stop at NOTHING! Prepare for them to give you saline injections or worse, and tell you that you've had your COVID shot! And they will tell you that they did you a FAVOR! I don't need these folks giving me "medical care"!
Eating isn't perfect either. People who eat, still die anyway. But I would like to keep on eating, without "medical experts" like Governor Rabbit telling me (at the points of guns and fines) what the REAL medicine is!
And he is right. Anti-mask mandates obviously don't apply to medical staff, and the hospital is free to do whatever it deems medically prudent with regard to assigning staff to your "wife". If they believe that an unvaccinated doctor poses a threat to your wife, they don't have to let them interact; they have enough vaccinated staff and staff with natural immunity to deal with people like your "wife".
Yes, same way it works for everybody else: we currently don't have a choice in how hospitals are run. You're free to go to a different state and/or run for office.
I'm all for hospital deregulation. Until that happens, your choices will be limited, just like everybody else's.
"I’m all for hospital deregulation."
De-regulated hospitals means we'd be able to pick a hospital where vaccine refusers are fired. It's that simple!
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/577207-miami-private-school-orders-vaccinated-students-to-stay-at-home-for-30
Miami private school orders vaccinated students to stay at home for 30 days as 'precautionary measure'
Medical science supports this with ZERO support, period! Ideological idiocy and tribalism at work, NOT science or data! Tribal signalling has taken over!
Tribology... the study of friction, wear, lubrication, and the design of bearings; the science of interacting surfaces in relative motion.
When "tribal signalling" replaces tribology at the auto repair shop, you WILL be required, by Governor Rabbit's Government Almighty, to accept auto repair cranky-crank-techs who believe in salt water for your crankcase!!!
"De-regulated hospitals means we’d be able to pick a hospital where vaccine refusers are fired. It’s that simple!"
Yes but your sad "true story" about a someone dear to you is not nearly the problem you claim it is. Which is why you seem to be changing the subject. Again.
If someone is at severe risk from COVID, then Hospitals have many tools available to them to protect that person, that can replace- and even improve upon- vaccine mandates.
"...then Hospitals have many tools available to them..."
And Governor Rabbit and Texas Government Almighty have just ruled OUT one of the tools (getting rid of vaccine-resisting employees), even though doctors and hospitals, not Governor Rabbit, are the experts here!
"If someone is at severe risk of sin and Hellfire, churches have MANY tools available to them, to protect their parishioners from SIN, so it should be OK for Government Almighty to impose mandates concerning accepting atheists into the priesthood".
Why is no one answering my simple question? Why are my medical beliefs treated so radically differently here? Can't people see that Government Almighty is GROWING GROWING GROWING here, fencing out ALL other players? What happened to polycentrism?
SQRLSY, red governors like your jerk and Florida's DeSantis are playing politics with people's lives, and doing it by exercising big government state control of their towns, cities, and counties which are on the front lines, and even with private businesses. These guys are beneath contempt.
Thanks, Joe Friday, and agreed! Many politicians will sell their souls for more and better access to political power, obtained by throwing more and more "red meat" to their tribalistic followers.
Sorry to repeat myself here, but in case you missed it, prepare yourself (if it suits the power-maddened ones) for ideology to take over at your auto repair shop...
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/577207-miami-private-school-orders-vaccinated-students-to-stay-at-home-for-30
Miami private school orders vaccinated students to stay at home for 30 days as ‘precautionary measure’
Medical science supports this with ZERO support, period! Ideological idiocy and tribalism at work, NOT science or data! Tribal signaling has taken over!
Tribology… the study of friction, wear, lubrication, and the design of bearings; the science of interacting surfaces in relative motion.
When “tribal signaling” replaces tribology at the auto repair shop, you WILL be required, by Governor Rabbit’s Government Almighty, to accept auto repair cranky-crank-techs who believe in salt water for your crankcase!!!
You are a victim of COVID-19 hysteria, and the governors you favor aren't just "playing politics with people's lives", they have actively destroyed people's lives, and killed them.
"SQRLSY, red governors like your jerk and Florida’s DeSantis are playing politics with people’s lives, and doing it by exercising big government state control of their towns, cities, and counties which are on the front lines, and even with private businesses. These guys are beneath contempt."
Riiiiiiight. I know that you are HAPPY that Biden changed the national subject from his abysmal record in Afghanistan to Vaccine Mandates. I am sure that was very difficult for you to continue showing up on sites and trying to defend his failures there.
But to so shamelessly say it was Abbot playing politics is transparently silly for even you.
SQRLSY, the red governors like your jerk and Florida's DeSantis are playing politics with people's lives, and doing it by exercising big government state control of their towns, cities, and counties which are on the front lines, and even with private businesses. These guys are beneath contempt.
Because your or my medical beliefs matter nowhere in the US; hospitals, masks, and vaccines are heavily regulated in all states.
If you don't like the choices the Texas governor makes, move out of Texas like I and lots of others moved out of California. Both you and Texans would be happier as a result.
(In addition, your medical beliefs are idiotic, but that's a separate issue.)
"And Governor Rabbit and Texas Government Almighty have just ruled OUT one of the tools (getting rid of vaccine-resisting employees), even though doctors and hospitals, not Governor Rabbit, are the experts here!"
And they have many other tools at their disposal. And guess what, they are the same tools that they will HAVE TO USE regardless of vaccine mandates. Because the vaccinated can still transmit the disease to your wife, they will have to undergo regular testing, contact tracing, and quarantining in case of exposure. And even beyond that, they will have to follow strict guidelines to prevent infection from numerous other vectors.
Your unreasonable fixation on Vaccines as some sort of holy ward against infection is going to make it very, very difficult for you to get through this surgery, SQRLSY. If you want to make it through, you need to start thinking clearly. I mean that.
"Why is no one answering my simple question? Why are my medical beliefs treated so radically differently here? "
We have answered it. You just don't like the answer. The government is not treating your poorly reasoned and superstitious "medical beliefs" any more differently than the medical beliefs of a racist patient. I am sure they would love to be at a hospital with no blacks in it, but the government has decided that the positive rights of Blacks is more important than the racist belief. Likewise, the government of Texas believes that the positive rights of employees not to be forced to stick needles in their arms to earn a paycheck is more important than your medical beliefs.
Do I think it is a crying shame? Yes. But we don't get to choose a world where racists and scientism fanatics can hire and fire who they choose. We live in a world where one leader decided to mandate vaccines and another decided to void that mandate. That you don't care about the former and wail endlessly about the latter says more about you than it does about Abbot.
Government Almighty grows some MORE now... Endless power-grabbing! Government has already taken over most of schooling and medicine, now it grabs yet more! And Trumpistas claim the power to divine whose votes are valid, and whose are not! Churches are next! Then comedians! Dictatorshits won't tolerate jokes at the expense of the Emperor, you know!
Really, it is very simple! My wife and I would like the FREEDOM to chose a hospital where the staff DEMONSTRABLY believes (in a NON hypocritical way) in the modern medicine that they dispense! Governor Rabbit has taken that choice AWAY from us! VERY simple here!
"My wife and I would like the FREEDOM to chose a hospital where the staff DEMONSTRABLY believes (in a NON hypocritical way) in the modern medicine that they dispense"
Yeah you have said this like 50 times, which is why I would ask you to go back and read the 50 times people have answered you.
I have read your rambling far more today than I ever have, but I really get the feeling you aren't reading me. Because you repeat the same thing over and over again, without responding to the points I (or others) actually made.
"X implies Y" does not mean that "Y implies X".
I'm for deregulation of hospitals. I'm not for simply implementing a single haphazard policy that scientific ignoramuses like you desire; that's not deregulation.
Yes, and you will be cheering them on. Because that's the kind of person you are.
Please move back to North Korea, where they LOVE your kind!
Or sign over your mind (such as it may be) and your money to Scientology, or some other mindless-obedience-commanding cult, and leave the rest of us (who desire genuine individual freedom) alone! We don't need your "help"!
Flagged 3X asshole.
North Korea is where you (our little totalitarian) are posting from, ins't it?
spastic asshole!
Oooh, good luck with that sevo!
The below poetry is dedicated to Super-Perv-Predator-Sevo the Pedo, Hippo in a Speedo,
AKA “SmegmaLung”!
Sitting on a park bench
Eyeing little boys with bad intent
Snot's running down his nose
Greasy fingers smearing shabby clothes
Hey, Smegmalung!
Drying in the cold sun
Watching as the frilly panties run
Hey, Smegmalung!
Feeling like a dead duck
Spitting out pieces of his broken luck
Oh, Smegmalung!
Sun streaking cold
A hateful man wandering lonely
Insulting others the only way he knows
Brain hurts bad as he tries to think
Goes down to the bog to spread his stink
Feeling alone
The army's up the road
Salvation a la mode and a cup of tea
Smegmalung, my friend
Don't you start away uneasy
You poor old sod
You see, it's only me
By you insulting me,
The rotting goes to thee!
flag for the spastic asshole!
You receive zero points for originality, and Jethro Tull is pissed.
I agree. I'm all for full hospital deregulation, the sooner the better.
But until that happens, COVID fear mongers like you will have to live with state imposed restrictions, just like everybody else. You don't get to pass your pet policy and call it "deregulation".
Both vaccinated and masked people are less likely to spread Covid. That's a fact. It's not impossible that they can, so if you want to hang your hat on that, sure, but pathetic.
As to natural immunity, as many as 1/3 of those who had Covid do not develop antibodies, it is not known how long natural immunity lasts, and those who have had it benefit with greater immunity after being vaccinated. These are both facts as well. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/9/21-1042_article
Almost all other countries with vaccine mandates exempt people who have had COVID because they have reached a different conclusion.
Commonly worn masks have no measurable effect on the spread of COVID.
They do not develop the antibodies that the researchers were looking for; obviously, they must have some effective means of neutralizing the virus, otherwise they would die from it. In fact, whatever response their immune system mounts is apparently highly effective since antibody-negative cases are the ones with the highest viral load.
It isn't known how long vaccinations last either.
The paper you quote doesn't support that conclusion.
Both people who eat, and people who do NOT eat, eventually die! But... Hold on now... "Breatharians" have figured out how to live and NOT eat, at ALL!!!
Eating food is NOT a sure-fire, infallible preventer of DEATH!!! Let’s give UP on food! Food isn’t “medically necessary”, because the “breatharians” said so! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inedia … Move OVER, stupid doctors, with your bullshit, superfluous “food” therapies!!! We WISE Breatharians SNEER in your general direction!
(You blow almost as many bullshit bubbles as do the “breatharians”).
NOYB, you're wrong on masks (think about it, of course you are):
"6. SUMMARY
The current research results have shown that COVID‐19 is mainly transmitted via droplets in the air. There is a potential risk of airborne transmission in an indoor environment with poor ventilation. The distance of droplet transmission can extend up to 4 m. Based on this data, the recommended social distancing range of 1–2 m (CDC, 2020; WHO, 2020) may not necessarily guarantee the epidemic prevention. Therefore, wearing mask in public is essential as its effectiveness has already been well established by the current studies. For exhalation isolation, both surgical and N95 masks are shown to be effective in reducing the spread of respiratory diseases, but the former is more accessible and comfortable to wear compared to the latter. For inhalation protection, air filtering respirators such as N95 masks can filtrate contaminants, bacteria and other matters from reaching nose and mouth, and are more efficient in virus penetration inhibition than surgical masks.
Three major filtration mechanisms are identified, namely, interception, inertial impaction and diffusion. While interception takes place for nearby particles, inertial impaction is mainly dominated by some large particles. Diffusion mechanism primarily applies to small particles with diameters around 0.1 μm. A mask design needs to consider all these mechanisms in order to increase the filtration capacity for all particle sizes. As a result, the air filtering respirators are designed to prevent both airborne transmission and the droplets, and highly recommended for the indoor area especially in the high‐risk environment. Based on these studies, all people, regardless of physical conditions and professions, should wear masks at all times in prevention of COVID‐19. In this regard, inhalation protection via masks is particularly important in order to reduce the transmission of viruses that are potentially carried by droplets and aerosols. The mask requirement has already been proved to be effective, and recently mandated in all states of the United States (Does Your State Have a Mask Mandate Due to Coronavirus?). Considering limited resources in some regions, the home‐made masks are shown to have comparable filtration efficiencies compared to the medical masks. A conclusion can be reached based on the current studies: correctly wearing masks of all kinds, despite their different designs, functions and effectiveness, will to a large degree reduce the overall risks of COVID‐19 infection and enhance general protection from coronavirus."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7883189/
Studies have shown Moderna and Pfizer vaccines to be good for at least 6 months and of course boosters are available.
That paper makes an argument for mask wearing based on droplets and aerosols; that is not the same as evidence that )(cloth) masks actually reduce transmission. In fact, the paper you cite only argues for a "considerable reduction of respiratory droplet transmission" from cloth masks and then incorrectly concludes that that "indicates its significance in a pandemic". In actual fact, a "considerable reduction" in droplets has no effect on a pandemic; masks have to be highly effective before they actually affect transmission rates.
And when you actually look at real-world data on transmission and (cloth) mask wearing, there is no measurable effect.
(Correctly worn surgical and N95 masks, of course, can protect people, but that's not what we are talking about here.)
Yes, and we know the same thing about COVID infections. Therefore, people who have had a COVID infection do not need to get vaccinated.
It is a scientific absurdity to vaccinate people who have had COVID.
People who have natural immunity don't need to be vaccinated.
Competent medical staff already wears masks around victims of immune disorders because COVID-19 is the least your (hypothetical) wife has to worry about when having her immune system knocked out. Mask mandates related to COVID-19 don't affect that.
Death from COVID-19 appears to be related to autoimmune processes. That's why vaccinating people who have natural immunity is not such a good idea, and why other viruses are more dangerous to people with immune disorders.
"Not getting vaccinated and-or not wearing a mask can spread diseases"
Wow in the first sentence, you are already off the rails. "Not getting a vaccination" does not spread a disease.
So we should stop all vaccines, then? Vaccines do NOTHING to check the spread of disease? Where did you get your MD?
Most of all, why are my (and my wife's) medical beliefs any different than our religious beliefs? Can Governor Rabbit’s Government Almighty force my church to hire (and not fire) atheists as priests? If not, why not?
That's not what you said.
Also, if you are that worried about the small chance of an asymptomatic unvaccinated person making your wife sick, then you should also worry about the small chance of a vaccinated person making her sick. Both are small but non-zero risks. You'd do a lot better spending your energies on checking out what the hospitals do to make sure immune compromised people don't get infected with anything rather than focusing on this one issue.
if you are that worried about the small chance of an asymptomatic unvaccinated person making your wife sick
I have been saying for 2 months now that the myth that the 'asymptomatic unvaccinated person' as the main vector for COVID is a fucking lie that will get people killed. My vaccinated wife works in a nursing home. The day I tested positive for COVID, she tested negative. A few days later, but in the same week, she had what seemed to be a sinus headache which is not an uncommon occurrence for her. She tested again for COVID, only because I was sick and was positive. We are eternally grateful that she caught it from me and knew to get tested.
Studies and data analysis confirms that the vaccinated get COVID and that they have fewer symptoms, i.e. they are asymptomatic. The milder symptoms for the vaccinated has become a main selling point as the lie about the rarity of breakthrough cases is put to bed. I can anecdotally confirm that my wife never got a cough and didn't have a fever until about the 3rd day after she tested positive.
The point is that the vaccinated are every bit as potentially dangerous as the vaccinated. That being said, only people who are actually infected can spread it.
Who called that encouraging testing and quarantining only the sick was the both the moral and scientific thing to do? I can think of a dozen regular posters at least.
Yeah, well sad, that's what I'm getting at here. For medical environments, assuming that the vaccinated are safe is dangerous. The focus on vaxed vs. unvaxed is going to get people killed if people don't start using their brains.
Chuck, vaccinated are less likely to be infected and thus less likely to spread Covid.
He didn't say otherwise (though less likely to spread covid is debatable at this point, I think. There are other social factors at play there.). The point is that if you feel you need to be worried about the possibility of infection from a non-symptomatic unvaccinated person, then you should probably be as worried about vaccinated people because the difference in risk isn't all that big. People with bad immune systems need to be very careful, whether or not covid is a concern. The notion that you are safe if vaccinated is very dangerous to such people. Chuck's story above illustrates why. If his wife had assumed that the vaccine kept her from getting/spreading covid, she could have infected many people in the nursing home who do face a serious risk.
"The point is that if you feel you need to be worried about the possibility of infection from a non-symptomatic unvaccinated person, then you should probably be as worried about vaccinated people because the difference in risk isn’t all that big."
In fact, the fact that there was a giant spike in Israel DESPITE them being 80+% vaccinated would indicate that there is very likely a mental change in people who are vaccinated that leads them to engage in behavior likely to spread the disease- like returning to large gatherings in public. You know, living life.
Joe, fuck off and die.
vaccinated are less likely to be infected
As usual, you post nonsense because you know nothing. You are conflating infection and resistance, hopefully out of ignorance.
The vaccine is not a magical force field over your eyes, nose and mouth, so they are exactly as likely to be infected if exposed. What they do have is a heightened immune response (resistance), making it less likely the virus will reproduce in quantities that interfere with bodily functions (symptoms). As JSafe panic posted yesterday, no vaccine prevents transmission. What the lower viral load in the vaccinated indicates about the likelihood they transmit the virus is guesswork from models. Nobody has run a controlled experiment. It is immoral to run experiments involving a pathogen.
To sum up: no force field, exactly as likely to be infected, transmission rate is guesswork. If you choose to ignore reality then you graduate from ignorance to malfeasance.
Chuck, your wishful thinking - actually desperate is a better description - on no correlation between viral loads and transmissibility aside, you're wrong:
"Viral load is recognized as a strong determinant of transmission risk (Watanabe et al., 2010). For influenza, the dose of viral exposure is related to the probability of infection in human challenge studies (Memoli et al., 2015) and early antiviral treatment reduces household transmission (Pebody et al., 2011; Goldstein et al., 2010). Household shedding of human herpesvirus-6 is closely linked to subsequent infection in newborns (Mayer et al., 2020) and infants shedding high levels of cytomegalovirus in the oropharynx predictably transmit the virus back to their mothers (Boucoiran et al., 2018). Studies in mice definitively demonstrated that viral exposure dose determines likelihood of SARS-CoV-1 infection, (Watanabe et al., 2010) and SARS-CoV-2 experiments in golden hamsters are also highly suggestive of dose-dependent infection (Sia et al., 2020)."
https://elifesciences.org/articles/63537
"The incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalization, and death is higher in unvaccinated than vaccinated persons, and the incidence rate ratios are related to vaccine effectiveness."
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e1.htm?s_cid=mm7037e1_w
and:
"The infection rates in the least vaccinated states are about four times as high as in the most vaccinated states:"
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/07/briefing/risk-breakthrough-infections-delta.html
"In today’s MMWR, a study of COVID-19 infections in Kentucky among people who were previously infected with SAR-CoV-2 shows that unvaccinated individuals are more than twice as likely to be reinfected with COVID-19 than those who were fully vaccinated after initially contracting the virus. These data further indicate that COVID-19 vaccines offer better protection than natural immunity alone and that vaccines, even after prior infection, help prevent reinfections.
“If you have had COVID-19 before, please still get vaccinated,” said CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky. “This study shows you are twice as likely to get infected again if you are unvaccinated. Getting the vaccine is the best way to protect yourself and others around you, especially as the more contagious Delta variant spreads around the country.”"
https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-protection.html
your wishful thinking – actually desperate is a better description – on no correlation between viral loads and transmissibility aside,
You are a shitbag liar. That is not what I said.
"What the lower viral load in the vaccinated indicates about the likelihood they transmit the virus is guesswork from models. Nobody has run a controlled experiment."
So fuck off and die painfully. Nothing else you posted actually refuted anything I wrote.
unvaccinated individuals are more than twice as likely to be reinfected with COVID-19
This has already been refuted in other studies. Walensky is a proven liar and fearmonger.
Unless vaccinations are good enough that they result in herd immunity, whether an individual is "less likely" to be infected doesn't matter.
And at this point, as Israel shows, even 80%+ vaccination rates are insufficient for herd immunity. In fact, it seems likely that even 100% vaccination rates would be insufficient for herd immunity because the vaccines are simply not that effective at preventing infection.
Yeah Chuck, and "potentially" as a qualifier opens an argument big enough for a Mack truck. However, the goal in understanding problems is too narrow focus and odds to practical solutions, not excuse whatever ideological blinders you choose to wear.
“potentially” as a qualifier opens an argument big enough for a Mack truck
So the fuck what? It is true. You clearly have no understanding of statistical analysis and what you can and can't ethically hypothesize based on it.
I have read everything I can find that seems reliable. I have kept an open mind through the entire pandemic. All I have seen from you and the rest of the Science! crowd are appeals to authority and unreproducible studies used to scare and make outrageous demands for people to abandon their freedom.
For Christ's sake, they said just 8 months ago the vaccines had 95% efficacy. If you want to believe the shit they fling at you while furiously backpedaling, you are welcome, but quit tracking it all over the comments here. History will not be kind to you.
the covid injections are not vaccines. wake the f@ck up. they don't provide immunity, don't stop transmission, and don't stop the contraction of the virus. these injections do not meet the long accepted definition of "vaccine". stop drinking the koolaid.
That’s ridiculous. They do exactly what all vaccines do — safely stimulate your immune system to build up immunity to a particular disease.
No vaccine “provides” immunity.
But many will stop any disease from developing in most people and make the risk of infecting others extremely low. The covid vaccines don't do either of those things.
ZEb, that's false. see above.
The COVID vaccines are different from other vaccines. Most vaccines actually prevent viral replication and transmission; the COVID vaccines are unusual in that they don't (reliably) prevent transmission, they merely reduce symptoms in the vaccinated person.
"So we should stop all vaccines, then? Vaccines do NOTHING to check the spread of disease? Where did you get your MD?"
You are now changing your argument, and it gets very tiresome when you Vaccine Maximalists do this. You are *intentionally* trying to spread the impression that un-vaccinated people are "unclean". It is untrue. It is illogical. It is divisive, and it is antithetical to ANYONE who claims to want to live in a pluralistic, tolerant, society- which, in case you didn't notice, is a prerequisite for libertarianism.
We know for a fact that the unvaccinated AND the vaccinated spread this disease. If you deny this, *you* are anti-science. Not me.
"Most of all, why are my (and my wife’s) medical beliefs any different than our religious beliefs?"
I don't honestly think they are. But that doesn't mean you get to impose those "religious" beliefs on the rest of society. Society doesn't "owe" you the choice of a fully vaccinated hospital any more than Society "owes" you a fully Aryan hospital. Is it un-libertarian that some governments have said employers cannot discriminate against Jews, Blacks and the Unvaccinated? Yeah. from a strictly libertarian point of view, it does.
Nevertheless, that doesn't justify your attempts to paint people as unclean, or to make the bizarre claim that hospitals are incapable of dealing with some unvaccinated employees (especially when they have been doing that for 18 months now). You are attempting to appeal to emotion.
"Society doesn’t “owe” you the choice of a fully vaccinated hospital any more than Society “owes” you a fully Aryan hospital."
Society doesn’t “owe” you the choice of a fully atheist-free priesthood, any more than Society “owes” you a fully Aryan hospital.
Here comes ever-growing Government Almighty then, dictating hiring and firing policies for churches! If separation of hospital and State is evil, then so is separation of church and State!
I know I'm dreaming, but FIRST off, I would dearly LOVE to see separation of school and state! Closely followed by separation of medicine and state! But the statists are fervently waving the white flags, inviting Government Almighty to take over MORE hiring and firing powers from the medical establishment!
"Here comes ever-growing Government Almighty then, dictating hiring and firing policies for churches!"
Welcome to 2021, SQRLSY. I could tell you this 5 years ago.
It still doesn't excuse you treating the unvaccinated as if they were part of the untouchable castes of India.
Since you were trusting enough to share your personal story, I will share mine. A friend of mine has a kid who thinks she nearly killed her uncle. Because she is 5 and she contracted COVID at school, despite wearing a mask. But she has been convinced by the scientism preachers like yourself that only the unvaccinated and people who don't wear their masks correctly catch this virus.
When your rhetoric is making 5 year olds think that they are killers because of a pathogen that passes through their body without their control or consent, you need to think VERY HARD about what exactly you are trying to accomplish. Because I can guaran-fucking-tee you that it isn't a more libertarian society.
Well yeah, we shouldn't be scaring the crap out of kids. And businesses (with the exception of health-care places) shouldn't be scaring the be-jesus out of us either, about Covid.
But THEY, businesses, and NOT the government, should be making the decisions! So we don't have firm "science" about masks? No VAST databases and double-blind studies? Well, we've not done that with sneeze-guards at the salad bar either! I would LIKE to be able to freely choose to eat at salad bars with sneeze-guards, and not have the Governor double-guessing on me, and minding my business! If OTHER people want to eat at salad bars WITHOUT sneeze guards, they, too, should be free!
What gets "lost in the sauce" here is people (who are IDEOLOGICALLY motivated) want to "debate the science" about vaccines and masks, and mandates, and what they REALLY want to do, is "capture" government policies... NOT really giving us individual FREEDOM. And Trumps, and Governors, and Emperor-Wannabees tap into that , and make slaves out of us, using our own power-hungers!
I want to chose salad bars with sneeze guards, and hospitals with vaccinated staffs, for my wife, while her immune system is down. Others should be free to chose otherwise. But what I see all around me, is people GROWING Government Almighty, under the illusion that THEY, not others, will be The Chosen Pussy Grabbers!
(And I really don't care how many studies have found what, about sneeze guards at the salad bars. I don't want too much mucus from strangers, on my salad, is all).
"Well yeah, we shouldn’t be scaring the crap out of kids."
What do you mean "we" kemosabe? YOU should not be scaring the crap out of kids.
In case you are missing the point, I'll be more clear. You are engaging in Motte and Bailey Argumentation here. You (and other vaxxers) start out with an untrue statement (Not vaccinating spreads disease)- the Bailey. When people point out how incorrect it is, you retreat to the Motte ("Are you saying Vaccines don't slow the spread of a disease?").
If I had a dollar for every time you and the other Vaccine Worshipers equated a person who is unvaccinated with a person who is infected, I'd be on a trip to Mexico by now. You are deliberately painting the un-vaccinated as unclean and dirty, and EVERY time you are called on it, you retreat to your Motte and make the same goddamn Bailey argument again in another thread. IT. IS. TIRESOME. It is also lazy, and it is evil bullshit meant to divide us, not reach consensus.
"What gets “lost in the sauce” here is people (who are IDEOLOGICALLY motivated) want to “debate the science”"
Perhaps you are the one who is lost here, and arguing ideologically. Because pretty much *nobody* here disagrees that the more libertarian solution is a free market. But we are in the situation where NUMEROUS government actors have interfered in with the freedoms of contract in an un-libertarian way.
This STARTED when President Biden mandated Vaccines. Biden threw the first punch. But I haven't seen a peep about that from you. Oh, I've seen you continue to disingenuously deride the unvaccinated. I've seen you make up cute names for Abbot. I've even seen you throw in a bunch of Trump rants. But I haven't seen you expend anywhere near the same vitriol for the guy who started all this.
And that is telling, because I am pretty sure that is what you want. In this case, you don't actually CARE about libertarian values. With Abbots decree, Businesses cannot mandate vaccines. But you and employees can choose to vaccinate. But if Abbot backs off, we aren't in libertopia. No, businesses are still constrained (they MUST mandate vaccines) *and* employees lose the choice to vaccinate.
But that will be ok with you, right? That is why you never criticize Biden- just come up with cutesy names for Abbot. Because you really do believe that non-vaxxers are unclean. Your scientism has led you to abandon your principles, SQRLSY. And it has made you a poor debater as well.
Brandybuck had a good summary the other day
Biden... Bike helmets will be mandated!
Abbot... Bike helmets will be strictly prohibited for all!
Biden... Seat belts will be mandated!
Abbot... Seat belts will be strictly prohibited for all!
Biden... Sneeze guards at salad bars will be mandated!
Abbot... Sneeze guards at salad bars will be strictly prohibited for all! ('Cause the science is still being debated).
Stupid tribalistic "R" v/s "D" morons that many of us are, we promptly pick a side! Hey... Can I as an INDIVIDUAL please choose? Including which businesses, which follow which hiring and firing policies, I shall frequent?
But NOOOOO... The tribalistic ones keep on cheering on the perpetual growth of Government Almighty, which dangles the carrots of lust for tribalistic power in front of our stupid donkey noses, so that we'll pull their carts to Statist Heaven some more!
His and his wife's medical beliefs appear functionally indistinguishable from religious beliefs...
So then let us all surrender to the Loving Embrace of Government Almighty, and give UP on separation of medicine and state, as well as (utterly beneath contempt) the separation of church and State!
Let me now lead us all in Prayer to The Sacred State, which Loves Us All, More Than We Will Ever Know!
The Government Almighty Giveth, and the Government Almighty Taketh Away, Blessed Be the Name of the Government Almighty…
Scienfoology Song… GAWD = Government Almighty’s Wrath Delivers
Government loves me, This I know,
For the Government tells me so,
Little ones to GAWD belong,
We are weak, but GAWD is strong!
Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
My Nannies tell me so!
GAWD does love me, yes indeed,
Keeps me safe, and gives me feed,
Shelters me from bad drugs and weed,
And gives me all that I might need!
Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
My Nannies tell me so!
DEA, CIA, KGB,
Our protectors, they will be,
FBI, TSA, and FDA,
With us, astride us, in every way!
Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
My Nannies tell me so!
spastic asshole's being particularly assholic today!
Most kinds of vaccines stop the spread of disease, but some only reduce disease severity. People were hoping that COVID vaccines would stop the spread of COVID, but it turns out it only reduces disease severity.
They aren't. Religious liberty doesn't mean that you can have unrelated third parties fired for no good reason.
If you don't want to be treated by unvaccinated physicians, you can let the hospital know that and they will likely accommodate you. And the hospital is free to put doctors and nurses who refuse vaccination on paid leave if they (irrationally) believe that that is necessary to protect the health and safety of their patients.
What neither you nor the hospital can do in Texas is fire doctors or nurses for not getting vaccinated.
As has been pointed out many times before, if you swap one virus for another (or really any disease), Reason, by their own standards, becomes illiberal. HIV? Influenza? Diabetes? Athlete's foot? Should a state be able to mandate that employers can't screen people for HIV? For athletes foot? Especially in resistance to Federal mandates to screen for HIV? Diabetes? Athlete's foot?
They should issue a mask mandate and testing to control sepsis and staph infections in hospitals. I hear that kills a lot of people every year.
Lame article from the same lame Reason Approved Both Sides Narrative.
Wow....Just Wow.
Ms de Rugy, I am a big fan of your work, but the narrative of this article is just wrong. Please read this article:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/18/more-americans-now-say-government-should-take-steps-to-restrict-false-information-online-than-in-2018/
2/3 of Democrats (up from 40% in 2016) believe that "The US Government should restrict false info online", even if it limits freedom of speech. 3/4 of Democrats (up from 60%) feel that is a responsibility of Tech Companies.
We aren't dealing with "Two illiberal forces" trying to squelch speech. We are dealing with an out of control Leftist mob engaging in a campaign of speech suppression for over 20 years. And to the extent that SOME reaction on the Right is somewhat illiberal, saying it is anywhere equivalent is like saying the Soviet Union and Switzerland are both illiberal (both have taxes, amiright?)
That same poll from Pew shows that, contrary to Ms de Rugy's suggestion that the Right is becoming MORE authoritarian, the right is becoming LESS authoritarian. Only 28% of republicans (down from 37% in 2016) believe the US Government should police "false" speech. Only 37% (down from 48%) believe that Tech Companies should restrict speech.
It is flagrant gas-lighting to suggest that the right has this burgeoning authoritarian, anti-speech movement. Ms de Rugy obviously senses that, because she cannot really even muster a real example of these "anti-speech" efforts on the right. People on the right support Donald Trump and that's an example of attacks on speech? Mask-mandate bans? What does that have to do with freedom of speech?
The closest Ms de Rugy gets to anti-speech movements among the right is Parents objecting to CRT being taught in elementary schools. I wonder if she thinks parents' attempts to get creationism out of schools was Anti-Free speech. To me, parents working to get racist theories like CRT out of their children's curriculum is no different than parents' attempts to get Intelligent Design or justifications for Segregation out of their curriculum. That some in their school system disagree doesn't change the fact that when picking and choosing what will be taught in school, parents have the right to have a say.
I agree that many republicans have committed or supported un-libertarian remedies in their pushback against this overwhelmingly Leftist Authoritarianism. It is not GOOD that Abbot banned vaccine-mandates to fight back against Biden. It is not GOOD that GOP Congresscritters are trying to regulate private business in their quest to stop corporate censorship.
But here is where Reason needs to come to terms: The Republicans, right now, for this moment in time, have the same objectives that Libertarians (ought to) have- even if they are confused on the methods. Trying to tell those people on the right that they are just as bad as the people ACTIVELY CENSORING THEM, convinces them that the Libertarians are more interested in appearances and posturing than fixing the damn problem.
Gas-lighting implies that she knows what she is doing. I think de Rugy really believes the absurdities she puts in writing.
For practical purposes, with 90000 pages of federal regulations and the US government accounting for half the economic activity in the country, no large US corporation operates as a "private business" anymore. Applying libertarian reasoning to corporations in such an environment is absurd. But just as de Rugy believes absurd things, so do may libertarians.
In general, I agree with you NOYB2. I do believe that there are very few choices for the State of Texas to push back against (for example) Biden's Vaccine Mandates. None of them are GOOD (i.e. libertarian). The full mandate-ban is probably broader of a brush than a libertarian could potentially come up with.
All that said, I wholeheartedly agree that you cannot defend "Private businesses doing what they want" when companies like Southwest very clearly are saying that they don't WANT to force vaccination, but are being required to do so. Libertarians need a new answer to this.
As I said yesterday, Fascism (where the ruling Party runs private companies in partnership with the Government that is also led by the party) could technically get passed the "Private parties are free to do what they want" libertarian sniff-test. But Fascism is wholly un-libertarian. There needs to be a set of basic principles where one identifies the point where a Corporation is operating as an agent (willing or forced) of the state.
Fascism...could technically get past the...libertarian sniff-test
Not really. I get what you're trying to say, but despite narrative Reason is trying to push, libertarianism is about more than just Private Companies They Can Do What They Want. Even if a private company wants more to censor speech on behalf of the government because it's good for the bottom line, it's completely un-libertarian because the government is still doing the censoring. Libertarians are just as horrified at the Biden regime coordinating with big tech companies to censor dissent as they would be if the Biden regime directly confiscated those companies' assets and started using them to censor dissent directly, because in both cases it's the government censoring speech.
The only libertarian "conflict" is when a one-party government and large corporations become so incestuous that they're indistinguishable for all practical purposes, and that's essentially just semantics about what part (if any) can be considered the private company.
I do believe that there are very few choices for the State of Texas to push back against (for example) Biden’s Vaccine Mandates. None of them are GOOD (i.e. libertarian). The full mandate-ban is probably broader of a brush than a libertarian could potentially come up with.
So Biden has already threatened to send in the National Guard if the Port of Los Angeles can't get the ships offloaded. If Texas pushes back in the way they should, i.e., a list of grievances against the federal government and a notice that interference will not be tolerated, does anyone still think Biden wouldn't react just like King George?
Again, I think a lot of this is technical after-the-play quarterbacking. I am not saying Abbot is wrong to push back. I am just saying that if Abbot were a libertarian trying to push back, he might have been able to find a more tailored approach. I don't think that is uncontroversial, since no one has ever accused Abbot of being a libertarian.
Do I think that Biden would turn up the heat? Honestly, Chuck, I don't. I really do think Biden is a bunch of talk right now. He is threatening a whole shit ton of stuff to distract from his failures and seems to be hoping that his threats are enough to get states and private companies to do what he wants.
As with the Dept of Education's "Dear Colleague" letter back in the Obama days, quite a bit of damage can be done with these idle threats. It takes institutions actively pushing back to call their bluffs, but unfortunately universities and now companies are increasingly populated by leaders with no intention of fighting back.
I can't fathom what Biden's handlers think the NG is going to be able to accomplish at the Port of LA, even in theory. I'm sure some portion of the people who are in the NG know how to run the relevant equipment, but it's not going to be many of them. And as far as I'm aware, the issue is more organizational than labor oriented. They simply can't get enough throughput to clear the jam. I don't think adding more bodies is going to help.
Maybe the NG is sitting on a whole pile of container chassis?
Based on the amount of materiel abandoned in Afghanistan, I have serious reservations that the military's second finest can increase on the output of the longshoremen. It might allow them to take shortcuts in safety protocols. The Guardsmen can't file workers comp claims.
Fucking lazy assholes in UNIONS are at fault here!!!
https://www.yahoo.com/now/lazy-crane-operators-making-250-200100567.html Lazy crane operators making $250,000 a year exacerbating port crisis, truckers say
And yes, to be sure, Biden is highly unlikely to shit on the unions here, which is what SHOULD be done! Bring back a Reagan-like union buster! Like the air traffic GREEDY controller-bastards! When national security is at stake... As it is here... BUST the bastards! I'll take their job, if they will get OUT of the way!
(Union violence and coercion has been all too common).
Developing such principles is treating the symptom, not the disease.
The disease is that the state is powerful enough to exert this much pressure on private companies in the first place.
We are a very long way from curing that disease. It's probably worth coming up with some treatments in the meantime.
It has convinced me that Libertarians like those at Reason are progs wearing libertarian as a skinsuit. Their stances are no different from "libertarian socialists" where individual liberties all fall to the common good.
The closest Ms de Rugy gets to anti-speech movements among the right is Parents objecting to CRT being taught in elementary schools.
Saying this is an infringement of free speech is a bit of a stretch.
These are government schools. Education-- ie the "messaging" of education is compulsory-- which includes the lesson material being taught, and the only way that can be influenced is presumably via the public school board meetings.
I'm finding it real hard to see parents pushing back against an explicitly racist set of education materials as being "illiberal", especially when attendance to that institution is compulsory (required by law).
Yes, this was exactly my point. When picking and choosing the curriculum of a public school, some stuff isn't going to be taught. That isn't suppression of speech, it is the reality of scarce time and resources- something an economist like her should get.
And I would rather the "some stuff" being neglected is the "racist stuff" like CRT. To the extent that the State government and Parents advising their elected representatives on the school board want "racist stuff" like CRT out of their curriculum, that is not suppression of speech.
"Democracy is like a tram. You ride it until you arrive at your destination, then you step off."
Back in the sixties and seventies, it was all the hippies and leftists who were screaming at the establishment about free speech rights; once they became the establishment, free speech became a threat to them. It's been a long time since certain opinions have been verboten in academic circles, The Bell Curve was written in 1994 and was the first I saw this near universal condemnation by the Left of certain ideas and 2005 when Larry Summers made his observation that perhaps there were differences between males and females that cost him his job as President of Harvard.
Now it is true that you can "both sides" this, for example the Catholic Church was notoriously conservative and it could cost an academic his life to express opinions contrary to its teachings, but I would argue that it's been many years since the Right has been suppressing the Left in this country. It's sort of a one-sided fight when one side has rules of fairness and decency they must follow and the other side doesn't. And it's telling that the Left squawks the loudest when the Right starts adopting the tactics the Left has been using for years.
Let's not kid ourselves: if you gave them power again, some conservatives would be as authoritarian as progressives are today. The reason the left has been so spectacularly successful is because conservatives really gave conservatism a bad name. People like Buckley and the Bush family are responsible for the hatred many people have of all things conservative.
While that is often true of many leaders- when you look at the stark difference between the Left and Right in the polls right now, it is pretty clear who the authoritarians are right now.
True. In part, we have to thank Obama and Trump for that, because each in their own way brought out the godawful people in the Republican party.
I really didn't know how despicable people like Romney, Liz Cheney, Buckley etc. actually were.
If you've read my previous rants, you will know that I have a special part of my colon reserved for my feelings about the recent crop of Elites within the GOP.
I do not include a lot of the ideologues like Buckley in that group- though I do feel that National Review and its lackeys sold out in 2000.
The way I see the Romney wing of the GOP vs Democrats is the way I see the Raiders vs the Broncos. Yeah, those two teams hate each other. They've hated each other for years, and they love their fans to hate one another. But they are still all in the NFL, and they aren't going to destroy the NFL to win one game. Romney et al are Minor Party Elites. But they are still Elites, and the Elites will always choose perpetuating the system over letting the Plebes have a go.
Now Trump for all his faults (and they were legion) was a surprise because he was not part of the system. He did not respect the allegiances. If winning meant that the Elite hegemony had to burn down, well Trump was ok with that. And so he had to go.
It is sad that Trump was "the guy" who emerged to challenge the Elites, but that was who we got. And the more that I think about it, the more I suspect that the only person who can topple the Elites (a true Caesar) will be even worse.
So your solution is to still keep whining about "the elites" in the Republican party - who handed fewer seats to the Democrats than Trump.
Trump is the one who went to their weddings. Trump is the one who paid them. Trump is the one who publicly held their positions until five minutes before he decided he wanted to stick it to Obama and run for president. And yes, by "them" I mean the organized political party that sets policy, not the amorphous blob of people you call the Elites.
I'm surprised to see you *also* acknowledge Trump is a harbinger of something worse. Presumably, something that even you admit should be opposed. And yet, here's that trumpy narrative again.
When I was a young man in the 70s I read Ayn Rand. I also read Karl Marx. And a whole lot more. Subversive ideas were everywhere and readily available at least in Ann Arbor. Nobody ever suggested to me that an idea was so dangerous that I couldn't be exposed to it. Pretty much everyone read Fahrenheit 451 and 1984. You could buy a Che
t shirt or Bob Marley at any headshop. Aside from a few Baptists in the deep south, book burning was pretty unpopular. Watching the widespread acceptance of censorship particularly among young adults is frankly amazing. It is indeed a brave new world.
^this
I am of the same mind. Freedom is often expressed as existing on a scale like the statue of Justice, but it is probably better expressed as a waveform. It peaks and ebbs. It is incredibly depressing to think that the maximum was sometime in the last 30 years. Based on the results of the 20th century experiments with socialism, it could be a long time before it rises to that level again.
My experience is very much like yours, just sub in 80's. 😉
I think we should eliminate all public funding for higher education; that is the liberal choice.
But when higher education is partially funded, that funding is given to universities to achieve particular objectives; requiring universities to make a choice to achieve those goals or else not take public funding is not "illiberalism".
What is unacceptable and illiberal is to forcibly take people's money and hand it to universities to achieve the ideological objectives of their academic staff and administrators.
whistling past the graveyard on the campus thing. if I was hiring people I'd discriminate against the recently-college-educated as a peremptory strike
they fight the teaching of critical race theory in K-12 schools with problematic and illiberal bans of their own.
Laws that schools can't engage in racism are "problematic"?
Probably nothing set back libertarians more than opposition to the Civil Rights Acts. I see we've learned nothing since.
And anyone who thinks that the laws are specifically banning CRT needs to go read them. They ban the teaching of racism and sexism in a way that applies to any kind of bigoted ideology or worldview, not just the radical left-wing ones. I find it amazing that anyone who has read the law is willing to publicly object to it.
If we wanted to be popular, we wouldn't be libertarians.
The key to understanding whether these people are reasonable is comparing their reaction to "anti-CRT" legislation to their position on Title VI and IX of the Civil Rights Acts banning discrimination based on race and sex in education.
I criticize Title IX as much as anyone. But that's not because I oppose the law, but rather what the law has been perverted into through bureaucratic invention and judicial support. For people like De Rugy and in particular for left wingers to be consistent they would need to support the complete repeal of these portions of the CRAs. This is true of exactly zero of them. Instead they laud these laws as causing the massive increases in freedom achieved by women in particular but racial minorities as well. Amusingly this is not even true as the legislation came after the cultural changes rather than driving them.
Since De Rugy (et al) are not consistent we can understand they have internalized left wing fear-mongering about what is acceptable and what is not.
+1
To be fair, you should go read much of de Rugy's work. Much of it is very critical of exactly these types of laws.
And yet here she is saying getting racist teachings out of schools is problematic because the people pushing it are in opposition to the current marxist leftist zeitgeist.
It's the left that is trying to destroy liberal democracy and replace it with democratic socialism and technocracy. Mainstream conservatives these days are just trying to preserve liberal democracy.
"Liberal democracy" (the post WWII world order) has not actually been a liberal form of government to begin with; liberalism in the US and Europe died in the early 20th century.
Donald Trump's political position represent the mainstream of post-WWII America and Europe; it's the American left that has become radicalized and unhinged.
People don't give a f*ck about the "degenerate culture of the left" anymore; conservatives fought that battle in the 1960's and lost. Most conservatives don't care who you sleep with or whether you cut off your weenie, as long as they don't have to live around you and don't have to pay for the consequences. You know, the actually liberal position.
The current political battle is about whether the left succeeds in turning the US into an authoritarian socialist state or whether we can keep our "liberal democracy" (illiberal as it already is) alive a little longer.
Full circle.
The self proclaimed open mindedness of liberalism, is not so open minded as to be capable of recognizing its own errors.
Per my comment below, I find it interesting that open-ended liberalism is what got campus illiberalism.
What we've seen on campuses has been an ideological group-think mentality that, via liberalism, gave anyone with any crazy set of ideas (and the further left, the better) a professorship.
Academia brought in thousands of people with far-left ideologies who opposed Western Liberal Democracy, Capitalism. etc.
These people were brought in with the idea that they were a 'counterweight' to conventional thought and wisdom. Their presence was seen as a radical act of academic freedom. Which, in a way, it is. Academic freedom doesn't mean you have to teach respectable ideas... it merely means you're free to pursue any academic line of thought you want.
People who preach open-ended liberalism and "tolerance" have to realize that they may end up tolerating an element that seeks to destroy open-ended liberalism and tolerance. And if that element gains momentum and popularity... Well...
Like a corrupt pyramid scheme.
Control who gets hired, advanced to control the narrative, indoctrinate people.
Fragile fascist societies can’t withstand the logic and science shared with free speech.
Open ended liberalism is fine when you're pursuing truth mo matter how crazy because ultimately you're judged by the ability to reflect/predict reality. The problem is the droves of post-modernists and their explicit rejection of any truth but power. These are the people who have destroyed academia and through it society in general.
Some even argue that liberal democracy's time has passed.
Good.
This notion that democracy is somehow necessary for freedom is as retarded as the belief that an apple and a fish are natural allies.
There really are three societies we are talking about: (1) classically liberal societies, (2) "liberal democracies" (really: progressive social welfare states with regulated markets), and (3) authoritarian socialism.
While some conservatives and libertarians would like to get to (1), the current battle is between (2) and (3).
(1) is attainable, but it requires selection bias in it's citizenry (the overwhelming majority must already be conditioned for liberalism), and that is unacceptable to the open borders crowd.
I agree that (1) is attainable. I don't think it even requires selection of citizens; a classically liberal state can have (mostly) open borders because it is unattractive to people who lack the classically liberal mindset.
The US did well with open borders when it wasn't a social welfare state; and it did reasonably well even when its social welfare state handouts were limited to citizens and naturalization required not being a public burden.
a classically liberal state can have (mostly) open borders because it is unattractive to people who lack the classically liberal mindset
A booming economy is very attractive to economic migrants, regardless of their mindset.
It is, but they have to work for it and earn enough to survive in a booming economy.
As long as they don't get the political power to vote themselves free government handouts, that's OK.
I find it difficult to morally justify using people for their labor while denying them rights, don't you? It also lets employers bid down labor costs, which affects citizens. And there's the practical matter of having social services meant to be available to everyone in order to decrease risk and then denying them to a certain class of people, making the system less efficient to this end (costing citizens more in the long run). Furthermore, immigrant workers are going to skew younger than the citizen population, making them net payers-in to said system.
You're letting tribalism get in the way of logic and math.
I'm an immigrant. I came to this country knowing full well that I was working but wouldn't have political representation for the next two decades and that I would be kicked out of the country if I became a public charge. I wasn't being "used", I was offered a deal and I made a choice to do it. I think it was an excellent deal, and I have no moral problem whatsoever imposing the same deal on other immigrants.
You mean like now, when we allow tens of millions of aliens to just walk into the US and when we import goods and services tariff free from totalitarian communist regimes? You're right: that lowers salaries and affects citizens. I thought you were in favor of that.
In any case, open borders and free trade are much more benign in a libertarian society than in our current progressive social welfare state.
But you CAN fight the humongous national debt problem by simply raising the debt ceiling and borrowing more.
This is well known and will definitely not have any deleterious effects.
the situation may not be as dire as when Lewis spoke these words
Indeed, it's arguably worse.
Free speech is all well and good, but people from the other tribe are saying mean things and must be stopped! For great justice!
Brandyshit stil trying to justify his infantile desire for a daddy-figure!
Stuff your TDS up your ass, steaming pile of shit.
Oh poor snowflake Sevo. Needs that pacifier back.
What sort of a warpe personality does it take for lefty assholes like shitfordinner to show up constantly at a place where they are universally despised, insulted and called on their bullshit?
What ever it is, I'm happy shitfordinner is there and I'm not.
Fuck off and die, steaming pile of lefty shit.
Is it ironic that campus liberalism got us campus illiberalism?
A paradox within a conundrum wrapped in irony.
Don’t agree at all with that theory, which you just came up with a little further up the page. What we currently have is an _attempt_ by a political camp to impose illiberalism. It’s not like it’s a done deal, or that there is no backlash or resistance building.
What we currently have is an _attempt_ by a political camp to impose illiberalism. It’s not like it’s a done deal, or that there is no backlash or resistance building.
Pol Pot attempted to impose his vision of social justice on Cambodia. It was never really a done deal, and it's not like there wasn't a backlash or a resistance building.
I think all fascisms are pretty much the same. Some nutbag offers a simple solution to complex social ills, and that solution is to murder undesirables by the million. Pretty basic ape stuff.
Which party is blaming all of society's ills on vulnerable minorities? Which has a black/white cosmology?
The real victims are billionaires who would be taxed, and the real perps are trans people and black college students. Perhaps it will undo itself by its sheer audacious stupidity, but there's a reason they're going after schools.
The real victims are billionaires who would be taxed...
Says the guy from the political party that wants bank account info for practically every poor person in the country.
“ Which has a black/white cosmology?”
Uh, that would be democrats.
"It’s not like it’s a done deal, or that there is no backlash or resistance building."
This...to put it mildly...is rich.
There is nothing Mike likes better than to show up on this site and criticize exactly the people who are a part of the Backlash and Resistance.
For the benefit of the thread, this is Mike's MO. He is saying "Well, I don't know if the illiberals are winning"- perfectly aware that the illiberals are HIS TEAM. He is acting as if there is nothing to see here- no major dangers, just some academic back and forth, give and take.
He is not offering a contrasting view. He is actively trying to run interference for the left as they impose their authoritarian worldview. He will deny it is happening right up until the Political Officer comes to take you away. And then in a totally different thread, he will be there saying, "Man, weren't those guys pushing back against our Soviet system the worst? THE WORST I TELLS YA!"
It's pretty weird to be obsessed with the opinions of teenagers. Do you expect teenagers to be right about everything? I expect them to be wrong about everything. College is about exploring ideas. I realize this is a scary and dangerous thing to people more disposed to getting all their thoughts from the pulpit and a magic book.
Ah yes. The ole these are just college kids with college ideas fallacy. They’ll get learned out in the real world.
It’s not like any of these ideas aren’t mainstream now right?
It is! Yet, progressives, socialists, and fascists are always obsessed with giving power to teenagers. From Brownshirts to Thunberg to lowering the voting age to 16, the left has an obsession with youth. Why do you think that is?
Thunberg, lol. You people are nuts.
I think it's a law of physics that middle-aged people will freak out about what's going on on college campuses, every generation.