Really?

Experts have a worse track record than open debate and the COVID censorship was directed at even experts who didn’t adhere to political choices — so to my eyes, you’re saying that you’d give in to authoritarian impulses and do worse.

▲

judahmeek 8 hours ago | parent [-]

The problem with debate is that it hinders organized action.

At some point in any emergency, organized action has to be prioritized over debate.

Maybe that is still authoritarian, but they do say to have moderation in all things!

	▲	Gud 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		No it doesn't. It allows for correct action to be taken.
	▲	aianus 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		God forbid someone hinder some retarded organized action before enough peoples’ lives are ruined that our majestic rulers notice and gracefully decide to stop.
	▲	zmgsabst 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		That’s not at all how you’re taught to handle emergencies. From health emergencies to shootings to computer system crashes to pandemics — doing things without a reason to believe they’ll improve the situation is dangerous. You can and many have made things worse. And ignoring experts shouting “wait, no!” is a recipe for disaster. When we were responding to COVID, we had plenty of time to have that debate in a candid way. We just went down an authoritarian path instead.
	▲	SV_BubbleTime 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> The problem with debate is that it hinders organized action. Ah… so… ”we must do something! Even if it’s the wrong thing” Hot take.