Comment by SauciestGNU
5 days ago
One might argue that masks are necessary because the state is surveiling people and abducting them off the street based on viewpoint. If you're expressing views in public, it would behoove you to do so while obscuring your identity to the extent possible, lest you end up in a Salvadoran death camp for expressing views disfavored by the regime.
I absolutely think it’s valid to want to express one’s viewpoint anonymously.
However, I don’t think your argument really covers this particular situation. The events in question predate Trump’s reelection, and a lot of the things done by people, many whom were wearing masks, were approaching (or far beyond, depending your perspective) the line where free speech stops and harassment, vandalism and hate begins.
I think that one of the most self-defeating things that some of Trump’s opponents do is to ignore the fact that many of his actions are based on actual problems in the US. In my mind, bad things really were done on college campuses. Awful things really were done in the name of DEI. Cancel culture really was out of control. The US really does have economic deficiencies in the manufacturing sector. None of these excuse most of what Trump has done, but minimizing the real problems that he and his supporters latch onto doesn’t help.
> I think that one of the most self-defeating things that some of Trump’s opponents do is to ignore the fact that many of his actions are based on actual problems in the US. In my mind, bad things really were done on college campuses. Awful things really were done in the name of DEI. Cancel culture really was out of control. The US really does have economic deficiencies in the manufacturing sector
The problem, as it were, is that most of these "problems" are invented by "news" agencies and then repeated over and over until people believe them.
For example, in this conversation, there is literally no fact I could mention, no study I could cite, that would convince you that any one of these things might not actually be a real problem because you didn't use facts and science to develop them in the first place.
I do think the answer isn't to play defense to made up problems but talking about reality is always harder and more complicated than emotive sound bites.
Absolutely. I know people who still believe that multiple swathes of blocks in Portland were "burned to the ground" by Antifa and "will never be rebuilt".
Even in Seattle. "Tried to burn down a police station", by which "a mattress was set on a fire in an alley next to a police station".
2 replies →
> The problem, as it were, is that most of these "problems" are invented by "news" agencies and then repeated over and over until people believe them.
I disagree. I think they’re heavily exaggerated, and a whole pile of outright lies have been added on top, but more than enough of the “problems” seem to be generally rooted in real issues. For example:
I know a law professor who cannot teach basic topics in family law without dealing with trigger warnings.
Here’s some “DEI”:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42944203
Ever applied for anything from the NSF? You get to write about “broader impacts”. Everyone seems to know it’s BS, but it’s been there for decades.
Watching Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard from the sidelines, I found it rather difficult to agree with Harvard.
The ~75% indirect / F&A grant allocation to universities was indeed a real mess. Not necessarily the 75% number, but the structure of the allocation. I’ve experienced this from the research group side at two different universities, and I’ve even submitted formal feedback to a university suggesting that they voluntarily waive a portion in order to reduce the outrageously degree to which the allocation incentivizes grantees to do silly and wasteful things with their grant money. Now, obviously, the administration should not solve this problem by arbitrarily and illegally refusing to pay this money, but the executive branch may be able to legally improve the situation by improving the cost structure (IIRC the current structure is in the CFR), and they could certainly encourage Congress to adjust the statutes if needed.
> For example, in this conversation, there is literally no fact I could mention, no study I could cite, that would convince you that any one of these things might not actually be a real problem because you didn't use facts and science to develop them in the first place.
Let’s be clear: I do not, and never have, supported Trump or MAGA. But I’m perfectly happy to try to dig up real examples of actual issues, and I’m kind of tired of the tendency of, say, the more liberal media to avoid acknowledging problems. If there are real issues, engage with them! Don’t tell me that they don’t exist without giving some evidence!
1 reply →