Anyone self quarantined? AKA - the 2020 SH!T SHOW
- Thread starter nmwranglerx
- Start date
- Status
Trail JK
Active Member
Sharkey
Word Ninja
For the first time since I’ve been looking, Nevada along with a host of other states is now in the light pink. This means we have fewer that 5,000 cases of China virus.
In spite of it, our wonderful governor Sisolak will be EXTENDING the shutdown of our state. When asked why he’s doing this, he said, "We just have not reached exactly where we want to get in the downward trajectory. Our statistics have plateaued."
Not sure what statistics he’s been looking at but I can only assume it’s just for Vegas. Certainly, the whole REST OF THE STATE is actually doing quite well. [emoji849]
Sent from my iPhone using WAYALIFE
In spite of it, our wonderful governor Sisolak will be EXTENDING the shutdown of our state. When asked why he’s doing this, he said, "We just have not reached exactly where we want to get in the downward trajectory. Our statistics have plateaued."
Not sure what statistics he’s been looking at but I can only assume it’s just for Vegas. Certainly, the whole REST OF THE STATE is actually doing quite well. [emoji849]
Sent from my iPhone using WAYALIFE
JPast
Member
Same deal here, My states in the 5-10k zone but I'm on an island and we've had like 25 cases total and nobody in the hospital currently but everything is still more or less shut down. That said our restrictions don't hold a candle to what other states have had so it's not too bad overall. Don't think it'll be too much longer until we start to open back up down here.
fiend
Caught the Bug
The quote is taken out of context, which will become immediately evident to anyone that reads the whole article. The authors, which include a former Assistant Attorney General in the George Dubyah Bush administration, are not making a value judgment that China got it “right” and the US got it “wrong.” They are commenting on the inexorable trend toward more control of digital speech, not only in China but in the US. As the authors note, “[t]he general trend toward more speech control will not abate,” largely because, as highlighted in the article, consumers, companies, and the government in the US generally behave as if they WANT more speech control. The authors’ conclusion is that “[t]he surveillance and speech-control responses to COVID-19, and the private sector’s collaboration with the government in these efforts, are a historic and very public experiment about how our constitutional culture will adjust to our digital future.”
Sent from my iPhone using WAYALIFE mobile app
Wow, that you would even attempt to address what was said in this article as if reason could be applied to it leaves me utterly speechless.
Also, FUCK dubyah and anyone from his administration. They're they same fuckers that started us down this shitty road of Americans losing their liberties.
benatc1
Hooked
I guess some opening is better than none, [emoji848] depending on what he actually says tomorrow. However, with maintaining the stay at home order, its a clear path to continue to restrict and destroy the local economy and does nothing to help a significant amount of people get back to work. I have friends who are normal W2s who are unemploymed and STILL haven't received an unemployment check 6 weeks later, and dont even get me started on the 1099s. But yes, let's just keep everyone stuck in their home with no help or ability to help themselves. Maybe it's worse in Vegas in terms of risk, but let's be honest, that's 7 or so hours from here and sadly their entire economy is being crushed more and more every day as well.
Sent from my HD1905 using WAYALIFE mobile app
Sharkey
Word Ninja
Anyone self quarantined?
Really? I completely disagree with you. The article is riddled with the authors’ own opinions on the topic, and those opinions are crystal clear.
Let’s start with the subtitle: “In the debate over freedom versus control of the global network, China was largely correct, and the U.S. was wrong.” That is the authors’ conclusion, not a reasoned analysis about what everyone wants. The authors further assert that China’s limitations on speech and control over the Internet is right, and our country’s desire to hold onto the First and Fourth Amendments is wrong. As opined by the authors “The First and Fourth Amendments as currently interpreted, and the American aversion to excessive government-private-sector collaboration, have stood as barriers to greater government involvement.” The implication is clear, the authors view the First and Fourth Amendments with disdain (the use of the phrase “as currently interpreted” implies that there is a better, different interpretation). But let’s move on.
The authors’ opine that “Americans’ understanding of these laws [the First and Fourth Amendments], and the cultural norms they spawned, will be tested as the social costs of a relatively open internet multiply.” That statement is a commentary by the authors that the social costs of free speech are greater than the benefits.
But, here is the real zinger that is both the authors’ opinion and the conclusory premise of the POS article:
“Significant monitoring and speech control are inevitable components of a mature and flourishing internet, and governments must play a large role in these practices to ensure that the internet is compatible with a society’s norms and values.”
How in the actual fuck can you read that POS editorial as anything other than the authors’ opinion that government censorship of the internet is a wonderful thing? The proverbial book burning that is going on is antithetical to the very bedrock of a free nation, and these authors want it that way.
Sent from my iPhone using WAYALIFE
Really? I completely disagree with you. The article is riddled with the authors’ own opinions on the topic, and those opinions are crystal clear.
Let’s start with the subtitle: “In the debate over freedom versus control of the global network, China was largely correct, and the U.S. was wrong.” That is the authors’ conclusion, not a reasoned analysis about what everyone wants. The authors further assert that China’s limitations on speech and control over the Internet is right, and our country’s desire to hold onto the First and Fourth Amendments is wrong. As opined by the authors “The First and Fourth Amendments as currently interpreted, and the American aversion to excessive government-private-sector collaboration, have stood as barriers to greater government involvement.” The implication is clear, the authors view the First and Fourth Amendments with disdain (the use of the phrase “as currently interpreted” implies that there is a better, different interpretation). But let’s move on.
The authors’ opine that “Americans’ understanding of these laws [the First and Fourth Amendments], and the cultural norms they spawned, will be tested as the social costs of a relatively open internet multiply.” That statement is a commentary by the authors that the social costs of free speech are greater than the benefits.
But, here is the real zinger that is both the authors’ opinion and the conclusory premise of the POS article:
“Significant monitoring and speech control are inevitable components of a mature and flourishing internet, and governments must play a large role in these practices to ensure that the internet is compatible with a society’s norms and values.”
How in the actual fuck can you read that POS editorial as anything other than the authors’ opinion that government censorship of the internet is a wonderful thing? The proverbial book burning that is going on is antithetical to the very bedrock of a free nation, and these authors want it that way.
Sent from my iPhone using WAYALIFE
Last edited:
fiend
Caught the Bug
Thoughtful response. Hopefully others will read the entire article and come to their own conclusions, just like you and I did.
Sent from my iPhone using WAYALIFE mobile app
LOL - right, because you leaving me speechless can only mean that I hadn’t read it. It’s not the government that I’m afraid of, it’s people like you and the “conclusions” you come away with from bullshit like this.
Sent from my iPhone using WAYALIFE
Always appreciate knowing there are still a few people in America who see things the way you do.
Sent from my iPhone using WAYALIFE
notnalc68
That dude from Mississippi
The only way our constitutional culture can adjust to that, is to burn the constitution and to give up on freedom. I’m not one of the people that think the meaning of the words in our Constitution changes over time. The Constitution of the United States was written for one purpose only. One purpose! To limit the power of government.
Sent from my iPhone using WAYALIFE mobile app
benatc1
Hooked
This exactly.. unfortunately too many people want it the other way, but regardless of what media or social media tells us, I'd bet the majority still sides with the freedom. Hopefully for people like us, this next election will prove that
Sent from my HD1905 using WAYALIFE mobile app
WJCO
Meme King
benatc1
Hooked
jesse3638
Hooked
Miss the courtroom much?..haha. Glad to see your interpretation of this editorial.
As I'm sure you know there actually used to be a communist party here in thw US. There is a reason they are no longer, no one wants that type of government control over them. As mentioned The Constitution was written to maintain freedom and place limitations on government power over the people. Unfortunately it seems a lot of politicians view government necessity like the authors of that POS editorial and do their best to convince the people we need it too. All in the name of safety. Like I said seatbelt and helmet laws are too much government overreach in my opinion. If I want to be an idiot and risk killing myself that's my choice, its called freedom and personal accountability.
Sent from my SM-G973U using WAYALIFE mobile app
WJCO
Meme King
I was literally just talking to my wife about this same example less than 5 minutes ago. At what point do we decide ourselves to make stupid decisions that affect only us vs letting the government make those decisions for us?
Sharkey
Word Ninja
Haha...short answer, yes. Oddly enough though, I actually tried a case over Zoom about two weeks ago. The judge, me, the witnesses, and all parties were appearing through separate lines. The plaintiff didn’t have video so I couldn’t even see what they were looking at or doing. It was very strange, and there is no question that it causes all kinds of due process concerns.
Sent from my iPhone using WAYALIFE
jesse3638
Hooked
Yeah that would be weird. I could imagine that would difficult. Kind of like trying decipher ones email and habe no voice inflection. Need the old batman onomatopoeia effects..haha.
Sent from my SM-G973U using WAYALIFE mobile app
- Status