You're arguing the same thing that this person is saying, though. They aren't saying go out and lick doorknobs. Nothing that you're ranting against is something they said is ok to do.
It's not clear what they're saying to do because drinking with pals could mean a lot of things - so I acknowledged that and qualified it. But they definitely pushed back on the idea of variants ruining anything and set up the comparison between drinking with pals and putting the vulnerable at risk.
There was a comrade in the other thread who can't get vaccinated. You have to wonder what solidarity means when there's seriously a discussion about their health vs. drinking venue.
This is part of a larger reactionary trend on this website. There is nearly always a struggle session when anyone is asked to consider changing their own behaviors.
The person you responded to qualified worrying about individual variants with PK's last post (and other posts) about a possible outbreak of a variant which proclaim the end of life as we know it and have turned out not to happen.
Maybe I put my own perception on things, but I took it as them saying to stay cautious in behabiors but to wait and see on variants.
I'm not going to disagree with you on the fact of struggle sessions here stemming from people being asked to change behavior. However, (without trying to sound like the tone police) I think this place falls into the internet trap of yelling past at people to change instead of actually trying to talk about it.
The person you responded to qualified worrying about individual variants with PK’s last post (and other posts) about a possible outbreak of a variant which proclaim the end of life as we know it and have turned out not to happen.
It's not something you can easily estimate the chances for, but you can definitively say that high infection rates vastly increase the chances. Allele generation rate vs. population size is population genetics 101.
With that fact and the consequences in mind, there are plenty of denialist and fundamentally sociopathic responses to be found in both recent threads. In response to a minor ask to protect others, even marginally, half the comments are embarrassing reactionary, sociopathic positions justified by "well if it's not collective action it's pointless". Some of them using the false pretense of a scientific position.
PK's position is reasonable.
Maybe I put my own perception on things, but I took it as them saying to stay cautious in behabiors but to wait and see on variants.
But they poo-poo'd the idea of escape variants being catastrophic and brought up a comparison between drinking with pals and genociding the vulnerable...
We have vulnerable comrades and comrades with vulnerable loved ones. Do you think they feel like these folks have their back? Just about the smallest ask you can think of - a stupid-ass cloth on your face - and a large minority of edgy deniers come out of the woodwork peddling straw men and their theoretically relevant cynicism.
I’m not going to disagree with you on the fact of struggle sessions here stemming from people being asked to change behavior. However, (without trying to sound like the tone police) I think this place falls into the internet trap of yelling past at people to change instead of actually trying to talk about it.
Nah I've also done the effortpost route and careful explanations and get the exact same responses. A large portion of this site have never left behind their earlier reactionary tendencies and cannot do self-crit without first fighting a lot.
I'm not gonna dive into a reddit-brain breakdown of this.
There is a way of calculating it. PK has even shared the lancet study that theorizes it.
Nobody's (that I've seen) saying go spit on the vunerable. You're building up what I and the person you originally responded to to be something were not saying.
I’m not gonna dive into a reddit-brain breakdown of this.
When you think that responding thoroughly to eat you say is dismissable as reddit-brain, there's nowhere to go with this conversation. You had just gotten done saying that, "I think this place falls into the internet trap of yelling past at people to change instead of actually trying to talk about it."
Maybe ask yourself why being personally dismissive seems like the right thing to do at this point in our discussion. Rather than acknowledge that the toxicity I pointed out, you're going in a new toxic direction. Really ask yourself why you did that and whether it's a healthy way to hash things out with comrades that are trying to respectfully disagree with you.
Look, I genuinely would love to talk about these things with you. I truly would.
But, if you're going to quote dissect what I'm saying in order to repeat points you've already made and I've addressed without getting to my main point which is that you started out arguing against things that the person you responded to wasn't saying. There really isn't anywhere to go with it after that.
If my comment was dismissive I apologize, I should have phrased it better. However, I'm being talk passed (past? Idk) so its not really something I'd like to continue engaging in.
Nothing I said was quote dissection. I quoted three whole paragraphs in order to make it clear what I was responding to.
You were obviously dismissive and again, I am unironically asking you to ask yourself why you thought that was the right tack. It's also incompatible with actually wanting to discuss this, so please make up your mind about how you want to engage with this comrade here. Is it frustration venting targeted at me or are you talking to a human that's respectfully disagreeing? You can't have both.
I disagree that I'm talking past you. I'm actually trying to address exactly what you're saying. Quoting you is part of that - the thing that you believed was good enough reason to personally dismiss me. If you think I'm missing your point, nobody is stopping you from communicating that productively.
You're arguing the same thing that this person is saying, though. They aren't saying go out and lick doorknobs. Nothing that you're ranting against is something they said is ok to do.
It's not clear what they're saying to do because drinking with pals could mean a lot of things - so I acknowledged that and qualified it. But they definitely pushed back on the idea of variants ruining anything and set up the comparison between drinking with pals and putting the vulnerable at risk.
There was a comrade in the other thread who can't get vaccinated. You have to wonder what solidarity means when there's seriously a discussion about their health vs. drinking venue.
This is part of a larger reactionary trend on this website. There is nearly always a struggle session when anyone is asked to consider changing their own behaviors.
The person you responded to qualified worrying about individual variants with PK's last post (and other posts) about a possible outbreak of a variant which proclaim the end of life as we know it and have turned out not to happen.
Maybe I put my own perception on things, but I took it as them saying to stay cautious in behabiors but to wait and see on variants.
I'm not going to disagree with you on the fact of struggle sessions here stemming from people being asked to change behavior. However, (without trying to sound like the tone police) I think this place falls into the internet trap of yelling past at people to change instead of actually trying to talk about it.
It's not something you can easily estimate the chances for, but you can definitively say that high infection rates vastly increase the chances. Allele generation rate vs. population size is population genetics 101.
With that fact and the consequences in mind, there are plenty of denialist and fundamentally sociopathic responses to be found in both recent threads. In response to a minor ask to protect others, even marginally, half the comments are embarrassing reactionary, sociopathic positions justified by "well if it's not collective action it's pointless". Some of them using the false pretense of a scientific position.
PK's position is reasonable.
But they poo-poo'd the idea of escape variants being catastrophic and brought up a comparison between drinking with pals and genociding the vulnerable...
We have vulnerable comrades and comrades with vulnerable loved ones. Do you think they feel like these folks have their back? Just about the smallest ask you can think of - a stupid-ass cloth on your face - and a large minority of edgy deniers come out of the woodwork peddling straw men and their theoretically relevant cynicism.
Nah I've also done the effortpost route and careful explanations and get the exact same responses. A large portion of this site have never left behind their earlier reactionary tendencies and cannot do self-crit without first fighting a lot.
I'm not gonna dive into a reddit-brain breakdown of this.
There is a way of calculating it. PK has even shared the lancet study that theorizes it.
Nobody's (that I've seen) saying go spit on the vunerable. You're building up what I and the person you originally responded to to be something were not saying.
When you think that responding thoroughly to eat you say is dismissable as reddit-brain, there's nowhere to go with this conversation. You had just gotten done saying that, "I think this place falls into the internet trap of yelling past at people to change instead of actually trying to talk about it."
Maybe ask yourself why being personally dismissive seems like the right thing to do at this point in our discussion. Rather than acknowledge that the toxicity I pointed out, you're going in a new toxic direction. Really ask yourself why you did that and whether it's a healthy way to hash things out with comrades that are trying to respectfully disagree with you.
Look, I genuinely would love to talk about these things with you. I truly would.
But, if you're going to quote dissect what I'm saying in order to repeat points you've already made and I've addressed without getting to my main point which is that you started out arguing against things that the person you responded to wasn't saying. There really isn't anywhere to go with it after that.
If my comment was dismissive I apologize, I should have phrased it better. However, I'm being talk passed (past? Idk) so its not really something I'd like to continue engaging in.
Nothing I said was quote dissection. I quoted three whole paragraphs in order to make it clear what I was responding to.
You were obviously dismissive and again, I am unironically asking you to ask yourself why you thought that was the right tack. It's also incompatible with actually wanting to discuss this, so please make up your mind about how you want to engage with this comrade here. Is it frustration venting targeted at me or are you talking to a human that's respectfully disagreeing? You can't have both.
I disagree that I'm talking past you. I'm actually trying to address exactly what you're saying. Quoting you is part of that - the thing that you believed was good enough reason to personally dismiss me. If you think I'm missing your point, nobody is stopping you from communicating that productively.