Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
And then when the ample warning signs were there, he should not have downplayed it.
Even if I give him the maximum benefit of the doubt that his specific interest was the noble goal of protecting the economy, he chose to do so by repeatedly downplaying the risk and hazard despite having expert guidance to the contrary, thus misleading economic leaders. Even if it was a good-faith bet, it was still a bet he did not have to make, and it has turned out to be a disastrously bad bet.
And that maximum benefit-of-the-doubt isn't exactly justified in the context of the various other things he's done.
Except
1. folks like the WHO didn't bomb it; they just weren't listened to
2. with the exception of probably bombing it with the masks recommendation
3. and people didn't exactly go about as normal anyway.
Perhaps there are good reasons that he gets so much flak. And by reasons I don't mean conspiracies, but failings on his own part and the part of his administration.
While others were being cancelled.
No, people became concerned before that declaration, as I noted.
Especially when it comes to political stuff that requires checking a bunch of sources, it's tiring. At least when arguing anime I can just chalk everything up to opinion.
Note that, like the article mentions, the POTUS is not legally authorized to sign checks from the Treasury. So this is just being shoehorned in for no practical reason.
If he were actually interested in getting the economy back on its feet ASAP, he wouldn't be delaying stimulus checks with this nonsense.
In all honesty I think looking up sources is insanely fun.
There's a marked difference between normal politician flak and all the flak you can throw at someone.
Why do you keep saying things like this? Do you think I genuinely believe journalists are out to "get" Donald Trump in some serious collective way way? I just think everybody's out there trying to make a name for themselves (which I have no problem with) and get clicks for their sites (which is dumb but I also have no problem with) and the easiest way to do that is to just jump on the #Resistance bandwagon and scare-monger about Donald Trump. Remember WWIII v Iran, January 2020?
I honestly have not genuinely cared about Donald Trump in a serious way since mid-2018, but I do find I quite dislike when people begin using holy book words in their journalism just because they don't like him and want others to join in doing the same. At the end of the day, it's just politics, and we all kinda need to get over it and go do stuff with our hobbies (which will always be more important... unless a socialist, communist or other form of dictatorship is in charge).
So long as people disagree and feel they have a stake in their different visions of the world, politics will continue to be a thing. For better or worse.
If only.
So people started having opinions on how they feel various organizations are responding to the pandemic. These opinions are additionally informed by and further shaped by their prior information/knowledge/opinions/value systems of things, their conversations with their peers, and their consumption of (one-way) information and commentary. And so now we end up with social battle lines drawn between, say, the Trump administration's response vs. the WHO's response.
These battle lines are not necessarily formed by "who's actually right" in the sense of information accuracy or policymaking prudence. Heck, agreeing on policymaking prudence itself depends on agreeing on what's important in the first place, and there's clearly disagreement over that, and over what information is trustworthy, and so on and so forth.
Besides, the stuff that people argue over is generally more of judgement calls, which are summaries of individual pieces of information/meaning into meaningful (but smaller, and thus data-lossy) conclusions.
This doesn't mean that the practice of drawing conclusions is bad. They are very necessary, but that doesn't mean that this data compression isn't lossy. In turn, this means that it's almost always possible to find something in the details that doesn't fit the conclusion, and thus something to argue about.
One thing that I think has been trending over the past few decades is that the consensus on certain impartial institutions that everyone can trust has been eroding, for whatever reason. For example, if this pandemic happened a few decades earlier, I'd bet that the WHO would be more well-respected than it is currently.
I could speculate on why, but this would probably just start another argument lol.
For example:
"This is going well." <-- firm statement of opinion.
"It seems this is going well." <-- weak statement of opinion, which leaves open the possibility of agreeing or at least not arguing with the counter opinion "It is not going well."
Unfortunately, people's propensity to use such language decreases the firmer their opinions are and the more strongly they feel about things. Ultimately this leads to a vicious cycle where someone states an opinion or judgement call on something, someone else disagrees and sees that opinion/judgement call as an indication of opposition to their perspective that they need to push back on to keep their own perspective socially viable, then the second person challenges the first person to defend their opinion/judgement, and the first person defends their point and/or challenges the second person to defend their opinion/judgement.
Also...
The complexity of political issues means that it's often not feasible to "get to the bottom" (i.e. the raw data) that ought to be informing these opinions/judgements -- either because the information just is not accessible (most notably in cases hearsay, but also in cases where one simply can't access certain sources of information because they're kept confidential) or it'd simply take far too long to actually go through the information (e.g. heaping hundreds of pages of supporting evidence onto someone). The common response to this is to seek another source that has done the work of actually going through this raw data...but then someone can call bias or untrustworthiness on that source, in turn. And so on.
What would stop this is if there's a "backstop" in the form of a social judge that is trusted and viewed as impartial, who'd be able to rule on such matters. Unfortunately, the availability of such sources of impartial trustworthy judgement seem to be on the wane, as people have developed conflicting opinions on them too -- even if this conflict is as simple as "I trust this" vs. "I don't trust this".
Note that a trust problem can arise here without the involvement of both sides of the dispute. It can arise solely unilaterally.
Group A simply maintains its opinion of "I trust X."
Group B used to say "I trust X.", but now says "I don't trust X."
Whelp, now we have a problem. Now, group B gets to grow suspicious that group A's trust in X is about group A's agenda against them on issue Q. And so on. Nothing that X does can dissuade B from feeling this way, either...unless X just does what B wants. But that in turn could be interpreted as serving B's agenda. yadda yadda yadda yadda
1. Keep things in reach. It's a lot easier to observe specific effects of things, and discuss personal impacts. Information and sources are also more easily judged against things that people know from their personal experiences. This also reduces the scope of the argument, making it so that a dispute need not be settled at a broader scope, which is a lot harder to agree on.
2. Agree on a value system. Kinda obvious. Again, this can reduce the scope of what's being argued over.
Note that these two things are incredibly difficult (to the point of practical impossibility) to do when it comes to national-level or international-level political arguments.
I'd feel better if you just outright mentioned me (even if you mean multiple other people just put me in there in passing) because it otherwise feels like you're trying to slight me.
I guess it's because:
a) Social-media and the information-super-highway have forced high-level transparency, which could mean
a-1) The institutions themselves did not remain static and good, but changed in ways people don't appreciate
a-2) The institutions were always not very good at their jobs and now we just know about it
b) I've talked about this a lot before, but politics used to be seen as the realm of those with no lives. Even when celebrities used to protest against things, people thought they were a bit weird (everybody blames Yoko Ono for turning John Lennon into a hippy still).
Like, watch a teen movie from the 90s and show me one politically active kid who isn't also the worst (and extremely sexless). Something happened that made Alyssa Milano more known for her opinions on due process and sexual assault than her opinions as a judge on Project Runway All Stars, which is literally her only job nowadays (I've kind of always suspected that she was trying to distance herself from Georgina Chapman, who is also a judge on that show and was Harvey Weinstein's wife, but who knows).
We live in a world where people go on Andy Cohen's Radio Show to discuss serious allegations of sexual assault. Andy Cohen, if you don't know, is the guy who hosts Real Housewives Reunion Specials and a talk show where shirtless guys just kind of stand in the background serving drinks to guests.
Institutions, more broadly
In terms of journalism, there is no institution higher than the New York Times. I've told the story before of how on my own journey towards... well, the 'other' side I guess? I tried to stem it by literally spending money on an NYT subscription. Instead, I'm pretty sure that exacerbated it.
In addition to things I've discussed before, they actually published a piece once about how terrible a girl's high school was for stopping the school paper publishing an article about how she was an escort (sorry, I can't find the exact link for this one), and what was essentially a glowing endorsement of OnlyFans.
Now, I know you hate a gossipy stream of information, but I'll leave it to you to look into the way the New York Times handled the Tara Reade sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden. Not even in comparison to anything else, just on it's own merits. In all honesty, as somebody who has always at least believed that journalists care about preventing a culture that condones sexual assault even if that meant going too far, it's been a real eye-opener.
If this pandemic happened a few decades earlier, we probably wouldn't be able to shut down schools and workplaces because it'd be impossible to keep people inside and work from home. Whereas now we have the tech to do that.
If this pandemic happened even a few more decades earlier, the WHO wouldn't even exist!
So, uh, yeah.
To be serious for a second, the work-from-study-from-home scenario gets deeper into a class battle where those who can work from home and have the resources of unlimited internet and PS4/Xbox/Expensive Season Passes for games and Netflix/Disney+/Showmax/etc and Amazon Prime for shipping and so on.
Inevitably, the people who are closer to the buttons that handle these things have access to the levers that control our governments and will generally end up agreeing with the consensus that everybody has to go home for a bit since not only are they still getting paid for their jobs, they also have access to infinite forms of mind-balm.
Also GMH, I hate to be a subjectifier of what one claims as objective, but I think you'd benefit from trying to steelman the various points you could find contrary to what you've posted above. I know we both make authoritative statements at times, but I always try to prevent myself from being extremely sure I know things unless there are underlying facts to look at outside of myself.
re a)
The information age and the internet have forced high-level transparency in the moment. At the same time, it has also fed people's desire to see change/progress/events/etc. immediately -- both in the realm of and outside of politics. This impatience has led people to nitpick on things that would have been glossed over in the past, which includes small mistakes as well as (more importantly) parts of processes that operate unintuitively. This high-level transparency has encouraged the illusion that they can be judges of whether things are going right, if only they just looked more closely -- without necessarily knowing the bigger picture. So people jump to conclusions more readily, then share those conclusions on social media, and thus conclusions based on partial/incomplete/unrepresentative information are given legs.
This immediate transparency has also enabled people -- including but not limited to people with political interests -- to nitpick at things. Like I mentioned earlier, in any sufficiently complex social phenomenon or large-scale project/institution there will probably be something for basically anyone to nitpick about. And information technology has given the ability for people to amplify that nitpicking.
I'm not sure I understand what your b) is. It seems you're just saying that politics used to be a dorky thing for wonks only but now everyone and their mom among celebrities is weighing in on political opinions?
--
I find it amusing you wrote this subheading in a way that resembles the presentation of a news/opinion article. There's nothing wrong with it; it's just a funny stylistic thing.
--
Aside:
As someone who has been stuck working on stufff on the computer even before the pandemic hit, and as someone who specifically dislikes this practice of consuming endless streams of media (which is an opinion I think I've covered enough whie discussing anime), I've been annoyed that the stay-at-home order has gotten rid of the various things that I previously got to do outside, and I've bristled against the restrictions on movement and local travel. Heck, I've been kinda stuck doing stay-at-home for a while before the local order was officially announced, due to not wanting to adversely affect certain people's health.
And still I see every day the people who are unfortunate enough to still have to go to work (and I'm talking about meatspace work, not telework) during this lockdown. And multiple people among my friends and family have seen disruptions to their employment, including layoffs. The lucky ones who are still employed often have to deal with more chaotic situations, such as having to figure out how to do everything online. (And I was in an online meeting that got interrupted by a troll drawing dicks.)
And it's not like things are going smoothly for kids in education either: a family friend, whose son's school is doing distance learning, wrote to ask me for help with their internet connection. Another student I know has had one of their classes devolve into a bunch of technical issues.
And now back to a direct reply:
The (rather elaborate) image you've described -- an elected official who makes a decision on a stay-at-home order based on the notion that "not only are [people] still getting paid for their jobs [but] they also have access to infinite forms of mind-balm" -- is not represented in reality.
In reality I'm getting spammed by my mayor two e-mails (or sometimes more) per day about a huge variety of topics, including but not limited to:
* info regarding the Small Business Administration's loan programs and other financial support resources
* a hotline to help people who are struggling to pay their utility bills and other obligations, letting them talk directly to city officials
* a giant list of restaurants here in the city with all their takeout and delivery info
* a list of "senior hours" (i.e. special hours only for seniors and other people at higher medical risk) for a variety of major suppliers of mundane needs (supermarkets, discount stores, wholesale clubs, etc.) nearby (not even all in town)
There is no illusion here that everyone just gets to chill at home with entertainment while still getting paid and getting all their necessities from the internet. The most that could be said might be improperly assumed of people is that they have an internet connection and are able to look up and otherwise make use of these various resources, from financial support programs to education.
People don't like being stuck at home and not being able to work. At the same time people don't like getting sick and dying either. And people understand that tradeoffs are being made in the face of uncertainty, in order to try to reduce the risk of a very dangerous hazard.
And, for the record, the city commission is among the portion of the city government that is still on duty here. I could mock their attention to this crisis as having something to do with the fact that they're up for re-election this year. I've outright said this out loud. Though, if being up for re-election means they're gonna do a better job with handling this crisis, well I'm fine with that; that's how this positive reinforcement system is supposed to work anyway.
Yes, people aren't happy about this whole situation. But it's not the fault of the leadership here blithely trusting an illusion of what will benefit people.
--
I'm sitting here wondering whether I want to even touch this topic because this is almost certain to result in another long argument, and I already just stepped into what might be one with my immediately preceding paragraphs.
And unlike what I just talked about, Tara Reade and her allegations are a lot less relevant to me.
Anyhow, when I mentioned institutions, I was actually expanding off of the WHO and then thinking of scientific and related institutions in general. Though, I guess perhaps I should have figured that by raising it in such general terms I might end up having to deal with a dispute about the merits of the news media.
I guess I have to put this a bit more simply.
All I'm saying here is that the elected official and those who surround them are more likely to underestimate the impact this scenario has on people because of the various circumstances that surround them. I guess I'm saying like, they're more inclined to be tone deaf. Think that picture of Nancy Pelosi's amazingly stocked ice-cream fridges that she thought was going to be cutesy rather than unintentionally braggy, or Shinzo Abe's fancy house post in response to the Hoshino Gen stay indoors challenge. Actually it seems politicians get in a lot of these things when they associate with celebrities.
Obviously politicians don't think people are still getting paid, considering they've been directly issuing stimulus.
It's not like, a be all end all pervasive issue, it's just a perspective thing.
Yes, and that's bad.
I mean, I'd guess it's somewhat like that, but I also think even politicians are human on the inside, and this is a situation you respond to with humanity most of all.
Hopefully.
OK, I see.
I don't necessarily agree with this statement, but I do agree with the idea that it's annoying when people who don't care to understand an issue to its proper depth to weigh in on it. Though this is more about what content they actually have to offer, rather than about how they look while doing it, which seems more your point (e.g. with regards to tone-deafness).
That said, I've never particularly the attention people pay to celebs, particularly that shallow, gossipy type of attention. Some news outlets will in a segment intended to be a serious newscast report on celebs' political activities/opinions the way that resembles a gossip mag, showing off lifestyles of the rich and famous like it's a fun thing...even if the celeb has actually done the due diligence to properly understand the issues.
That said, this is what happens when stuff has to be condensed into headlines and 3-minute segments, as opposed to "boring" 10+ minute sit-down discussion segments. Similar problem occurs with reports of scientific studies grossly overrepresenting their impact.
To be entirely honest, I only managed this because I'm quite mentally tuckered out today. If I weren't, I'd have so many words, but I guess we can take this as a stars align sort of win.
I mean, one of the iffy rules of politics is that everything will be interpreted in a way you don't expect. I'd say exercise prudence and only take that risk is if explicitly playing to your base.
See, this goes back into the melding of politics and culture. This isn't normal and should be actively discouraged.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say there are like 10 mainstream celebrities who actually care about anything at most, but celebrities do what is cool so we're stuck with their opinions for now.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that people tend to have a bit more depth than that. Even celebs, who are people too.
Many people (celebs included, for that matter, and politicians too) seem to neglect this depth when judging others. Because it's easy to forget, particularly when there's not much more information available about whoever it is that's being judged.
You're mistaking knowing a lot about politics for a form of depth, or a moral value. Frequently it's neither.
Anyhow, I don't see a reason to disqualify (or poorly regard) celebs per se from (or in) political activity. They, too, can become knowledgeable about a given issue.
Regardless of their knowledgeableness, though, they're allowed to have and to spout opinions just like the rest of us, even if I find them annoying.
I'm suggesting that it's more likely probably because it's cool, not that it can never be because it's serious.
It's mainly a cynical thing, because celebrities set/follow all the trends and are perfectly focus-grouped on basically everything.
also what are we even doing right now
"I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE ABOUT"
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article242050696.html
This is the latest problem in a series of problems.
Others include:
(re dead inmates: note that dead people are still capable of transmitting the virus.)
The Defense Intelligence Agency also refuted these same facts earlier before the WaPo article came out:
HEY MARCO
FUCK YOU
YOU AND YOUR KOUHAI BOTH
seriously not even self-employment is viable in this economic situation and Florida's unemployment benefits are already the stingiest in the entire country and you two are going "durr, unemployment benefits might make people too lazy to work"
yeah because clearly everyone else is too lazy to work and loves being on the gubbermint dole and clearly isn't sheltering in place to the greatest extent possible in the face of a significant possibility of getting unceremoniously crowned to death
not even your backbencher ally of a governor could escape that reality and came to the realization that your system is a steaming pile of shit by design
well i guess you two have cushy jobs and aren't up for re-election this year so no one can make you unemployed
https://www.tampabay.com/news/health/2020/04/29/florida-medical-examiners-were-releasing-coronavirus-death-data-the-state-made-them-stop/
TL;DR there are 22 medical examiners that are part of the Florida state government, and they each serve different regions of the state. They keep track of COVID-19 deaths for their region.
The state government has pressured them to not release the data. Some have complied; others have not and are continuing to release data. Geographic coverage has been inconsistent.
These cases are separate from the prior case of refusing to name nursing homes that are experiencing COVID-19 outbreaks.
It was previously found that death data from the state health department was inaccurately low (missing about 40 people in a total count of about 400 on April 10), by delaying some death counts and/or by only counting Florida residents but not visitors.
Meanwhile (slightly less recently), at the national level we have a dolt who gives the lamest of internet flamewar excuses after saying something stupid: "sarcasm". Well tell that to the folks who had to call poison control. How does he not to know not to enable stupid with bad jokes. This is like, piss easy to avoid.
Then again, I have already been saying that anyone who takes what he says seriously is a fool. He is basically a walking shitpost generator.
The American Conservative wrote a piece on how OnlyFans is thriving under the lockdown, and explained why this was not good for conservatism (or sad lonely guys). I read it, considered the points, then forgot it existed.
Then, an outlet I think is much more right-leaning (that isn't really in my general rotation) called The Federalist published a response to this by an adult film actress. I found out about via the "who wrote what said what in what editorial" bubble of tweeter.
I find this odd, because though I don't remember properly (and I'm not really willing to search archives), The Federalist was one of the major outlets that was supporting the whole age-verification thing when it came to adult film (and tends to be staffed by like, conservative parent types who judge The Bachelor). Plus, the conservative movement is not cool with adult film in general right now.
I know the two aren't the same concept, but you'd think there'd be at least a little lockstep over this. I mean, NR has more than once had articles about reviving obscenity laws (and obviously pushback articles about how this would cause a purity spiral/quickly be turned against conservatives).
I'm not sure any of these are "extreme" so much as various different flavors, which emphasize different perspectives/opinions on certain issues.