"In other words, the vaccines work, but yes, some small number of people are going to get sick. The message here isn’t even disguised or nuanced: They want everyone to mask up, pretty much forever."
Who is "they" and why do "they" want people to mask up forever, to what end?
I apologize if I missed something here, but this feels like nebulous conspiracy theorizing without some more details. Are "they" the scary Elites I keep hearing about? Your local health departments? The reporters who wrote the story? And what is the expected outcome of this period of perpetual masking? I seem to always trip up when I get to the "Cui bono?" (who benefits?) part of this thread, and still have yet to receive an answer that makes sense.
This makes it hard to take the message of your (commendable) first half seriously - don't impugn bad faith motives to folks you disagree with - when you drop a nugget like the one above in the second half, and then call out "the Faucis of the world" in one of your closing paragraphs. Either deliver the details to substantiate how and why the other side is acting in bad faith, or save the conspiratorial thinking for its own post so that it doesn't negate the valuable message that you're leading with.
Regarding the Boston Globe article, while I'm glad that they mentioned that breakthrough infections are rare, I would like to see such mentions be made more prominent. I think that if they mentioned such in a subtitle, at the beginning of the piece, or devoted more words for it, that it would be helpful to the vax-hesitant and vax-skeptics who are someone near or on the fence on whether to get the vaccines.
Lack of decency is a problem but I agree with the premise that democrats need to be fought tooth and nail. If I saw any significant compromise on the part of democrats I might be persuaded otherwise. It's been that way since Obama was elected and the "moderate" Republicans have caved at every confrontation. Almost makes me appreciate Bill Clinton.
Regarding decency, I'll admit that I constantly fall short, and sometimes don't end up adhering to the standards that I believe in and aspire to. It does take quite a bit of self-restraint and humility, which I don't always show, especially when I think the argument is off the wall crazy. Or that an argument is made due to intellectual laziness. I think that I'm a little better at being more decent in a political debate that before, but I don't always adhere to what should be the ideal. It is difficult when those you oppose approach everything you say in bad faith, after you made your points in good faith. Especially when your opponent misrepresents your position, plays the race card, and engages in strawman arguments in order to prop up a bad faith argument. But it is worth it though. If at least one person strives to show civility and decency, they can pull the others up along with them. Just my 2 cents.
"In other words, the vaccines work, but yes, some small number of people are going to get sick. The message here isn’t even disguised or nuanced: They want everyone to mask up, pretty much forever."
Who is "they" and why do "they" want people to mask up forever, to what end?
I apologize if I missed something here, but this feels like nebulous conspiracy theorizing without some more details. Are "they" the scary Elites I keep hearing about? Your local health departments? The reporters who wrote the story? And what is the expected outcome of this period of perpetual masking? I seem to always trip up when I get to the "Cui bono?" (who benefits?) part of this thread, and still have yet to receive an answer that makes sense.
This makes it hard to take the message of your (commendable) first half seriously - don't impugn bad faith motives to folks you disagree with - when you drop a nugget like the one above in the second half, and then call out "the Faucis of the world" in one of your closing paragraphs. Either deliver the details to substantiate how and why the other side is acting in bad faith, or save the conspiratorial thinking for its own post so that it doesn't negate the valuable message that you're leading with.
One thing I think many have forgotten is that we've thus far avoided full-blown quarantines.
Regarding the Boston Globe article, while I'm glad that they mentioned that breakthrough infections are rare, I would like to see such mentions be made more prominent. I think that if they mentioned such in a subtitle, at the beginning of the piece, or devoted more words for it, that it would be helpful to the vax-hesitant and vax-skeptics who are someone near or on the fence on whether to get the vaccines.
Lack of decency is a problem but I agree with the premise that democrats need to be fought tooth and nail. If I saw any significant compromise on the part of democrats I might be persuaded otherwise. It's been that way since Obama was elected and the "moderate" Republicans have caved at every confrontation. Almost makes me appreciate Bill Clinton.
Regarding decency, I'll admit that I constantly fall short, and sometimes don't end up adhering to the standards that I believe in and aspire to. It does take quite a bit of self-restraint and humility, which I don't always show, especially when I think the argument is off the wall crazy. Or that an argument is made due to intellectual laziness. I think that I'm a little better at being more decent in a political debate that before, but I don't always adhere to what should be the ideal. It is difficult when those you oppose approach everything you say in bad faith, after you made your points in good faith. Especially when your opponent misrepresents your position, plays the race card, and engages in strawman arguments in order to prop up a bad faith argument. But it is worth it though. If at least one person strives to show civility and decency, they can pull the others up along with them. Just my 2 cents.