COVID-19 thread

[Whimemsz]

I'm feeling somewhat better now but its only been a day so I don't want to say I'm recovered just yet. Thanks for your advice.... I didnt go to a clinic today because I was worried I'd get sicker than when I went in, even though they say they are all taking measures to prevent spread of the virus. Its just my mind's way of thinking. If I still have trouble eating solids by Saturday then I will have no choice but to seek help.

I hope you feel much better soon, whatever it is. (Remember to phone ahead before you show up to any doctor's office/clinic/hospital, so they can advise you and plan ahead to have protection in place for the staff and any other patients.)

[MacAnDàil]

I agree with Whimemsz. I got an early appointment and was advised to cover my mouth.

[Raphael]

So, over in the US, at least two Senators went to a briefing about Covid-19, a while before it started to have impact one the stock market, and, after the briefing, sold a bunch of stocks, and, in one case, bought stocks in a medical company and a company specialized in teleconference solutions - all while telling their voters that Covid-19 was no big deal.

Oddly enough, to me, the sight of mostly right-wing politicians getting caught in plain old corrupt insider trading feels almost like having some normalcy in otherwise not very normal times.

[Raphael]

To quote a historian on Twitter - Grace Mallon (@GraceMallon3):

I now viscerally understand why the first paragraph of every C18th letter details the mental and physical health of yourself, your spouse, your children, your parents, your parents-in-law, your neighbours, and anyone who’s written to you in the last three weeks.

[Kuchigakatai]

That reminds me, I once heard someone say that after WWI there was a sudden much greater interest in the Iliad among classicists, because apparently upcoming scholars who had been soldiers were able to understand it viscerally in ways the previous generation of scholars didn't...

[Raphael]

Il Donaldo at his best, or at least his most typical, again. This time, at the daily Covid-19 press briefing, a journalist asked him what he had to say to Americans who, in the current situation, are scared. He responded by calling the journalist a terrible reporter and the question a nasty question. So much to unpack here:

1) The kind of people who support Trump love to make fun of how their opponents are supposedly all easily triggered snowflakes. Ok, here's clear evidence that their Dear Leader is definitely a very easily triggered snowflake, and all they will take away from it is that he's a really tough and strong and manly guy, who really showed it to that journalist.
2) That was a nasty question? Any politician worth their salt would have jumped on the opportunity to deliver a standard "I share your worries" speech, and apparently, Mike Pence of all people did just that when he was asked a similar question later during the same press conference. But as a narcissistic sociopath, Trump simply doesn't get the idea that he might share other people's worries. In fact, he's so much of a narcissistic sociopath that he doesn't even get the idea that it might be politically smart for him to pretend to share other people's worries.
3) Then again, even if it had been a nasty question - err, dealing with and answering nasty questions is part of the job of politicians. If you don't like nasty questions, don't run for office.
4) And again, none of this will make any of his supporters like him any less. On the contrary, it will make them love him even more. Because as right-wingers, they naturally believe that constantly losing any semblance of self-control and exploding into spittle-flecked rage is a cool, tough, strong, and manly thing to do, rather than the typical behaviour of especially annoying three-year-olds.

[Hallow XIII]

i once again encourage everybody who is getting upset about the Big Cheese of any western democracy to use this time to watch Yes, Minister

[Raphael]

Not sure what your point is. That mean civil servants made poor Donald Trump explode in response to a softball question? That mean civil servants made poor Donald Trump spend weeks pretending it was no big deal? Or, on the contrary, that mean civil servants tried to make poor Donald Trump act like an adult, and he was right to defy them and act like a spoilt child instead?

[Whimemsz]

I hold basically no right-wing policy views, and I despise Trump and think he's the worst president in modern American history, but I have to say I'm really getting tired of constantly seeing shit like this:

Because as right-wingers, they naturally believe that constantly losing any semblance of self-control and exploding into spittle-flecked rage is a cool, tough, strong, and manly thing to do, rather than the typical behaviour of especially annoying three-year-olds.

It's inappropriate to mock "right-wingers", which is such an immensely broad group. It's fine to criticize individual politicians or figures for actions they've taken or things they've said or policy views they hold, it's not fine to brand a large fraction of American adults (a larger fraction than left-wingers!) as complete lunatics, any more than it's fine to brand any other group of people with some negative label because some subset of that group is terrible. At least a subset of ANY group is terrible, because, unfortunately, many people around the world are terrible (though even most of them are not entirely terrible in every way...). For instance, a significant fraction of the world's Jews supports the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, but if you were to call me (or "Jews") (a) racist(s) or genocidaire(s) on that basis you would instantly be shouted down, and rightly so. Yet insults that amount to little more than "consies suck lol" are rampant on this board; similar comments about progressives, let alone, say, a minority racial group, LGBTQ people, etc., are by contrast not tolerated -- nor should they be!

Don't insult entire groups of people. That includes any ethnic group, sex, sexual preference, political party, religion, or irreligion. (This doesn't mean you can't have debates. But if you really can't grasp the distinction, you probably won't be here long.)

[And note that "right-wingers" is much broader than "supporters of the US Republican Party"!]

[Hallow XIII]

Not sure what your point is. That mean civil servants made poor Donald Trump explode in response to a softball question? That mean civil servants made poor Donald Trump spend weeks pretending it was no big deal? Or, on the contrary, that mean civil servants tried to make poor Donald Trump act like an adult, and he was right to defy them and act like a spoilt child instead?

i once again encourage you to watch Yes, Minister

[Raphael]

I hold basically no right-wing policy views, and I despise Trump and think he's the worst president in modern American history, but I have to say I'm really getting tired of constantly seeing shit like this:

Because as right-wingers, they naturally believe that constantly losing any semblance of self-control and exploding into spittle-flecked rage is a cool, tough, strong, and manly thing to do, rather than the typical behaviour of especially annoying three-year-olds.

It's inappropriate to mock "right-wingers", which is such an immensely broad group. It's fine to criticize individual politicians or figures for actions they've taken or things they've said or policy views they hold, it's not fine to brand a large fraction of American adults (a larger fraction than left-wingers!) as complete lunatics,

As far as I can see, in the statement you quoted I neither mocked right-wingers, nor insulted them, nor branded them complete lunatics. I made a specific observation about how they see things.

I don't really think it makes sense to compare a political camp to a group facing bigotry.

In terms of the House Rules, yes, political camps are among the protected groups, but I don't think an attempt at analyzing one aspect of their worldview is an insult. I did not write anything like "lol consies suck".

[Hallow XIII]

I hold basically no right-wing policy views, and I despise Trump and think he's the worst president in modern American history, but I have to say I'm really getting tired of constantly seeing shit like this:

Because as right-wingers, they naturally believe that constantly losing any semblance of self-control and exploding into spittle-flecked rage is a cool, tough, strong, and manly thing to do, rather than the typical behaviour of especially annoying three-year-olds.

It's inappropriate to mock "right-wingers", which is such an immensely broad group. It's fine to criticize individual politicians or figures for actions they've taken or things they've said or policy views they hold, it's not fine to brand a large fraction of American adults (a larger fraction than left-wingers!) as complete lunatics,

As far as I can see, in the statement you quoted I neither mocked right-wingers, nor insulted them, nor branded them complete lunatics. I made a specific observation about how they see things.

I don't really think it makes sense to compare a political camp to a group facing bigotry.

In terms of the House Rules, yes, political camps are among the protected groups, but I don't think an attempt at analyzing one aspect of their worldview is an insult. I did not write anything like "lol consies suck".

have you heard about the television show Yes, Minister

you should watch it

[Raphael]

Oh, I probably will.

[Ares Land]

A quick question and survey on cultural norms:

- How do you feel about reporting violation of containment rules to the authorities? Say, you see three or four people talking way too close, with no obvious business outside. Would you report them? How would you feel about reporting them?

(The reason I'll ask this is that supposedly in France we have different cultural expectations about this, and I wonder if that holds...)

[Pabappa]

Never. I would assume they are a family or close friends who know what theyre doing. I think we're going to have a lot of issues if they start telling people they cant even talk to their own family members outside. But maybe that will indeed happen ... I havent looked into th details yet ... they say here that if they order us to stay home it still means people can take walks outside etc but must stay 6 feet apart from other people. i assume that they dont mean also stay 6 ft away from close family members, because to me that would be absurd, but maybe it will indeed come to that.

[MacAnDàil]

I don't think it is a natural tendancy of right-wingers. After all, Pence does better and Trump changed the Republican Party. I suspect that this attempt at analysing part of their worldview comes partly from not being one of them, even if I myself am certainly no right-winger either.

Repeating the same injunction to watch a television series should, I feel, include some justification or clarification. Otherwise, it is a bit annoying.

For reporting a violation of containment rules, I think it's important to take into account two things:
1) The containment rules are based on doctors' recommendations
2) Contact with the authorities does not automatically lead to arrest

But also:
3) As long as it is possible to communicate with the people, you can clarify things with them and encourage them to do the appropriate thing in the case that they are in fact infracting the injunction.

[Pabappa]

One silver lining in all of this may be that people in hard-hit areas are coming together and being more friendly as they realize that everyone is in the same boat. People in public in northern New England tend to be pretty near silent unless they're drunk, and that's just part of our culture .... but I went outside and saw people socializing with total strangers, just based on simple things like how one of them had their baby in a carrier tied around their back and the other had the baby in front. I'm too shy to do this and I still can't be absolutely resoundingly sure I'm not a COVID carrier myself ... although my symptoms have dwindled down to just a cough and a sore throat ... so I was just watching from afar. But it made me happy even so to see some signs of positivity admist the bleak dystopia around us.

a society needs trust for things like that to happen ... if humans were just a little bit more evil, there would be carriers of the disease walking around being friendly to strangers just to spread it and make other people suffer.

btw i never went to the clinic ... i appreciate all your advice but my fear of contracting another illness on top of what i already had was just too strong .... however irrational that may be, it's the same basic instinct that's keeping us from spreading the disease even more, and I decided to just go with it. going to the clinic now would be awkward since i have only the very mildest of symptoms remaining.

[Darren]

I hold basically no right-wing policy views, and I despise Trump and think he's the worst president in modern American history, but I have to say I'm really getting tired of constantly seeing shit like this:

Because as right-wingers, they naturally believe that constantly losing any semblance of self-control and exploding into spittle-flecked rage is a cool, tough, strong, and manly thing to do, rather than the typical behaviour of especially annoying three-year-olds.

It's inappropriate to mock "right-wingers", which is such an immensely broad group. It's fine to criticize individual politicians or figures for actions they've taken or things they've said or policy views they hold, it's not fine to brand a large fraction of American adults (a larger fraction than left-wingers!) as complete lunatics,

As far as I can see, in the statement you quoted I neither mocked right-wingers, nor insulted them, nor branded them complete lunatics. I made a specific observation about how they see things.

Surely this isn't serious?

[Whimemsz]

I hold basically no right-wing policy views, and I despise Trump and think he's the worst president in modern American history, but I have to say I'm really getting tired of constantly seeing shit like this:

Because as right-wingers, they naturally believe that constantly losing any semblance of self-control and exploding into spittle-flecked rage is a cool, tough, strong, and manly thing to do, rather than the typical behaviour of especially annoying three-year-olds.

It's inappropriate to mock "right-wingers", which is such an immensely broad group. It's fine to criticize individual politicians or figures for actions they've taken or things they've said or policy views they hold, it's not fine to brand a large fraction of American adults (a larger fraction than left-wingers!) as complete lunatics,

As far as I can see, in the statement you quoted I neither mocked right-wingers, nor insulted them, nor branded them complete lunatics. I made a specific observation about how they see things.

Saying that all right wingers approve of people "constantly losing any semblance of self-control and exploding into spittle-flecked rage" is, (a) attributing a trait to ALL "right wingers", which is clearly improper, and also (b) factually false, and also (c) an insult, since it's obviously a negative trait (I promise you the vast majority of right wingers will agree on this point), and you obviously consider it to be one. So you have falsely accused all "right-wingers" of a negative trait: "being complete lunatics" was my shorthand for this; I agree that's not precisely what you accused them of. Perhaps in retrospect "supporting lunatic/unhinged behavior" or something might have been more accurate, but the basic point that you insulted all right-wingers still stands.

I don't really think it makes sense to compare a political camp to a group facing bigotry.

Any group that faces bigotry is a group facing bigotry, and this can include people who hold certain political beliefs. There are many people, in America and around the world, who are bigoted toward people with political views contrary to their own, and who denigrate or oppress them for it in various ways, ranging from unconsciously and subtly to very openly. This includes people holding right-wing views, who are often subject to very significant social stigma or even the threat of losing their jobs in North America, depending on the situation. Obviously no one ever enslaved right-wingers or gassed them in death camps or is hesitant to give them housing loans because of their political views, but that doesn't change the fact that some of them DO face stigma or discrimination, and that any form of bigotry is wrong and should be resisted.

In terms of the House Rules, yes, political camps are among the protected groups, but I don't think an attempt at analyzing one aspect of their worldview is an insult.

I read the essence of the rule as deriving from the very important (liberal!) principle that people are more than just the group they belong to, and that while their group membership may imply some statistical probabilities about various things about them, it won't TELL you anything certain until you actually know each individual person. No statement can accurately characterize the beliefs of all "right-wingers", it can at best cover many of them. But in any case, as I said above, it's pretty clear to me that your statement was intended to apply negatively to right-wingers -- i.e., it was an insult.

I would also suggest that you try more to actually understand the worldview of various stripes of people with right-wing views. Among the hardest things for anyone -- myself certainly included! -- is to get inside the head of people you disagree with and see things from their perspective. That doesn't mean agreeing with that perspective, it just means understanding what that perspective even is and why they hold it. And I think left-wingers in general need to do a much better job of understanding conservatives.*

I would also strongly argue that the best way to change a conservative's mind is to cordially debate with them on why your positions are superior to theirs, but no one is going to listen to you if you first accuse them of something they know falsely applies, or insult them, or whatever. Let's start from a foundation of respect and trying to see their point of view so we can actually effectively engage with it.

*I had remembered I had once heard about a study which found that liberals are worse at predicting conservative responses to moral questions than vice versa, but when I managed to find the original study just now it looks...really weak. So, take it with as many grains of salt as you wish. The basic point that people tend to misanalyze their ideological opponents' views by exaggerating them is undoubtedly true, however, and the particular idea that liberals tend to have a poor understanding of conservative thought, as also mentioned in the longer quote from Haidt, seems at least somewhat plausible, and it does match my personal experience as far as I can tell (not being a conservative, I can't be positive whether it does) [this is not to say lots of conservatives don't horribly distort the views of liberals]. If it does happen to true, I imagine this is partly because conservatives in the US have a lot of exposure to liberal viewpoints in popular culture, newspapers, movies, colleges and universities, celebrities, and so on, while liberals can be more isolated from conservative views unless they watch Fox News for some reason, and it isn't like Fox is even that totally representative of the spectrum of right-wing thought in the US.

I did not write anything like "lol consies suck".

No, and this was unclear wording on my part, sorry. I was trying to pivot to talking about statements made on the ZBB in general (and obviously exaggerating slightly), rather than still talking about your post in particular. More broadly, it seems to have become culturally acceptable here to make blanket negative statements about Republicans or conservatives or right-wingers, often with little to no triggering context and with no justification given, which is very concerning and I urge be stopped.

[Moose-tache]

How did even Coronavirus get so politically charged? I swear, it's a good thing bacon has been around for a while, because if someone invented bacon today, one randomly chosen half of America would feel the need to oppose it.