*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[MadMojoMonkey]

I think you're all reading me say one thing, then extrapolating it out like we're talking about someone hoarding water.

We're talking about a lady buying a non-essential good, and another lady getting all in the first lady's face about literally nothing at all.

We're not talking about someone hoarding respirators, or other life-saving goods.

We're talking about 2 people behaving badly, and I'm simply saying that there is no moral high-ground for the camera lady to stand on.

This is a mole-hill at best, and the white-knighting surrounding it like as though we're talking about war rationing is absurd hyperbole.

[boost]

I think you're all reading me say one thing, then extrapolating it out like we're talking about someone hoarding water.

We're talking about a lady buying a non-essential good, and another lady getting all in the first lady's face about literally nothing at all.

We're not talking about someone hoarding respirators, or other life-saving goods.

We're talking about 2 people behaving badly, and I'm simply saying that there is no moral high-ground for the camera lady to stand on.

This is a mole-hill at best, and the white-knighting surrounding it like as though we're talking about war rationing is absurd hyperbole.

Again, I don't think either person is behaving badly universally. Morality is contextual. And it's perfectly normal for people to misread the context and therefore act immoral. As I've said, camera lady is a nosy busy body if you shift a few variables, and naively out of step with the looming disaster if you shift a few more. Each person is rolling the dice with their action.

I don't think any of these people are bad, or evil, or any thing like that. I don't even know what that means tbh. What I do think is that they're performing social functions-- when they're well used, our reaction rewards them, and when they're misused, our reaction discourages such use.

[MadMojoMonkey]

btw: even if we never agree, MMM, this is a fun exercise, you're certainly making me consider things I hadn't fully explored.

We're social creatures, we're talking about the functioning of society. It is by all of our authority. By what right can you tell me not to walk around in public naked, the way I was born, my natural state? Well, you (if not you, the royal you) do tell me that, and enforce that norm-- first through shame, then through force. Some norms we codify into law, some we leave unwritten and discourage outside of the legal system.

I'm not sure if you're asking me
A) for the history of public decency laws,
B) whether it's moral that we have public decency laws, or
C) whether public decency should be a moral topic at all.

FWIW, public indecency hurts no one and IMO, it's immoral to have something that is non-threatening be illegal.
FWIW, if the reality is that people are so scared of having sexy thoughts in public because they saw someone's sexy bits, and that causes more trouble than it solves, then whatever. If you tell me that I have to cover my sexy bits for the public good, what can I say? They're powerful sexy bits, and I agree that the greater public probably could not contain themselves if I was showing them off.

Seriously, though. Who cares if it's moral? You have more opportunities if you wear pants in public. If that's because of mass hysteria, then so what? It's simple enough to put pants on.

Again, I don't think either person is behaving badly universally. Morality is contextual. And it's perfectly normal for people to misread the context and therefore act immoral. As I've said, camera lady is a nosy busy body if you shift a few variables, and naively out of step with the looming disaster if you shift a few more. Each person is rolling the dice with their action.

I really agree. I'm not saying either is a threat to anyone.
They're just both generally annoying in that way that people tend to be.

I don't think any of these people are bad, or evil, or any thing like that. I don't even know what that means tbh. What I do think is that they're performing social functions-- when they're well used, our reaction rewards them, and when they're misused, our reaction discourages such use.

Evil is choosing to ignore what you know is best, and doing what you know is not best.
Oh, and moderation keeps us all sane, so ... y'know... sometimes what's best is a little self-rebellion.
Just, if you know something is bad, then... really try to not do it... unless you have to... OK?
EZ PZ, right?


Sure, but they're just people. The emergent nature of their presence in a greater society is not understood at all by me. So I can't really analyze anything on those terms.

I know you're right.. but that stuff happens at or to me.

[boost]

I think you're all reading me say one thing, then extrapolating it out like we're talking about someone hoarding water.

We're talking about a lady buying a non-essential good, and another lady getting all in the first lady's face about literally nothing at all.

We're not talking about someone hoarding respirators, or other life-saving goods.

We're talking about 2 people behaving badly, and I'm simply saying that there is no moral high-ground for the camera lady to stand on.

This is a mole-hill at best, and the white-knighting surrounding it like as though we're talking about war rationing is absurd hyperbole.

Again, empty TP shelves means people will visit multiple stores unnecessarily, thereby working against flattening the curve. There is a cost to this. I don't think I've seen you interact with this idea. What gives?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Again, empty TP shelves means people will visit multiple stores unnecessarily, thereby working against flattening the curve. There is a cost to this. I don't think I've seen you interact with this idea. What gives?

That's a weak argument, and I'm not taking the bait.

You could argue that by hoarding now, she wont have to leave later when social distancing is really needed.
Then we're back to the assertion that it's not her moral right to act in her best interests as she sees fit.
Again... it's TP.

If you want to change the topic to ventilators or something with immediate life and death consequences, then my opinions change.
So long as we're talking about some people hoarding TP, which is in fact in plentiful supply, then I really don't care what people do.

Publicly shaming someone over such trivialities is probably not what's best for society as a whole, IMO.
That ends us living in a world where it's illegal to have a no pants party, and no one wants that world.

[boost]

That's a weak argument, and I'm not taking the bait.

You could argue that by hoarding now, she wont have to leave later when social distancing is really needed.
Then we're back to the assertion that it's not her moral right to act in her best interests as she sees fit.
Again... it's TP.

It's not a weak argument, but I think you haven't actually grasped it. There is enough TP to go around, there just isn't enough at the point of retail for everyone to hoard it. It's a quirk of the supply chain. So each time a shopper strikes out and goes to another store in search, that's an added trip. She's potentially causing 20 added trips, by avoiding maybe two or three trips tops.

Further, social distancing is really needed yesterday, not tomorrow or the next day. The earlier you social distance, the flatter the curve. At a certain point (hopefully far from where we are), social distancing actually doesn't work at all, because there are too many infected, and therefore too many vectors of transmission. At that point, our minimum level of social activity is enough for the virus to rip through the population.

If you want to change the topic to ventilators or something with immediate life and death consequences, then my opinions change.
So long as we're talking about some people hoarding TP, which is in fact in plentiful supply, then I really don't care what people do.

It's not in plentiful supply at the point of sale. So when it's hoarded, well, see above. Also, "immediate life and death consequences" is a very strange stipulation. Knowingly being infected and walking around coughing on people doesn't have immediate life and death consequences. The difference here is that she could be completely ignorant of the mechanics, and so shaming helps to dissuade her and/or others from committing to this anti social behavior.

Publicly shaming someone over such trivialities is probably not what's best for society as a whole, IMO.
That ends us living in a world where it's illegal to have a no pants party, and no one wants that world.

It's not trivial. It's causing increased spread of the virus. Spring breakers should be shamed too. There's nothing trivial about it.

[Poopadoop]

It's not trivial. It's causing increased spread of the virus.

Yeah I don't get the argument that it's trivial. Like Boost said, if she causes a bunch of other people to go around searching for tp, she's contributing to the spread.

Spring breakers should be shamed too.

Yup. I've seen people on twitter comparing their strategies for making it look like they're doing 'essential' shopping, like by adding some staple foods to their basket full of snacks and mix for booze. Is that really worth risking everyone's lives for? Have some fucking self-control, cunts.