Canoerebel
Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002 From: Northwestern Georgia, USA Status: offline
|
If by "controlling the discussion" you mean "trying to steer us away from politics," I've certainly done that. But the discussion in here has been robust, with very few "steerings" needed. I don't ignore your post, but I don't like diverting the thread with lengthy chains of two parties posting "you said this" and "I said this" repeatedly. Already, that's what's happening here. Create another thread if you wish to go off on tangents. I've said that before. If that's controlling, so be it. I know you and other members of the forum that share a certain political viewpoint see eye to eye. You're irritated by my comments, which seem pretty innocuous, but you ignore the clearly flagrant violations of decorum by those who share your viewpoints. Our previous discussions have not gone well (Climate Change and some of the things in here), leading me to not want to get into lengthy discussions on tangential issues in here. I disagreed with your comments about the poor in the US not having access to healthcare. I pointed out the reasons for my thoughts. How things have played out, at least to this point, have supported my views. There has been no evidence that the poor have been denied healthcare, at least to any statistically relevant extent. Everybody's getting treated. Truly, I think we ought to take this elsewhere. Or, I can be excused, if there's a pressing need to engage in political discussion or contretemps in here. quote:
ORIGINAL: mind_messing quote:
ORIGINAL: Canoerebel quote:
ORIGINAL: Lokasenna I guess I don't find polite discussion, assumption of good intent in said discussions, and self-examination to be political in nature. I suppose YMMV. I'm good with self-examination and polite discussion. And we all give others an assumption of good intent. But when a person consistently deviates from the norm, exception may be taken. The most offensive posts I've seen here (those clearly contrary to the Forum rules) have been political in nature. Many of those floated by without notice or objection from the folks now objecting to references to "American exceptionalism" (which, as you've noted, have been rather vague and uncertain). It would be very easy for this thread to veer off course and crash. This community is diverse, with every kine of political persuasion present. Many feel very strongly and will rise to the occasion if in disagreement with assertions by others. The General Forum discussion on the virus dried up and died because of disagreement. I'd rather not see that happen here. I think you and most everyone else agrees. Politics is sure to drive the fatal wedge and is contrary to the Forum decorum rules to boot. Naturally, given your repeated attempts to control the discussion, you are in the position to define what the "norm" is? There is a repeating pattern of behaviour on your part: when your claims are challenged with evidence, the evidence is ignored, the intent behind the post is demeaned and the poster disparaged, and negative labels attached. This is evident in this thread, and on previous occasions on the forum. It has been noted, both by myself and other members of the forum. For you to attempt to take this position as a "moderator for civility" is exceptionally hypocritical. John 8:7 quote:
ORIGINAL: Canoerebel quote:
ORIGINAL: mind_messing quote:
ORIGINAL: Canoerebel The term "American exceptionalism" isn't threatening, it's just a broad word, recently created, that means different things to different people. Some folks in here have said that there have been "American exceptionalism" posts in here. I made three of the posts referenced. They were certainly not "American excpetionalism" claims, as I understand them. Certainly when you read my comments in context with all my posts, you know I'm not claiming America is somehow better than other countries. We are more fortunate to be facing this later than others, thus able to learn from them. And we are fortunate to have resources that other countries don't have. This doesn't make us somehow superior to anybody else, but it does give us advantages in dealing with this. 1. The notion of "American exceptionalism" is not that America is de facto "better" or superior, but that America is different (or the exception, so to speak) from the rest of the world in a particular context (originally in political and historical contexts). 2. My original statement was referring to the exceptionalism in the views expressed in the thread that the US was going to be global exception because of two reasons: i) the advanced sight of COVID-19 in other countries ii) quality of healthcare in the US vs the rest of the world iii) actions taken by the US to mitigate the spread. 3. I presented evidence that challenged the assumptions underpinning 2(i). We've still not got to a discussion of the evidence presented (and I am open to challenge on it). I don't understand Point 1. Every country is unique. Every country is different. America too. I don't understand Point 2i. What is "advanced sight of COVID-19"? The US has taken countermeasures. And, since we had the advantage of reacting later, some of those countermeasures were taken earlier in our cycle. I noted that Georgia closed its schools earlier than England, which struck me as suprising. I also made it clear that was because we were lucky to see what was going on elsewhere; not because we were somehow "better." 1. The point was that the view was being expressed that America would not follow the emerging international trends for a variety of reasons proposed. I challenged one of those reasons. 2(i) refers to the ability to observe and learn from the international experience of COVID (Italy, China, Japan etc) quote:
To my knowledge, no one compared the healthcare in the US with the rest of the world. I wrote that the US has good healthcare [I think it does] and I did state that our healthcare combined with other factors (going later in the cycle) should give us advantages that might help us in fighting COVID-19. That makes sense. I refer you to post 2414 - http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=4784923 Where you stated "We took countermeasures earlier in our cycle than Italy did theirs; we are blessed with a a more robust nationwide healthcare system that's had more time to gear up and develop treatments and ideas; we have a much bigger (but also more dispersed) population than Italy's. But I can't envision a scenario where we fail utterly in comparison. " I presented evidence to challenge that. This is supported by an earlier posts: 910 (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=4776343), 1074 (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=4777489) and 2561 (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=4785787) You can throw in our earlier discussion where you dismissed my points about the structural issues about American healthcare out of hand (again, with zero engagement with evidence) with some handwaving to the list, but there's a lot to index there. I should point out that this isn't aimed at you singularly. I had felt that Chickenboy was expressing the same (excessive?) optimism in the thread, but his recent post (2656 -http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=4785787) has made me refrain from challenging that.
|