The "exceptions" we make to social distancing are ones we're literally FORCED TO because people would DIE otherwise, if they couldn't get groceries or go to the pharmacy to buy meds
-
Show this thread
-
The virus doesn't actually care about this either, which is why we have a steady march of people CONTINUING TO GET INFECTED AND GET SICK at supermarkets, at warehouses and processing facilities, and at hospitals
1 reply 23 retweets 324 likesShow this thread -
Any "reasonable concessions" you make so people can go hang out at the beach again if they pinky promise not to make out with any strangers just speeds up the rate at which those "essential workers" get exposed, infected and in some cases killed
3 replies 52 retweets 399 likesShow this thread -
Unless you're willing to look at that equation and tell those "heroes" to their face "It was worth it for X number of you to die so we could that beach party", unless you actually understand what the tradeoff is, you should shut the fuck up
8 replies 61 retweets 480 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @arthur_affect
(((Barak))) Retweeted (((Barak)))
Conservatives are so used to free-riding on liberals’ self-sacrifice (eg rural white people rioting over Obamacare, which taxed productive urban economies to provide *them* w healthcare subsidies) that a situation where that doesn’t work does not compute https://twitter.com/lawnerdbarak/status/1250599503712923649?s=21 …https://twitter.com/lawnerdbarak/status/1250599503712923649 …
(((Barak))) added,
2 replies 14 retweets 57 likes -
Replying to @lawnerdbarak @arthur_affect
They see it as “scientists” (who count as per se liberals) say we need to Do Social Distancing. Okay, then if liberals say we need to do SD, liberals should do full-lockdown, and thereby earn our society’s quota of SD, and then the rest of us can live as normal.
1 reply 2 retweets 27 likes -
Replying to @lawnerdbarak @arthur_affect
We can’t get sick from church: liberal scientists said we needed to do social distancing and those liberals did social distancing, we’re covered
1 reply 1 retweet 23 likes -
Replying to @lawnerdbarak
Right, exactly, it's not thought of as a need to obey the actual physical laws of nature, it's thought of as a bargain, a negotiation, like you can earn "points" somehow and be allowed a little exposure risk as a treat
1 reply 2 retweets 36 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @lawnerdbarak
Yeah - and to be fair, there's some extent where we do have to figure out the negotiation: do restaurants stay open for take out? Do dry cleaners and laundromats stay open? Etc. But there's a cost for it.
1 reply 1 retweet 11 likes -
And I'm even sympathetic to the idea that religious events are so important, we should be willing to think about what the right balance point is there, not least because of the ways in which it handles people's stress. But not based on "you can't get sick in church"
2 replies 1 retweet 12 likes
Okay see what I think is really at issue is the belief that the world is in some fundamental way fair and apportions consequences based on moral responsibility This is generally bullshit even at the best of times but the way this particular virus works especially doesn't fit
-
-
Libertarians LOVE to say shit about "If I take the risk upon myself it's none of your business" But unless you move to an empty island tomorrow by yourself, you CANNOT take the risk of infectious disease upon yourself alone You ALWAYS spread it around to others
5 replies 27 retweets 105 likes -
Unfortunately we do not live in a science fiction universe where we're surrounded by personal force fields and all contact with other people's germs is consensual and voluntary If we did then none of this would be an issue in the first place
1 reply 1 retweet 27 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.