Comment by gruez
2 days ago
>These things don't just happen overnight. It's not crying wolf when you see the wolf on the horizon running towards you.
So were vaccine mandates and passports "fascism" as well, even though they melted away after the pandemic ended, contrary to some who thought it was going to be part of some new world order?
Group A: "Mandatory masks in crowds during an airborne pandemic is fascism! Watch out!"
Group B: "Throwing non-citizens into concentration camps using 'wartime' laws without trial is fascism! Watch out!"
You: "Group A was foolish, therefore Group B is foolish, because all warnings against fascism are equally un-grounded and meritless for some reason."
>Group A: "Mandatory masks in crowds during an airborne pandemic is fascism! Watch out!"
>You: "Group A was foolish, therefore Group B is foolish, because all warnings against fascism are equally un-grounded and meritless for some reason."
So it's only "fascism" if it's not for a Good Reason? Who decides whether something is a good reason? Is it us, because we're obviously the Good Guys? Doesn't this seem suspiciously close to a defense of Flock that others have referenced[1]? ie. "Doesn't vaccine passports seem pretty dystopian? You're thinking of [other group] authoritarianism. Our authoritarianism helps granny from getting sick and stops the spread of covid". This kind of attitude is exactly the reason why people tuned "fascism" out. It just became a tool for partisan in-group signaling.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46357042
> Good Guys [...] Our authoritarianism helps granny
That's quite a *whooooosh* of missing-the-point. Perhaps because you've confused me with another poster, and you're smushing a bunch of unfinished tu-quoque accusations together?
I'll simplify it further, you're acting like these are equivalent:
1. Yelling "Wolf! Danger!" ... because you were in downtown Chicago and saw a fur hoodie.
2. Yelling "Wolf! Danger!" ... because you were in rural Albania and saw a paw-print and a dead deer.
It's foolish to consider them the same just because the same two words were uttered. The accuracy or reasonableness of one does not reflect on the other.
> Who decides whether something is a good reason?
Well, in this case I decide that seeing a fur hoodie downtown is a bad reason to warn of an imminent wolf attack, and that seeing a paw-print in the European hinterlands is... a much-less-bad reason.
If I (or you) are somehow not permitted to make that decision about 1-vs-2, please explain why.
1 reply →
This Whataboutism[0] is quite silly, because the vaccine mandates "melted away" due to the checks and balances of the government operating to make them go away. Meanwhile we're seeing checks and balances themselves melting away.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
>This Whataboutism[0]
Not every counterexample you don't like is "Whataboutism".
>because the vaccine mandates "melted away" due to the checks and balances of the government operating to make them go away.
No, it would be "checks and balances" if there was actually some conflict between the branches of government. If like in most jurisdictions, the restrictions were imposed by the executive, and then lifted by the executive, it's just the executive changing its mind. The Trump administration starting a trade war against china, and then backing down isn't "checks and balance", for instance. The supreme court telling the executive to stop, would be "checks and balance".
The Supreme Court ruled against the vaccine mandate.