zlacker

>>david9+(OP)
History books can tell you facts that happened, but they can never truly tell you how it feels.

I feel we're riding a knife's edge and there's a hurricane brewing in the gulf of absurdity.

====

Incidentally, I feel like this is why it is so hard to actually learn from history. You can read about the 1918 'Spanish' Flu, but you think "we're smarter now". etc.

>>csours+kk

  You can read about the 1918 'Spanish' Flu, but you think "we're smarter now". etc.

Interesting how this quote can be interpreted in fully opposite ways depending on what "side" you were on during covid

>>ttoino+Rq
> depending on what "side" you were on during covid

It's bizarre that there should be "sides" for how to deal with a public health issue. I can understand differing approaches, but it's the extreme polarisation that flabbergasts me.

>>ndsipa+uU
> It's bizarre that there should be "sides" for how to deal with a public health issue.

It's a political issue no matter how you look at it, and it was a very political issue at that, considering what the state (throughout the Western world and elsewhere too) proposed doing.

To paint it as merely a "public health issue" is doing people who don't agree a tremendous disservice, and it is very much part of the othering that has led us here. Please stop it.

>>crypto+bf1
Clearly, illnesses and diseases are public health issues as are systems to manage food safety. People who don't agree with trying to find the best way to manage public health are obviously sociopathic, though that doesn't mean that everyone has to agree on particular approaches e.g. masks may or may not be effective (though they seem to have now been shown effective in masking ICE agents which is ironic).

Certain methods of dealing with public health issues have historically been shown to be incredibly effective (e.g. vaccination, milk pasteurisation etc), so it's disconcerning when there's a political movement that pushes an agenda that is clearly based on fear and not rational evaluation of the issues. It seems to me that there's a push to make the poorest sections of society become less healthy and more vulnerable.

>>ndsipa+PO1
> People who don't agree with trying to find the best way to manage public health are obviously sociopathic

That's rich. People who want raw milk are sociopaths? Etc? Once again we have name-calling as a way to shut down debate. Might as well call for violence against people who don't agree with you, and I bet you have done just that. These false equivalences and exaggerations are in fact incitements to violence. You and all who do this should be ashamed of yourselves.

>>crypto+gX2
I didn't intend it as name-calling, but as a more literal statement. Not caring about other people's health is a trait often exhibited in sociopathy.

I can understand people wanting raw milk and that's fair enough as it goes, but selling it or providing it to others is risking their health to some degree - this is shown by the relatively high level of people falling seriously ill from drinking raw milk - this is due to the high level of bacteria that is often found in it. If someone does care about the health of others, but believes that raw milk is safe to consume, then it's more a case of ignorance than sociopathy.

> Might as well call for violence against people who don't agree with you

You're out of order with that comment.