Show newer

So & will soon be discussing what the libertarian perspective on big social censorship should be. It would be nice if they had an understanding of the decentralized () solution. & servers?


sounds like a great argument against burning fossil fuels.


any mandate should be passed through the normal legislative process, not via executive order or whatever's been happening on lockdowns/masks etc so far. this would also force a public debate (perhaps with testimony under oath) that could establish more agreement on the medical facts. I think that would pass in some areas and I think some courts would uphold them. It's all crazy frustrating to me.


I'm sure he'd be fine with you being put into solitary if you choose not to take the shot. Or maybe everyone who refuses gets to live on a small island together. His point is your choice impacts others, like speeding. I agree with him but I don't support mandating it. I want it to be a norm more people follow, not a law.


do you think there's any good laws/norms or is freedom absolute?


I don't think people should be allowed to drive fast in school zones. Etc etc. Does that make me anti freedom?


this is the core of actual liberalism. we need dialogue with those who disagree with us to learn. we're losing that in our information/worldview silos. people would rather get positive feedback and feel a sense of community than be exposed to uncomfortable truths or challenge popular opinion.


I think it's reasonable to say that the media was unfairly against him, but not to say that the voting results were fucked with. That lines up with seriously but not literally to me.

When Trump said the election was stolen, were we supposed to take him seriously but not literally?


In simplest terms, liberal is thinking for yourself. Libertarian is freedom to do whatever you want. While I agree about megacorps etc trying to tell people what to think, the liberal impulse is to fight against that no matter where it comes from. It's a continual struggle.

I agree w/ most of the rest that you said, but a liberal perspective imo is looking at the whole perspective and balancing it all. Emergency use is exactly that (my 'please explain' comment above).


It's not dependent on vaccination. It's dependent on a collective personal level of immunity that vaccinations increase, while avoiding infection. And the data suggests that the vaccines train our bodies to fight off future infections better than previous infections do.


are you changing the subject?

I don't support mandating vaccinations, but I think you're espousing a libertarian view I don't agree with. While I'd prioritize the freedom you're describing highly, it's not absolute. If this disease was much worse (kids dying grotesquely in the streets etc), I think even many libertarians would agree with me.

It's time to stop arguing with the people who don't want to get vaccinated. Our chance at herd immunity is over and future variants will probably be more transmissible but less dangerous. Quit masking where the vaccines are freely available. Let it go. Move on.


No. But even if you want to say the virus only kills like .1% that's 300k dead (with many more just suffering) if everyone in a population of 300m gets it.

Please explain to me why you're scared of the vaccine having horrible effects that just pop up years down the line, but you don't think that everyone who had a mild case of the virus could see the same result?

Show older
Liberal City

a place for liberal values on the #fediverse