Covid-19 lockdown check-in

[Valmy]

The only thing worse than this pandemic itself is the endless Dorsey fighting about it in this thread. I hope both will be over at some point in the near future

Dorsey, as I have stated before, you may be right. And if you are I hope the scientists who advise politicians on these matters take that into consideration before our next pandemic...should that day ever come.

[Valmy]

In California, the main teams aren't even playing right now.

I wish Texas wasn't playing right now and actually I would like to include our team on the short list of things worse than the pandemic 

But fortunately we will have PAC 12 after dark back in November.

[Barrister]

So I can claim anything I want about someone, as long as I preface it with "It looks to me like"?

You know what I find very disheartening is the various claims of "dishonesty".  Maybe it's because I'm a criminal lawyer but it's incredibly hard to prove that someone is being dishonest - you need proof that the person knows what they are saying is not true.  And in particular amongst a group of people who have been virtually hanging out for over 15 years you'd think maybe we could assume a certain level of good faith by everyone here.

So year, why don't you try something lower key like "it looks to me like".

AR has been clear that he disagrees with the laws but still abides by them, and yet he's been equated with people who knowingly exposed others to Covid?  Oh, sorry, it looks that way to them.  That seems like good faith to you?

It looks to me like abusive behavior by people who can't hold their own in debates on merit.  Maybe if you're on the receiving end of such "good faith" enough times, you'll be less disheartened by accusation of dishonesty than you will be by good posters doing nothing while abusive posters misrepresent their opponents' views to the point of libel.

Dude I'm a criminal prosecutor.

I just had a case where a defence lawyer applied to get off the record "because of a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship" on the day this sex assault trial was to start.  Judge very reluctantly granted that request and adjourned the trial.  The Accused now spoke (since he no longer had a lawyer) and the first thing he said was "yeah, I couldn't afford to pay my lawyer" (hint - these are two completely different things).

So, I point out the very obvious discrepancy, but I don't accuse anyone of lying.  That just never helps things.  The judge can draw their own conclusions.

[alfred russel]

Dorsey, as I have stated before, you may be right. And if you are I hope the scientists who advise politicians on these matters take that into consideration before our next pandemic...should that day ever come.

They already have. I mean--6 months ago the atlantic is running an article titled "georgia's experiment with human sacrifice" and today restaurants and gyms are open across the country. No one is saying that Georgia was right and they were wrong of course. Everyone still screams about the irresponsibility the MAGA governors reopening, but everyone is quietly following their lead a bit later.

[DGuller]

Dude I'm a criminal prosecutor.

I just had a case where a defence lawyer applied to get off the record "because of a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship" on the day this sex assault trial was to start.  Judge very reluctantly granted that request and adjourned the trial.  The Accused now spoke (since he no longer had a lawyer) and the first thing he said was "yeah, I couldn't afford to pay my lawyer" (hint - these are two completely different things).

So, I point out the very obvious discrepancy, but I don't accuse anyone of lying.  That just never helps things.  The judge can draw their own conclusions.

So how should one react in response to a severe misrepresentation against their person?  Okay, maybe the other person is not dishonest, maybe they're just incredibly bad at comprehending things that go against their preconceived notions, the end result is the same. 

Is there a level of misrepresentation that is worse than calling out said misrepresentation?  And a separate question, is there a level of misrepresentation that should compel the people on the sidelines to really call it out, the same way that you're calling out the accusations of dishonesty from the sidelines?

[Valmy]

Dorsey, as I have stated before, you may be right. And if you are I hope the scientists who advise politicians on these matters take that into consideration before our next pandemic...should that day ever come.

They already have. I mean--6 months ago the atlantic is running an article titled "georgia's experiment with human sacrifice" and today restaurants and gyms are open across the country. No one is saying that Georgia was right and they were wrong of course. Everyone still screams about the irresponsibility the MAGA governors reopening, but everyone is quietly following their lead a bit later.

Heh. See this is what I mean. You just cannot even be nice when I try to bury the hatchet with you. Very Hansian. It is so tiresome.

But still much less tiresome and more fun than watching Texas attempt to play football.

[Barrister]

So how should one react in response to a severe misrepresentation against their person?  Okay, maybe the other person is not dishonest, maybe they're just incredibly bad at comprehending things that go against their preconceived notions, the end result is the same. 

The end result is not the same.

[DGuller]

So how should one react in response to a severe misrepresentation against their person?  Okay, maybe the other person is not dishonest, maybe they're just incredibly bad at comprehending things that go against their preconceived notions, the end result is the same. 

The end result is not the same.

In what way?  In either case, in this situation, AR is falsely made out to be Typhoid Mary.

[DGuller]

In any case, here is a way out of this situation so that it doesn't escalate to such levels of toxicity.  In poker, there is a rule that every player at the table is responsible for upholding the integrity of the game.  For example, if there are ten players at the table, and only two are involved in a hand at the end, but the winning player misreads his hand and the pot starts going to the losing player, everyone has the responsibility to speak up and correct the situation.  It's not just the business of the two players involved, everyone is in the wrong if they spot the error and say nothing.  We can apply the same concept here.

I'm sure that most of us visit this place because we enjoy discussing things.  However, it's hard to enjoy discussions when you're up against someone who misrepresents you to the point where you have to be actively defending your reputation.  When that happens, I think everyone here has the responsibility to speak up and say "hey, that's not a fair characterization", just like I'm doing here.  And, yes, if some genius makes a "joke" about me being AR, likewise other people should pipe in and point out that it's not a fair way to dismiss my arguments. 

This place here is a club, and every member of the club is responsible for upholding the norms of the club.  If calling out gross mischaracterizations is not left to the person being mischaracterized, then it's less likely to devolve to a mortal combat where the mischaracterization and the accusation of mischaracterization are just two arguments in the arsenal.  I personally think that equating, or sort of equating, or "seems liking", AR to people who knowingly exposed others to Covid is so over the line that it really deeply disappoints me that I'm the only bystander here who directly calls it out.

[PDH]

Whatever, fucknuts.

(I hope that was in the spirit of your post)

[Grey Fox]

I miss playing Poker.

I hate how people say it's just the flu. The good old H#N# flu is a big deal. It kills thousands every year & yet it's easily treatable.

[Eddie Teach]

What if we don't care about dismissing your arguments but just want to wind you up, Dorsey?

[Admiral Yi]

So how should one react in response to a severe misrepresentation against their person?  Okay, maybe the other person is not dishonest, maybe they're just incredibly bad at comprehending things that go against their preconceived notions, the end result is the same. 

Is there a level of misrepresentation that is worse than calling out said misrepresentation?  And a separate question, is there a level of misrepresentation that should compel the people on the sidelines to really call it out, the same way that you're calling out the accusations of dishonesty from the sidelines?

You can point out the mischaracterization without calling someone dishonest.

[DGuller]

What if we don't care about dismissing your arguments but just want to wind you up, Dorsey?

There comes a point where you should respect reasonable requests, stated repeatedly, unless it is your intention to disrespect someone.  I made it clear multiple times that I regard the Dorsey jokes as an attack on my integrity, and you don't ever joke about someone's integrity, just like you don't joke about someone being a child molester or things of that nature.  You just don't. 

Even if you think that I'm way overly sensitive on this issue, if you believe that I genuinely regard such jokes as an attack on my integrity, it may just be a decent thing to do to respect that.  Maybe if I regard a hundred different things as an attack on my integrity, then at that point my peevishness is excessive and shouldn't be honored, but a one-off request?  Just be a decent human being and respect that, it's not like you're going to come off as funny or clever in any case.

[alfred russel]

Heh. See this is what I mean. You just cannot even be nice when I try to bury the hatchet with you. Very Hansian. It is so tiresome.

But still much less tiresome and more fun than watching Texas attempt to play football.

I really don't get the tiresome angle. This is basically a forum that started and exists to talk about politics and current events. And in the grand scheme of things, the 21st century has been a complete dud for politics and events. Everyone gets worked up about elections--but in the end those epic Bush tax cuts caused the top tax rate to go from 39.5% to 35%. 9/11 has probably been the major event, but it hasn't really affected our lives. We followed up with a couple stupid wars, and for that we are a trillion or so poorer, a few thousand volunteer army guys got killed, and we bombed a bunch of brown people, but that is really it.

I've been right here arguing with everyone else, but in the grand scheme of things politics hasn't impacted the first world to any great extent. Until covid-19, even the election of the bad orange man didn't really impact day to day life. People were worked up because he said and tweeted dumb shit, but the economy was doing okay and else nothing really changed.

When this century started, I was working in a restaurant without a degree. While you guys have known me, I took out loans to go back to school and study accounting. Then became an accountant. Absolutely nothing that has happened politically has really mattered to me (or until now changed anything for someone trying to follow in my footsteps). Sometimes tax rates change and I pay a bit more or less, the healthcare system changed somewhat, when the economy has struggled I worry about layoffs and when it does well I get bigger bonuses. But nothing has really mattered. Maybe the change that annoyed me the most over the past 20 years was the initiation of and then expansion of targeting penalties.

Now: everything is on the table. Traditionally democrats and republicans argue about how much to fund schools and how to do it (such as with private school vouchers). Changes are at the margins. Now we are talking about if schools should be open and to what extent--the stakes are potentially lots of dead people vs inadequate education for a year and especially for the most at risk segments of society. Outside of education, in a period of months we are spending more than for all of our recent wars. We used to debate the funding of the arts by the government, now we are debating whether public establishments should be open at all. Obviously this list could go on much longer.

I think I can admit when I'm wrong. I admitted many times I was wrong about Trump's electoral chances in 2016. I used to vociferously argue with DGuller that the housing market wasn't overvalued in the run up to 2008, and started a thread later on admitting I was wrong about everything on that topic (though maybe I was too quick to admit I was wrong as housing prices so quickly rebounded ). On this topic, I know the person that thinks he can convince people of stuff on the internet is a fool, but I just don't see why you people aren't convinced. Everywhere I look I see the world as vindicating what I was saying back in March and April.

Also, my girlfriend made it clear after about our first week in lockdown that she didn't want to hear my opinions on covid anymore, so languish is my outlet.