🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@lucifargundam say no more, lol

@lucifargundam That garden is locked down tighter than fort knox.

@pthenq1

>What consequences?

that they tend to not vote for politicians who have a platform of increasing government power (regulations, restrictions, funding, etc). This is a direct consequence of governments having violated the trust in the past.

You are talking about a specific incident where texas dropped the ball. I am not claiming texas is perfect, you will find wrong doing from governments in literally every single state, and by the handful.

On the other hand I am speaking more generally and pointing out that part of the consequences, which manifests in how the voters vote, that distrust of the government is why they have some of the greatest freedoms of any state.

But, no state being perfect, there are plenty of examples of problems, but that isnt the best way to evaluate the big picture, by looking at isolated examples.

@Pat

@pthenq1

The point is that generally texans strongly oppose overreach of the government. This is specifically one of the "consequences" you speak of, texans have seen how often all politicians from all parties lie and as such dont trust them, the consequence is they generally vote for politicians who support limiting government power.

The end result, therefore, of the lies of the government and its consequences is the freedom texans enjoy. The consequences and freedom are closely related.

Yes texas isnt perfect (and there are more than enough examples of the government screwing up)... but again they must be doing something right considering their freedoms, doesnt mean their perfect.

@Pat

Show me where its wrong?

@funny

@pthenq1

Texas isnt perfect either, but they have some of the best freedoms of any state in some ways.. So they must be doing something right on some level considering I am envious of some of the freedoms texans have.

@Pat

@pthenq1

Generally the voting public are just as gullible in california as they are in georgia.. in fact I might say more so as they continually accept greater and greater government over reach even after repeated violations. In georgia they generally lean more towards limiting the governments reach.

Though I wouldnt really state that either state's voting public is a great example of mindful voters.

@Pat

@Pat Admitily a much more interesting topic, at least for me :)

@pthenq1

There have been no shortage of lies from the california government in the past.. To pain a governing body as honest, in any capacity, is a huge departure from reality even if we can cherry pick a few examples of carry through.

But your right, I have no idea why people keep voting for democrats and republicans who continually lie.

@Pat

@Pat Sure, but that "point" is not one that was being argues or in disagreement with anything I said.

Like I said rights were taken away, people dont trust that and thus arent particularly patient with getting them back, as they are scared they may not.

At no point did I say that people should be out **exercising** their rights, nor did I say whether it was good or bad that governments decided to revoke those rights. So your arguing for a point that I intentionally avoided so as not to go down this very tangent.

So my whole point is once you remove the whole semantic discussion of "rights" your "point" is largely an unrelated tangent to what I was saying, which was **my** point :)

Now this is interesting, a proposal for a Distributed Semantic Social media Network (DSSN)

https://aksw.org/Projects/DSSN.html

@Pat Well you were trying to claim freedom and rights were different categories of things...

But right in the definition it clearly states that freedom is the right to act, and that a right is a principle of freedom.

There is no categorical difference between them as you suggest, freedoms and rights are the same thing as the definitions suggest.

Moreover rights are not limited in scope to society. That can easily be debunked by understanding the category of natural rights which by definition are rights one has regardless of society.

@Pat The only way I can interprit what you said in a meaningful way is that you are confusing the general idea of "right" with "natural rights" which are a subset.

@Pat

> There is a very specific difference between a right and a freedom.

Again, we dont get to make up our own definitions for things. These words are well established and well defined.

Freedom: "the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint."

Right: "Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement;"

You cant distinguish them as different categories just because it suits you.. A freedom is what you get when a right is granted, a freedom is ones execution of a right.

But as I said debating semantics is silly, these words are already defined for us so we dont have to invent language as we go. Its even more silly when we try to redefine words simply because it makes our opinions sound less harsh to people, that gets us nowhere.

@Pat

Except you cant just make up your own definitions. The definition of a right is "Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement;"

Ergo you cant separate out freedom from rights. While you may not want a right to exist, or even think such a right existing is harmful. The definition of a right is well established.

It seems like to me your on a euphemism treatmill. You're trying to redefine words you deem as positive or negative so as to be associated with your opinion in a purely positive light. I dont usually find that to be a productive practice. It also isnt terribly constructive as it reduces most conversations to semantics rather than meaningful content.

There is also a big difference between a road flooding and thus causing you not to cross it vs the government stopping people from crossing it as a result of the flooding. I could have a large wheeled 4x4 more than capable of safely crossing the road, someone with a regular car cant, they are free to evaluate if their situation is safe and despite the road being flooded still has the **right** to cross it (though may lack the means), unless the government takes that right away.

Take that analogy to the virus, the virus would have made it wise not to have public gatherings, and thus many people would have chosen not to. That isnt a restriction of ones rights, just as the river flooding is not. But the second the government sets it as a rule and disallows public gatherings its a very different situation and there is no way, short of denying the dictionary definition of the word, you cant see that as a revocation of ones rights.\

If you understand the reference then you can be my friend.

@Pat like i said, the policies themselves are debatable, but it seems we agree that it was, for better or worse, a limiting of our rights. So to the original point it is somewhat expected that people dont have much trust or comfort in a government restricting our rights for longer. People dont trust the government so like the marshmallow test we will take our rights now cause we dont trust we will get them at all if we wait.

@anonymoose
They have done that study 1000 different ways and the result is always as you describe more or less... People really are idiots when in large groups.
@Pat

@Pat Yes I figured that is what you were thinking of it in terms of (though i disagree about their guidelines being premature, or that they were good guidelines to begin with).

I am just giving another interpretation of the same metaphor.

And yes of course we lost rights, we lost the right to determine for ourselves what is medically effective. The right to peacefully assemble, for example, is a pretty fundamental right. You can argue revoking the rights were justified, thats another argument, but there is no doubt rights were revoked.