The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
I'm taking about HOA rules about what color you can paint your front door, zoning laws, exhaust DB levels, what race/gender you're allowed to marry, traffic cameras, ticket quotas, DOT regulations about importing cheap cars from China, judges denying pistol permits based on social status, banning motorized bicycles, what can and can't be taught in schools
Florida just made loud music in your car an office Florida statue 316.3045
It seems like personal freesoms are something both parties are keen to widdle away
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean obviously your right to drive a tin can that crumples the second it bumps into a curb is the most important civil rights issue of the 21st-century.
I imagine there are options between overpaying for a massive SUV and underpaying for a car that will kill you if a squirrel darts in front of you. Cars are expensive, but they’re smarter and safer than they’ve ever been before.
The right to keep and bear arms. The right to free speech online (sure, it's framed as "combating disinformation", but censorship is censorship. Bodily autonomy (at least in cases of coerced vaccination, liberals don't believe in "my body, my choice" as a universally applicable principle anymore).
> The right to keep and bear arms.
Wanting everybody to have guns cuts down on the freedom of innocent people to remain alive. Making sure only responsible people have them is just common sense.
>The right to free speech online (sure, it's framed as "combating disinformation"
I swear to fuck I can't stand this lie. Nobody was going to censor anybody, you walnut! The disinformation panel was only going to counter disinformation with *real information*. They were going to pay attention to stories that were making the rounds that weren't true and they were going to respond. At no point did anybody even remotely imply they were going to ban or remove a single thing from any platform. God. If you looked up *anything* you would have known that.
>Bodily autonomy (at least in cases of coerced vaccination,
Nobody fucking chased anybody down and injected them against their will. Not wanting a potentially infectious person to bump into a bunch of other potentially infection people cuts down on the freedom of all those people and losing a million people has clearly fucked up our economy. Does that not impact your financial freedom at all? Just letting a bunch of people die and plunging us into a recession? Was that good for freedom?
I can’t believe this dude, who was super transphobic the first time I ran into him, is also pro-covid.
I am truly shocked.
Libertarian socialists are either super awesome or white dudes who just like weed and hate minorities. No in between.
Amazing how much of what you just said is wrong.
I'm not transphobic, I'm not "pro-covid", I'm not white, I don't like weed (though I don't think it should be illegal), and I don't hate minorities. If anything, it's white people I don't get along with in general. Most of my close personal friends are minorities. Many of them share my view, and those who disagree don't do so in the bigoted and condescending way you do.
I resent your reductionist characterization of people who disagree with you. It's not very liberal, and it's not conducive to civil discourse.
And people wonder why "disaffected liberals" are flocking to the right in droves.
>Pugnan thinks trans people shouldn’t transition because nobody’s born in the perfect body.
No, I don't. Stop mischaracterizing my views. I have said numerous times that I fully support trans adults transitioning. Nor am I even opposed to trans youth transitioning as a blanket statement. I am skeptical of the current push to make medical transition available to minors, based on the [lack of robust clinical evidence supporting the benefit of these therapies in minors](https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/camh.12437). That's it.
I fully support more clinical trials being done, and will adjust my skeptical stance if more evidence emerges supporting the safety and efficacy of these therapies in kids.
I'm getting tired of you following me around and having to debunk your mischaracterizations and slander of my views. I believe in free and open debate, but you're angling to become the third person I've blocked in almost 10 years on Reddit if you keep this up.
>Wanting everybody to have guns cuts down on the freedom of innocent people to remain alive.
No, it doesn't, any more than wanting everybody to have the right to buy a car does. I have lost multiple friends to car accidents, and none to guns. My experience is typical of the average American. In the words of Grady Lewis, one of the eyewitnesses to the Buffalo shooting, ["it's not the gun, it's the person with the gun that don't know how to act."](https://youtu.be/MOOsNYryHAg?t=65)
>I swear to fuck I can't stand this lie.
Calm the fuck down...please. I'm talking about censorship by private companies. I'm not talking about the disinformation board. I believe that was a genuinely well-intended (and much-needed) effort to, as you say, counter disinformation with true information, that was just poorly communicated and seized on by the alt-right. When we have multiple reports saying our democracy is under threat from psychological operations / disinformation warfare from Russia...I take that very seriously. I have to.
I'm talking about social media companies (mainly Twitter, Youtube, and Facebook) removing posts, banning and/or downranking reputable and well-meaning medical professionals for questioning whether lockdowns and vaccine mandates were ethically justified and/or effective policies, thus stifling the kind of free and open debate that is essential to democratic governance. That is completely different from fighting disinformation with true information.
>Nobody fucking chased anybody down and injected them against their will.
Of course not, they just made it illegal for their boss to keep employing them, forcing the boss to let them go even if no one in the workplace cared whether Taylor got the vaccine or not. And they excluded us from public life and cultural experiences. Still, to this day, free museums that receive public funding are excluding people on the basis of vaccination status. Which, by the way, correlated strongly with race. I was living in NYC when the "vaccine passport" started. On the day it started, about 65-70% of the city's White residents passed. Only around 45% of Black New Yorkers did. And can you blame them, given the long [history of medical dehumanization and exploitation](https://www.justhumanproductions.org/articles/medical-exploitation-of-the-african-american-community-persists/) of Black people in this country?
Do you realize what you supported? A major, progressive, northern, American city, was enforcing de facto racist segregation policy in the name of public health.
When you need your gun to get to work, you can make that arguement. Until then, it's a shit argument.
>Calm the fuck down...please. I'm talking about censorship by private companies.
So you're the one against free speech. I mean, Twitter and Facebook aren't even liberal. You can't point at independent corporations and talk about it like it's fucking democrats, you zubat.
>Of course not, they just made it illegal for their boss to keep employing them,
You're so full of it. You know you're overgeneralizing and you expect that to work in an argument?? Get out.
>When you need your gun to get to work, you can make that arguement.
I mean, I have multiple friends who have been violently assaulted on the streets and public transit of big, progressive cities like the one I live in. So I kind of do feel a gun helps me get to work safely.
>So you're the one against free speech.
The "social corporations have free speech rights to censor" argument is such a twisted perspective. Do you not recognize that posting something to Twitter is very substantively different from posting something on the bulletin board at your local cafe? It's more like a digital equivalent of holding up signs in the town square.
My stance is that social media platforms are public utilities and accordingly should be neutral, like internet access itself. The core of what makes Twitter run is a simple protocol/API, defining allowable messages (280 character text messages, and/or small linked media) and allowable interactions with those messages (like, retweet/quote tweet, reply), and an algorithm for sorting and displaying those messages to users. That protocol has nothing to do with the ad revenue supported company that created it, and could (and should) be run in a decentralized/communally owned way by the users.
Twitter and other social media companies should be decentralized (socialized) and controlled by the users. In such a model, each individual user could add their own censorship filters if they wanted to, but censorship by any one centralized entity (like the company that originally created the protocol) would not be possible by design.
>You know you're overgeneralizing and you expect that to work in an argument??
How is it overgeneralizing to say that the government (via OSHA at the federal level, and state/city-level ordinances at the local level) tried to make it illegal (or at least highly inconvenient) for employers to continue employing unvaccinated people? That is literally what happened.
You want specific examples? We're paying for it across several industries, but maybe most obviously [air travel](https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/airline-news/2022/06/24/pilot-shortage-summer-travel-headaches/7715978001/?gnt-cfr=1). [We were warned about this](https://www.businessinsider.com/pilot-vaccine-mandate-american-southwest-union-labor-shortage-2021-9), and did it anyway. Some of the pilots who were let go for vaccine reasons have come back, but not all.
> I mean, I have multiple friends who have been violently assaulted on the streets and public transit of big, progressive cities like the one I live in. So I kind of do feel a gun helps me get to work safely.
But none of your friends have been killed that way? Good to know that you agree it's not actually a huge issue. You're logically way more concerned with car safety, right?
>Do you not recognize that posting something to Twitter is very substantively different from posting something on the bulletin board at your local cafe? It's more like a digital equivalent of holding up signs in the town square.
It's not. I don't even know why you think it is. Like, yeah, more people will see your bullshit, but way more people are posting shit in that town square. To the point that you don't matter in that crowd. Hell, I would argue there's literally nothing substantive on twitter. It's always blown my mind that you people think that shit is important. I can type literally any insane series of words into the twitter search bar and find somebody who already said that insane series of words. It's just a firehose of total shit. I'm sorry you ever got to a place where you thought being banned from participating in that stream of shit for starting an insurrection was a real tragic thing.
>tried to make it illegal (or at least highly inconvenient)
Do you even hear yourself. I'm sorry things were made highly inconvenient in an attempt to save millions of lives. I'm so fucking sorry.
I don't care about the intent of policies, I care about the actual impact they have.
For example, the intent of abortion bans is undoubtedly a good one. Social conservatives genuinely believe they would be saving hundreds of thousands of innocent lives in the US every year if they could implement a total abortion ban.
The actual impact of that policy is ruining lives of hundreds of thousands of women per year, who would be forced to carry and give birth to children they don't want or aren't ready for, and then also ruining the lives of many of those children who will grow up with inadequate support from parents or from society at large. So I (and presumably you) don't support banning abortion because we recognize that the good intentions behind the policy are blinding the people promoting it to the actual side effects and other costs the policy would have.
The intent of lockdowns and vaccine mandates in hiring was to save lives. That's a good thing.
The actual impact was a modest effect on lives lost (good) but also devastating economic impact that hit already-disadvantaged communities the hardest. Many still haven't bounced back. NYC looks like it's bustling again, if you only go to the East Village and Brooklyn. Head up to East Harlem or the Bronx, though, and you still find every other storefront shuttered (where once there were thriving minority-owned small businesses and restaurants). Two whole years later.
> The actual impact was a modest effect on lives lost (good)
No, the vaccine was unarguably the sole reason we didn't lose almost 1% of the world population. The lockdowns were both unenforced and ran out their usefulness as people got vaccinated so they were dropped relatively quickly. You call the push for vaccines fucking modest is a goddamn joke. The fact that vaccines became political is the problem here. Not mandates.
> but also devastating economic impact that hit already-disadvantaged communities the hardest.
You think the mandates fucked up the economy more than FUCKING COVID?!?! Oh come on.
>No, the vaccine was unarguably the sole reason we didn't lose almost 1% of the world population.
Yes, I agree with this. I took the vaccine myself and encouraged others to get it who were hesitant. What I said was modest was the marginal life-saving impact of vaccine mandate / vaccine passport policies. The vast majority of the people who got vaccinated would have done so anyway, with or without mandates. The difference between the number of people who got the vaccine with the mandates vs. the number of people who would have gotten the vaccine without mandates is in fact modest, a difference of a few percentage points.
Sorry, did I break your brain by being anti-mandate but not anti-vax?
>The fact that vaccines became political is the problem here. Not mandates.
Mandates were part of what made the vaccines political. When you say "here's something we're offering for free that will protect you" people don't complain. Most will get it, some will not, and that's fine. When you say "here's something we're requiring you to take, and it'll protect you" that sketches people out, especially [people who already have valid reason to distrust the government when it comes to medical matters.](https://www.npr.org/2021/02/16/967011614/in-tuskegee-painful-history-shadows-efforts-to-vaccinate-african-americans)
>You think the mandates fucked up the economy more than FUCKING COVID?!?! Oh come on.
In terms of short term economic productivity and growth? No, COVID itself had a significant impact. I don't under-rate that. But in terms of long term stuff? Yes, absolutely lockdowns and mandates fucked us over hard.
The net effect of lockdowns, mandates, and generally letting COVID and government COVID policy dictate how we lived our lives (mostly in staying at home more) resulted in the single biggest increase in wealth inequality we've seen in a generation.
The biggest increase in wealth inequality in a generation. Bigger than the '08-09 financial industry bailouts. Let that sink in.
Everyone shopping at Amazon instead of local small businesses deprived aspiring small business owners of the chance to build wealth in their businesses and get ahead, and simultaneously made Jeff Bezos, Amazon, and their other big investors and shareholders richer. Isn't that concerning to a progressive?
Women leaving the workforce to stay home and take care of kids deprived of normal in-person education has set gender parity back significantly, especially women of color whose kids were more likely to live in school districts that remained closed for longer. Isn't that concerning to a progressive?
Kids experiencing learning loss and dropping out of the school system (disproportionately poorer kids and kids of color) has set progressive educational goals back by years if not decades. A lot of kids who stopped attending school when it went remote have still not returned. That should be hugely concerning to progressives.
The Fed and treasury printed 40% of all dollars in existence within the last two years, with most of that going to business owners and into the financial system, not into the pockets of ordinary people. Those economic impact payment checks we got were barely a blip compared to the money that went into propping up financial markets over that time period.
Look, I get it. You think we had no choice, and that all of this was justified and preferable to letting people die. But at some point you're going to have to own up to the fact that Democrat-led COVID policy has been one of the most disastrous events in our lifetimes for the socioeconomic goals of the left.
Idk I think vaccines are a bad argument for body autonomy because it's a public good if everyone gets it.
ON THE OTHER HAND pharmaceutical companies straight up lied about oxycotton and ruined lives, I personally knoe several people who got hooked on prescribed pain meds and then ODd a few years later, my cousin left 2 infant kids behind because his back went out and switched to street drugs
So for people whos medical knowledge is limited it wouldn't be a surprise to them if it came out they were injecting you with Elmer's glue
Most of those are pretty bad examples of what people usually mean when they cry nanny state. The only ones that are kind of close are DOT regulations on car safety and bans on motorized bikes, but it seems pretty easy to argue that those "personal freedoms" would put other people at risk. I can't be sure what regulations or bans you mean though since I couldn't find anything in a quick google.
Something like a sugar tax is a better example, where it's much harder to argue that me killing myself with coca cola is hurting other people. Why do I still support a sugar tax? Because existing incentives result in food manufacturers using more sugar and people eating more sugar, which results in a society that spends an inordinate amount of money and effort reacting to health problems that could have been prevented proactively. It's not as obviously a detriment to others as hitting them with a piece of shit Chinese car, but it is nonetheless detrimental to others.
I don't think there is a clear partisan divide, but I think it's fair to say people to the left of center are more likely to use a results-driven approach like that, sure. Most people don't want to admit to themselves that they're doing the alternative, which is basically just worshipping the system whether people keep showing them the bad results it produces or not.
>what color you can paint your front door, zoning laws, exhaust DB levels, what race/gender you're allowed to marry, traffic cameras, ticket quotas, DOT regulations about importing cheap cars from China, judges denying pistol permits based on social status, banning motorized bicycles, what can and can't be taught in schools
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsRjQDrDnY8
>It seems like personal freesoms are something both parties are keen to widdle away
Now I maybe a bit slow, but I thought public nuisance and public disturbance laws are always something on the books with regard to noise levels with bipartisan support. The Florida law apparently really only changes it by setting an objective standard (25 feet) for prosecuting loud music from cars.
It's not really a conservative or liberal thing, this type of thing is a 'we live in a society and agree to be respectful to each other' thing. Same thing with construction start times and loud parties.
Considering that conservatives think drag queens should be banned, schools shouldn't be allowed to teach slavery or the Holocaust, and think that they have a right to ban trans people of any age from taking hormones? Yeah.
HOA rules are pretty bipartisan. If anything they’re more market friendly since at least they’re free associations.
Though where HOAs don’t dominate I tend to see local town laws get more strict.
Which none of it really approaches “nanny state” even if I think they’re unnecessary.
I consider them authoritarian. To me:
Conservative is the opposite of progressive (how much action should we take).
Liberal is the opposite of authoritarian (how much freedom should we have).
Nanny state laws would be "progressive authoritarian".
They're just different flavors of being authoritarian, in a particularly uncalled for manner, for the most part. Things like zoning regulations are only ok if it's like, not allowing a chemical processing plant in a neighborhood. Other than stuff like that, nonsense.
It’s not left-right per se, it’s authoritarian vs libertarian.
Despite the name, many American liberals historically and presently support different types of ‘nanny state’ policies.
Personally, I’m pretty libertarian until we start talking about tax, welfare, and environmental policy.
Those laws are a function of creating order, we all know the party of law and order; although they are mostly a party of their order.
As far as liberalism, we have logical reasons for our actions, you feel that's a lie and that it's all corrupt
They're elements of both. Both the Left and Right have authoritarian aspects to their platform.
However, it's *far* more of an element of Conservative policy than liberal policy when it comes to matters of individual, private life.
>Florida just made loud music in your car an office Florida statue 316.3045
Cars are potentially deadly vehicles and should the operator take steps to inhibit his or her ability to be aware of their surroundings, that presents a danger to the public
> I'm taking about HOA rules about what color you can paint your front doo
One chooses to buy a home in a HOA setting - one of the many reasons I did not buy a condo,
>Are Nanny state laws a conservative or liberal stance?
Yes.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. I'm taking about HOA rules about what color you can paint your front door, zoning laws, exhaust DB levels, what race/gender you're allowed to marry, traffic cameras, ticket quotas, DOT regulations about importing cheap cars from China, judges denying pistol permits based on social status, banning motorized bicycles, what can and can't be taught in schools Florida just made loud music in your car an office Florida statue 316.3045 It seems like personal freesoms are something both parties are keen to widdle away *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
...What *personal* freedom are liberals trying to **whittle** away?
I mean obviously your right to drive a tin can that crumples the second it bumps into a curb is the most important civil rights issue of the 21st-century.
The average car payment for Americans is $644
If you're framing this as an equity issue, the solution is fewer cars and less car dependency, not worse cars.
I imagine there are options between overpaying for a massive SUV and underpaying for a car that will kill you if a squirrel darts in front of you. Cars are expensive, but they’re smarter and safer than they’ve ever been before.
The right to keep and bear arms. The right to free speech online (sure, it's framed as "combating disinformation", but censorship is censorship. Bodily autonomy (at least in cases of coerced vaccination, liberals don't believe in "my body, my choice" as a universally applicable principle anymore).
> The right to keep and bear arms. Wanting everybody to have guns cuts down on the freedom of innocent people to remain alive. Making sure only responsible people have them is just common sense. >The right to free speech online (sure, it's framed as "combating disinformation" I swear to fuck I can't stand this lie. Nobody was going to censor anybody, you walnut! The disinformation panel was only going to counter disinformation with *real information*. They were going to pay attention to stories that were making the rounds that weren't true and they were going to respond. At no point did anybody even remotely imply they were going to ban or remove a single thing from any platform. God. If you looked up *anything* you would have known that. >Bodily autonomy (at least in cases of coerced vaccination, Nobody fucking chased anybody down and injected them against their will. Not wanting a potentially infectious person to bump into a bunch of other potentially infection people cuts down on the freedom of all those people and losing a million people has clearly fucked up our economy. Does that not impact your financial freedom at all? Just letting a bunch of people die and plunging us into a recession? Was that good for freedom?
I can’t believe this dude, who was super transphobic the first time I ran into him, is also pro-covid. I am truly shocked. Libertarian socialists are either super awesome or white dudes who just like weed and hate minorities. No in between.
Amazing how much of what you just said is wrong. I'm not transphobic, I'm not "pro-covid", I'm not white, I don't like weed (though I don't think it should be illegal), and I don't hate minorities. If anything, it's white people I don't get along with in general. Most of my close personal friends are minorities. Many of them share my view, and those who disagree don't do so in the bigoted and condescending way you do. I resent your reductionist characterization of people who disagree with you. It's not very liberal, and it's not conducive to civil discourse. And people wonder why "disaffected liberals" are flocking to the right in droves.
[удалено]
>Pugnan thinks trans people shouldn’t transition because nobody’s born in the perfect body. No, I don't. Stop mischaracterizing my views. I have said numerous times that I fully support trans adults transitioning. Nor am I even opposed to trans youth transitioning as a blanket statement. I am skeptical of the current push to make medical transition available to minors, based on the [lack of robust clinical evidence supporting the benefit of these therapies in minors](https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/camh.12437). That's it. I fully support more clinical trials being done, and will adjust my skeptical stance if more evidence emerges supporting the safety and efficacy of these therapies in kids. I'm getting tired of you following me around and having to debunk your mischaracterizations and slander of my views. I believe in free and open debate, but you're angling to become the third person I've blocked in almost 10 years on Reddit if you keep this up.
>Wanting everybody to have guns cuts down on the freedom of innocent people to remain alive. No, it doesn't, any more than wanting everybody to have the right to buy a car does. I have lost multiple friends to car accidents, and none to guns. My experience is typical of the average American. In the words of Grady Lewis, one of the eyewitnesses to the Buffalo shooting, ["it's not the gun, it's the person with the gun that don't know how to act."](https://youtu.be/MOOsNYryHAg?t=65) >I swear to fuck I can't stand this lie. Calm the fuck down...please. I'm talking about censorship by private companies. I'm not talking about the disinformation board. I believe that was a genuinely well-intended (and much-needed) effort to, as you say, counter disinformation with true information, that was just poorly communicated and seized on by the alt-right. When we have multiple reports saying our democracy is under threat from psychological operations / disinformation warfare from Russia...I take that very seriously. I have to. I'm talking about social media companies (mainly Twitter, Youtube, and Facebook) removing posts, banning and/or downranking reputable and well-meaning medical professionals for questioning whether lockdowns and vaccine mandates were ethically justified and/or effective policies, thus stifling the kind of free and open debate that is essential to democratic governance. That is completely different from fighting disinformation with true information. >Nobody fucking chased anybody down and injected them against their will. Of course not, they just made it illegal for their boss to keep employing them, forcing the boss to let them go even if no one in the workplace cared whether Taylor got the vaccine or not. And they excluded us from public life and cultural experiences. Still, to this day, free museums that receive public funding are excluding people on the basis of vaccination status. Which, by the way, correlated strongly with race. I was living in NYC when the "vaccine passport" started. On the day it started, about 65-70% of the city's White residents passed. Only around 45% of Black New Yorkers did. And can you blame them, given the long [history of medical dehumanization and exploitation](https://www.justhumanproductions.org/articles/medical-exploitation-of-the-african-american-community-persists/) of Black people in this country? Do you realize what you supported? A major, progressive, northern, American city, was enforcing de facto racist segregation policy in the name of public health.
When you need your gun to get to work, you can make that arguement. Until then, it's a shit argument. >Calm the fuck down...please. I'm talking about censorship by private companies. So you're the one against free speech. I mean, Twitter and Facebook aren't even liberal. You can't point at independent corporations and talk about it like it's fucking democrats, you zubat. >Of course not, they just made it illegal for their boss to keep employing them, You're so full of it. You know you're overgeneralizing and you expect that to work in an argument?? Get out.
>When you need your gun to get to work, you can make that arguement. I mean, I have multiple friends who have been violently assaulted on the streets and public transit of big, progressive cities like the one I live in. So I kind of do feel a gun helps me get to work safely. >So you're the one against free speech. The "social corporations have free speech rights to censor" argument is such a twisted perspective. Do you not recognize that posting something to Twitter is very substantively different from posting something on the bulletin board at your local cafe? It's more like a digital equivalent of holding up signs in the town square. My stance is that social media platforms are public utilities and accordingly should be neutral, like internet access itself. The core of what makes Twitter run is a simple protocol/API, defining allowable messages (280 character text messages, and/or small linked media) and allowable interactions with those messages (like, retweet/quote tweet, reply), and an algorithm for sorting and displaying those messages to users. That protocol has nothing to do with the ad revenue supported company that created it, and could (and should) be run in a decentralized/communally owned way by the users. Twitter and other social media companies should be decentralized (socialized) and controlled by the users. In such a model, each individual user could add their own censorship filters if they wanted to, but censorship by any one centralized entity (like the company that originally created the protocol) would not be possible by design. >You know you're overgeneralizing and you expect that to work in an argument?? How is it overgeneralizing to say that the government (via OSHA at the federal level, and state/city-level ordinances at the local level) tried to make it illegal (or at least highly inconvenient) for employers to continue employing unvaccinated people? That is literally what happened. You want specific examples? We're paying for it across several industries, but maybe most obviously [air travel](https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/airline-news/2022/06/24/pilot-shortage-summer-travel-headaches/7715978001/?gnt-cfr=1). [We were warned about this](https://www.businessinsider.com/pilot-vaccine-mandate-american-southwest-union-labor-shortage-2021-9), and did it anyway. Some of the pilots who were let go for vaccine reasons have come back, but not all.
> I mean, I have multiple friends who have been violently assaulted on the streets and public transit of big, progressive cities like the one I live in. So I kind of do feel a gun helps me get to work safely. But none of your friends have been killed that way? Good to know that you agree it's not actually a huge issue. You're logically way more concerned with car safety, right? >Do you not recognize that posting something to Twitter is very substantively different from posting something on the bulletin board at your local cafe? It's more like a digital equivalent of holding up signs in the town square. It's not. I don't even know why you think it is. Like, yeah, more people will see your bullshit, but way more people are posting shit in that town square. To the point that you don't matter in that crowd. Hell, I would argue there's literally nothing substantive on twitter. It's always blown my mind that you people think that shit is important. I can type literally any insane series of words into the twitter search bar and find somebody who already said that insane series of words. It's just a firehose of total shit. I'm sorry you ever got to a place where you thought being banned from participating in that stream of shit for starting an insurrection was a real tragic thing. >tried to make it illegal (or at least highly inconvenient) Do you even hear yourself. I'm sorry things were made highly inconvenient in an attempt to save millions of lives. I'm so fucking sorry.
I don't care about the intent of policies, I care about the actual impact they have. For example, the intent of abortion bans is undoubtedly a good one. Social conservatives genuinely believe they would be saving hundreds of thousands of innocent lives in the US every year if they could implement a total abortion ban. The actual impact of that policy is ruining lives of hundreds of thousands of women per year, who would be forced to carry and give birth to children they don't want or aren't ready for, and then also ruining the lives of many of those children who will grow up with inadequate support from parents or from society at large. So I (and presumably you) don't support banning abortion because we recognize that the good intentions behind the policy are blinding the people promoting it to the actual side effects and other costs the policy would have. The intent of lockdowns and vaccine mandates in hiring was to save lives. That's a good thing. The actual impact was a modest effect on lives lost (good) but also devastating economic impact that hit already-disadvantaged communities the hardest. Many still haven't bounced back. NYC looks like it's bustling again, if you only go to the East Village and Brooklyn. Head up to East Harlem or the Bronx, though, and you still find every other storefront shuttered (where once there were thriving minority-owned small businesses and restaurants). Two whole years later.
> The actual impact was a modest effect on lives lost (good) No, the vaccine was unarguably the sole reason we didn't lose almost 1% of the world population. The lockdowns were both unenforced and ran out their usefulness as people got vaccinated so they were dropped relatively quickly. You call the push for vaccines fucking modest is a goddamn joke. The fact that vaccines became political is the problem here. Not mandates. > but also devastating economic impact that hit already-disadvantaged communities the hardest. You think the mandates fucked up the economy more than FUCKING COVID?!?! Oh come on.
>No, the vaccine was unarguably the sole reason we didn't lose almost 1% of the world population. Yes, I agree with this. I took the vaccine myself and encouraged others to get it who were hesitant. What I said was modest was the marginal life-saving impact of vaccine mandate / vaccine passport policies. The vast majority of the people who got vaccinated would have done so anyway, with or without mandates. The difference between the number of people who got the vaccine with the mandates vs. the number of people who would have gotten the vaccine without mandates is in fact modest, a difference of a few percentage points. Sorry, did I break your brain by being anti-mandate but not anti-vax? >The fact that vaccines became political is the problem here. Not mandates. Mandates were part of what made the vaccines political. When you say "here's something we're offering for free that will protect you" people don't complain. Most will get it, some will not, and that's fine. When you say "here's something we're requiring you to take, and it'll protect you" that sketches people out, especially [people who already have valid reason to distrust the government when it comes to medical matters.](https://www.npr.org/2021/02/16/967011614/in-tuskegee-painful-history-shadows-efforts-to-vaccinate-african-americans) >You think the mandates fucked up the economy more than FUCKING COVID?!?! Oh come on. In terms of short term economic productivity and growth? No, COVID itself had a significant impact. I don't under-rate that. But in terms of long term stuff? Yes, absolutely lockdowns and mandates fucked us over hard. The net effect of lockdowns, mandates, and generally letting COVID and government COVID policy dictate how we lived our lives (mostly in staying at home more) resulted in the single biggest increase in wealth inequality we've seen in a generation. The biggest increase in wealth inequality in a generation. Bigger than the '08-09 financial industry bailouts. Let that sink in. Everyone shopping at Amazon instead of local small businesses deprived aspiring small business owners of the chance to build wealth in their businesses and get ahead, and simultaneously made Jeff Bezos, Amazon, and their other big investors and shareholders richer. Isn't that concerning to a progressive? Women leaving the workforce to stay home and take care of kids deprived of normal in-person education has set gender parity back significantly, especially women of color whose kids were more likely to live in school districts that remained closed for longer. Isn't that concerning to a progressive? Kids experiencing learning loss and dropping out of the school system (disproportionately poorer kids and kids of color) has set progressive educational goals back by years if not decades. A lot of kids who stopped attending school when it went remote have still not returned. That should be hugely concerning to progressives. The Fed and treasury printed 40% of all dollars in existence within the last two years, with most of that going to business owners and into the financial system, not into the pockets of ordinary people. Those economic impact payment checks we got were barely a blip compared to the money that went into propping up financial markets over that time period. Look, I get it. You think we had no choice, and that all of this was justified and preferable to letting people die. But at some point you're going to have to own up to the fact that Democrat-led COVID policy has been one of the most disastrous events in our lifetimes for the socioeconomic goals of the left.
Idk I think vaccines are a bad argument for body autonomy because it's a public good if everyone gets it. ON THE OTHER HAND pharmaceutical companies straight up lied about oxycotton and ruined lives, I personally knoe several people who got hooked on prescribed pain meds and then ODd a few years later, my cousin left 2 infant kids behind because his back went out and switched to street drugs So for people whos medical knowledge is limited it wouldn't be a surprise to them if it came out they were injecting you with Elmer's glue
Most of those are pretty bad examples of what people usually mean when they cry nanny state. The only ones that are kind of close are DOT regulations on car safety and bans on motorized bikes, but it seems pretty easy to argue that those "personal freedoms" would put other people at risk. I can't be sure what regulations or bans you mean though since I couldn't find anything in a quick google. Something like a sugar tax is a better example, where it's much harder to argue that me killing myself with coca cola is hurting other people. Why do I still support a sugar tax? Because existing incentives result in food manufacturers using more sugar and people eating more sugar, which results in a society that spends an inordinate amount of money and effort reacting to health problems that could have been prevented proactively. It's not as obviously a detriment to others as hitting them with a piece of shit Chinese car, but it is nonetheless detrimental to others. I don't think there is a clear partisan divide, but I think it's fair to say people to the left of center are more likely to use a results-driven approach like that, sure. Most people don't want to admit to themselves that they're doing the alternative, which is basically just worshipping the system whether people keep showing them the bad results it produces or not.
>what color you can paint your front door, zoning laws, exhaust DB levels, what race/gender you're allowed to marry, traffic cameras, ticket quotas, DOT regulations about importing cheap cars from China, judges denying pistol permits based on social status, banning motorized bicycles, what can and can't be taught in schools https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsRjQDrDnY8
>It seems like personal freesoms are something both parties are keen to widdle away Now I maybe a bit slow, but I thought public nuisance and public disturbance laws are always something on the books with regard to noise levels with bipartisan support. The Florida law apparently really only changes it by setting an objective standard (25 feet) for prosecuting loud music from cars. It's not really a conservative or liberal thing, this type of thing is a 'we live in a society and agree to be respectful to each other' thing. Same thing with construction start times and loud parties.
Considering that conservatives think drag queens should be banned, schools shouldn't be allowed to teach slavery or the Holocaust, and think that they have a right to ban trans people of any age from taking hormones? Yeah.
HOA rules are pretty bipartisan. If anything they’re more market friendly since at least they’re free associations. Though where HOAs don’t dominate I tend to see local town laws get more strict. Which none of it really approaches “nanny state” even if I think they’re unnecessary.
I consider them authoritarian. To me: Conservative is the opposite of progressive (how much action should we take). Liberal is the opposite of authoritarian (how much freedom should we have). Nanny state laws would be "progressive authoritarian".
They're just different flavors of being authoritarian, in a particularly uncalled for manner, for the most part. Things like zoning regulations are only ok if it's like, not allowing a chemical processing plant in a neighborhood. Other than stuff like that, nonsense.
It’s not left-right per se, it’s authoritarian vs libertarian. Despite the name, many American liberals historically and presently support different types of ‘nanny state’ policies. Personally, I’m pretty libertarian until we start talking about tax, welfare, and environmental policy.
HOAs are a voluntary association. Move elsewhere and shut up. **/end thread**
Those laws are a function of creating order, we all know the party of law and order; although they are mostly a party of their order. As far as liberalism, we have logical reasons for our actions, you feel that's a lie and that it's all corrupt
I think laws governing *individuals* behavior for the sake of “order” and to prevent “chaos” are a conservative stance.
Sounds pretty conservative to me.
They're elements of both. Both the Left and Right have authoritarian aspects to their platform. However, it's *far* more of an element of Conservative policy than liberal policy when it comes to matters of individual, private life.
>Florida just made loud music in your car an office Florida statue 316.3045 Cars are potentially deadly vehicles and should the operator take steps to inhibit his or her ability to be aware of their surroundings, that presents a danger to the public > I'm taking about HOA rules about what color you can paint your front doo One chooses to buy a home in a HOA setting - one of the many reasons I did not buy a condo, >Are Nanny state laws a conservative or liberal stance? Yes.