Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It's not hard to find similar dunks for the other side, eg. "I thought Democrats were for bodily autonomy" (with regards to vaccine mandates/passports) or "I thought liberals were for free speech" (with regards to cancel culture).
 help



No side is perfect, but contrary to popular misconception, Democrats/liberals have generally been much better when it comes to restrictions on state power and support for civil liberties.

Until the COVID-conspiracism came around, vaccine mandates had been supported by a massive bi-partisan consensus - for decades - because they make sense. Just take a look at this article on The Federalist of all places, from 2015: https://thefederalist.com/2015/02/03/the-insane-vaccine-deba...

> Fundamentally, the protection against life-threatening plague is one of the original reasons government exists. We’ve had mandatory vaccines for schoolchildren in America since before the Emancipation Proclamation. The Supreme Court has upheld that practice as constitutional for over a century, and only the political fringes believe there ought to be a debate about such matters. This is one of the few areas where government necessarily exercises power.

> You shouldn’t be compelled to vaccinate your child, but neither should the rest of us be compelled to pretend like you did.

> It’s the failure to deal with those consequences that frustrates me about this debate. If you choose to not vaccinate your children, that is your choice. In the absence of an immediate threat, such as a life-threatening plague or outbreak, the state doesn’t have a compelling reason to administer that vaccination by force or to infringe on your rights. But that doesn’t mean there are no tradeoffs for such a decision. If you choose not to vaccinate, private and public institutions should be able to discriminate on that basis.


>"I thought Democrats were for bodily autonomy" (with regards to vaccine mandates/passports)

The liberal position on bodily autonomy (and indeed most things) has never been absolute. If an action is likely to cause harm to others (and forgoing a vaccine in the midst of a deadly pandemic is indeed likely to cause harm to others), then reasonable action to curtail the harm is justified. As recently as the 2010s, both parties supported vaccine mandates. I remember conservatives making fun of the antivax movement as liberal lunacy as recently as 2019.

>"I thought liberals were for free speech" (with regards to cancel culture).

Cancel culture is itself a form of free expression and association.


Damn I am nostalgic for a time when it was just a few delusional new-age nutjobs who were trying to kill their children and expose everyone around them to preventable deadly illnesses.

Sometimes I like to look up the stuff people are throwing a little fit about.

> On November 4, 2021, OSHA released an emergency temporary standard (ETS) that generally requires private employers with 100 or more employees to establish and enforce a policy that either (1) requires all employees to receive a COVID-19 vaccination, subject to legally required exceptions; or (2) requires employees to receive either a COVID-19 vaccination or provide proof of regular COVID-19 testing and wear a face covering when indoors or occupying a vehicle with another person.

Looks like it was private companies' choice whether or not to allow face covering and regular testing in lieu of a vaccine. Requiring masks indoors during a global pandemic. The comparison to women being denied medical care was and is still offensive.


Free speech absolutely does not mean free from consequences speech.

I don't think you realize it, but your retort could be easily applied to the story in the OP just as easily as it could be applied to cancel culture. The point isn't whether either side is "right" or not, but that both side's positions shouldn't be distilled down to 1 liner dunks like the original commenter was engaging in.

No. The First Amendment does not protect from consequences between non-government entities. A government agency attempting to track down people when it disagrees with their speech is explicitly what the First Amendment was intended to protect. Hope that helps.

The difference is “cancel culture” is not official policy of the state.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: