The case for lockdowns, face masks, Biden’s integrity and the veracity of the US election

I’m not going to make the case for any of these things.

Rather, this is a reminder that Team Blue’s primary means of advocating these views are (a) to insist that we believe the science and listen to experts, and (b) to censor any alternative views as ‘disinformation’.

That’s not a very strong case. It largely comes down to an Argument from Authority where some expert bodies are known to be compromised and others have dissenting views.

These dissenting voices are silenced by the government via Big Tech and the media. There has been little serious, public debate on any of the four topics in the title.

Here’s a related case I came across just now: judges in Portugal faced disciplinary action for questioning the accuracy of Covid tests. They got away with it, but you can see that traditional standards for measuring truth are regressing to the Bad Old Days of bigotry and might-makes-right. Pre-WEIRD, in other words. Soon we’ll be making dissidents walk across hot plowshares.

I think the reason for this change, aside from the raw power imbalance, is that a rationally compelling case for any of the assertions in the title would require some acknowledgement of the points against, but the current regime prefers to maintain a 100% monopoly on truth rather than admit uncertainty.

For example, a reasonable argument in favour of lockdowns would have to admit the severe economic damage caused, psychological problems, decline in education, lack of timely treatment for other conditions, etc. In other words, it would have to accept that the policy is a controversial tradeoff, not an obvious panacea that only a selfish monster could oppose. Such an argument would also have to explain why many lockdowns seem ineffective and what the exit point will look like.

Few governments have said, ‘We’ll ease lockdowns when infections/deaths reach x level.’ Rather, they seem determined to continue the policy for as long as they can get away with.

While I’m a skeptic, I reckon one might put together a reasoned case for a strictly short-term lockdown with schools remaining open, together with a variety of additional measures such as contact tracing and protection of nursing homes. If the models prove incorrect and infections continue to rise after three weeks, the lockdown should be called off.

As for masks, a reasoned argument in their favour would need to accept contradictory research on their efficacy as well as their potential side-effects.

On to Mr Biden: the MSM and techs pushing the ‘Hunter did nothing wrong’ line are relying on Truth by (Repeated) Assertion because that’s all they’ve got. They are deliberately burying the story, not debunking it.

Any serious argument about Joe’s purity would have to start by acknowledging his son’s malarkey and then try to build a case based on the assertion that the Big Guy was at arm’s length.

I guess one might also argue that due to the publication of these allegations, Biden must now be extra careful not to seem too soft on China so it doesn’t matter anyway. That’s not a very complimentary case but it’s the strongest I can think of.

And the 2020 US election. Once again, a reasoned case for its veracity should accept that shenanigans took place but argue that, shameful though this is, it is up to the apparently losing side to prove in court that the cheating was great enough to flip the result.

A good-faith argument should also acknowledge that a lack of faith in the electoral process on either side is dangerous and merits a bipartisan review so that future results will not be contested. This is important because if Trump had won, the left would not have accepted it, either. The 2020 result was going to controversial no matter what.

Instead, those disputing the result are called domestic terrorists and new laws are aimed at shutting them down.

Across all these issues we continue to see the banning of Thought Crime, repetition of mindless shibboleths (‘find out how mail-in voting is safe’) and censoring of evidence that goes against the official narrative.

For that matter, the same manner of argumentation (if one may call it that) can be seen in the insisting upon our raising a fist for ‘Black Lives Matter’ and calling for those fans booing kneeling sportsmen to be arrested.

Team Blue has given up trying to convince Team Red about anything and is now trying to beat its opponents into submission.

Of course, this approach is a flex. Our overlords are revelling in the fact that they no longer have to win arguments or address plebeian concerns.

However, if you ever want to convince me on any of these issues, this article shows you what you’d have to do.

Also available on many other platforms.


  1. luisman · February 9

    Reblogged this on Nicht-Linke Blogs.


  2. luisman · February 9

    It’s hard for me to imagine the psychology of a politician (I don’t know many and never wanted to be one myself). Most of the time these guys have no real power (the government bureaucracy has the power). Now, with A SO CALLED HEALTH CRISIS, they sniffed the power kegs and became drunk quickly.

    There’s a good case to be made for a real quarantine – and it doesn’t even matter much, how late it is done. Everybody gets enough food for 2 weeks and stays at home, no matter what. You’d only need some teams (isolated as well) to maintain electric power and water supply. In week 3 everyone gets tested twice, then back to normal.


    • Kentucky Headhunter · February 9

      “Most of the time these guys have no real power”

      Congress-critters don’t get fabulously wealthy because they don’t have any “real power”. Anyone who helps write the laws that determine the winners and losers has real power in that society.

      There’s a good case to be made for a quarantine IF the mortality rate is significant and not ~ 0.5% of otherwise healthy people. Otherwise there is NO case for a quarantine.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Gunner Q · February 10

        Also, if “quarantine” means “flights from China” rather than “where the proles eat with their friends”.

        Liked by 3 people

      • luisman · February 10

        Most people think that lockdown is a new word for quarantine. I wanted to point out, that a quarantine, properly done, works. Lockdowns have no upside, but many downsides, as we know now (and should have known in advance). Whatever the mortality rate is, and we didn’t know in the first few months, a 2 week ‘grounding’ of everyone would have been far less bad than lockdown after lockdown for a year now.

        What I observed is, that less than 5% of the law makers actually write and propose new laws which are brought to a vote. The backbenchers have no power, they only can go along, if they want funds for their reelection.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. jewamongyou · February 10

    Once it’s established that speaking ANY kind of heresy has severe consequences, the door is open to expand the definition of “heresy” to include an increasing number of ideas. I think that in America, race-realism was the original heresy. People got used to the idea that one cannot express support for race-realism without consequences. Now they’re simply building upon that foundation.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s