snav Profile picture
6 Apr, 5 tweets, 1 min read
could an informed population be trusted to make the right decisions regarding a pandemic situation (A), or do people need a "nanny state" to lay out legal restrictions (B)?
regarding your vote on the prior question, do you identify as on the left or on the right? (centrists and horseshoe extremists need not apply)
If you believe that the population was not adequately able to make informed decisions about the pandemic, where do you locate the failure? (pick the one you feel is most responsible)
What do you feel is the best argument against a mandatory lockdown?
What do you feel is the best argument in support of a mandatory lockdown?

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with snav

snav Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @qorprate

7 Apr
In response to a deep psychic pain, you have two choices: wait for "society" (whoever that is) to do something about it, or do something about it.

The problem with "comment 171" and "Untitled" is that they choose the former. (brief thread)
Both Scotts are sensitive guys. And sensitivity cuts both ways: sensitive people respond strongly to both pain and pleasure, to both themselves and others. The volume knob is turned up. The pain is a call to action.
In response to their own pain, both Scotts focus on *what other people do*: what the feminists say, how people react, etc.

This is because they are expecting something from the outside to flip some switch and make them magically feel OK. But this is not how emotions work.
Read 11 tweets
5 Mar
entering neurotic mode where i feel bad because my expectations of life, based on fantasies of the social normal, don't seem to match my lived reality
feeling bad, i.e. in a state of consciousness such that the small events of daily life and "nothings" that i experience reinforce my belief in negative (hated) self-images
so basically i wanted something, did nothing to achieve it, and then when nothing happened, i felt like i failed, which in turn reinforced my identity as "someone who doesn't get the specific thing i wanted". wtf?
Read 7 tweets
25 Feb
oh i finally figured out the few things i really dislike about @everytstudies's contextualizing/coupling dichotomy... everythingstudies.com/2018/05/25/dec…
first thing i dislike is that ppl tend to reify (including in the piece) "decoupling" as a property of a person rather than as a quality of an action. in reality, although some people do "decouple" more than others, it's primarily a question of context. it's not intrinsic.
second thing is way bigger. Nerst posits decoupling as a property of *thought*. i disagree with this, arguing instead that decoupling is a property of communicative acts. this means we need to reorient the entire concept to being about expression rather than reasoning.
Read 21 tweets
24 Feb
growing up in conservative judaism, i was taught the quasi-Spinozan stance that "God is in everything". the question that occupied my mind as a child was "what is the form of God, then?"
my resolution as a child was that God had the form of self-justification, God is because God is, like the image of a tautological circle that justifies itself. but how can we account for God's "appearance" while also sticking with "God is in everything"?
maybe "just because God is in everything doesn't mean that God is equally distributed in everything", so God can "appear" at inflection points, where the level of "God-stuff" in a place reaches a particular threshold that permits appearance
Read 4 tweets
25 Aug 20
@HiFromMichaelV @ben_r_hoffman @nosilverv @SamoBurja ok lets go Lacanian, my claim about info is grounded in the relation between the University Discourse and the Master's Discourse. freedom from ideology belongs to the Analyst's and Hysteric's Discourses, which produce knowledge rather than supply it lacan.com/zizfour.htm
@HiFromMichaelV @ben_r_hoffman @nosilverv @SamoBurja we can see that occupying the position of knowledge (S2) or truth (S1) (i.e. the position of "informing") respectively produces divided subjects ($, integrative confusion) and objet petit a (a, cause of desire, domination)
@HiFromMichaelV @ben_r_hoffman @nosilverv @SamoBurja now we can analyze Zizek. far from being anti-knowledge, his writing acts from the position of "a", the object cause of desire, asking "divided subjects", us who don't quite know what to believe, "why do we want this?", with intent of revealing our underlying/hidden beliefs
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!