stickdog99 » 08 Apr 2022 16:00 wrote:Sure. But how does that somehow negate the thrust of the whole article?
How does that make the whole article bullshit?
You have one tiny, little point about the writer being outraged by something little within the context of something that he should have realized that he should have had a far larger scope of outrage about.
Doesn't that exactly apply to your own reaction to Parenti's entire article? He is pissed that the "progressive" left basically shot itself in the foot, arm, and head by siding with Big Pharma against bodily autonomy and the working class and for repression and censorship. His mention of anything in Australia is totally tangential to his larger point.
[quote="
stickdog99 » 08 Apr 2022 16:00"
Doesn't that exactly apply to your own reaction to Parenti's entire article?
He is pissed that the "progressive" left basically shot itself in the foot, arm, and head by siding with Big Pharma against bodily autonomy and the working class and for repression and censorship. His mention of anything in Australia is totally tangential to his larger point.[/quote]
Did it?
This is the assumption, but its not the "progressive left" nor the "working class".
In Australia in 2020 someone got covid on a plane to the US and died. they were youngish, healthy and had minimal co mordities of anysort. They were on a work trip and had been provided a mask or masks to wear on the plane for their own safety, tho they chose not to wear them iirc.
Their surviving partner sued their employer and in the end won, possibly in the high court. It was their employer's responsibility to keep them safe from covid and providing a mask and instructing them to wear it wasn't enough of a protection even when it was shown they didn't wear the mask and ignored their employer's instructions. That wasn't enough to negate the employer's negligence.
Mask and vaccine mandates, lockdowns and everything else also has to be seen within the context of that decision, atr least in Australia. We have very strong OH&S protections. Maybe they have gone too far, and I'm in favour oif them very pro workplace safety etc etc. I've worked with some serious machinery over the years, had kevlar chaps save my legs and work mates legs many times when using chainsaws for example... any of those incidents that were effectively 10 minutes of pita fucking around to clean the chain and check the chaps would have been a crippling life changing injury without that protective gear. The stuff exists for a reason anbd if we're goinna have a state run things then this is the sort of thing it should do - mandate worker safety.
Anyway that court outcome is a result of the attitudes here that lead to situations like having to wear kevlar chaps at work if you're using or around a chainsaw.
Once that decision was made mandatory vaccinations at work were always gonna happen simply because employers would want to protect their own arses from legal responsibility.
You can make all those other arguments, and they are reasonable, but they need to to take this into account. It needs to be debated reasonably and with good faith on both sides.
Altho I completely agree with what is probably your first response to that - why the fuck didn't the government etc show that good faith straight up that doesn't mean we should follow their example. its not a case of they didn't do it so why should we.