Coronavirus and Living at Home (Isolated) General Info and Advice

[The Nameless Pirate]

True, it goes both ways really.

It is very possible that they too are distracted from what really matters.

 

[Cerez]

Except it could also be that the politicians themselves are distracted now.

Some are confused. Others are using this chaos and public confusion to their advantage. One big political gain from all this is that they can blame anything on the virus and the confusion surrounding it, as well as use that as a distraction from real social issues -- as they have been doing so far, for all these years, but this makes it so much easier.

We just had an important Black Lives Matter rally stopped and fined by police in Australia because of a racist politician who decided not to allow it for supposed health concerns, while he allows for crowds of people to gather for football matches in his state. Apparently there are no health concerns with that.

 

[The Nameless Pirate]

We just had an important Black Lives Matter rally stopped and fined by police in Australia because of a racist politician who decided not to allow it for supposed health concerns, while he allows for crowds of people to gather for football matches in his state. Apparently there are no health concerns with that.

Yep, football matches do not pose a health concern.
Plus it brings money.

(Obviously I wasn't serious.)

 

[Pieter Boelen]

Some are confused. Others are using this chaos and public confusion to their advantage.

Could very well be.
But with all the unpredictable randomness now; things could also turn around and bite 'em in the ass.

We just had an important Black Lives Matter rally stopped and fined by police in Australia because of a racist politician who decided not to allow it for supposed health concerns, while he allows for crowds of people to gather for football matches in his state. Apparently there are no health concerns with that.

Hypocrisy; a thing as old as humanity itself.
Don't you just love it?

No?
Me neither.

In NL we did have some socially distant Black Lives rally in Amsterdam.
Thankfully that seems to have gone fine.

But then there were the hooligans from throughout the country coming to stir up trouble here in town; of all places.
Plenty of police showed up.
I believe some arrests were made.

One of these seems different from the other...

 

[Cerez]

Here, after they declined to permit the rally to happen when the organisers politely and dutifully asked for council permission, despite the fact that the organisers responsibly made every precaution and effort to create a safe rally (with social distancing, free masks, and free hand sanitisers), the police arrested the head organiser and fined him $2000 for going ahead with the rally anyway -- which he publically stated in the news he would, because this is a very important social issue (violence and racism against Australian Aboriginal people is still widespread here, similar to the situation with African-Americans in the USA -- or, actually, in many ways worse).

So much for decency in government. Citizens do everything to follow the rules, and they're not allowed to speak up on serious social issues.

 

[Cerez]

But with all the unpredictable randomness now; things could also turn around and bite 'em in the ass.

Social chaos always benefits those who actively seek power. They are more than ready to take big risks in the hope that it pays off and they elevate themselves in social status.

While the responsible leaders are struggling with restoring the balance and making sense of things, the selfish and irresponsible leaders are actively looking for cracks, for opportunities to prosper, to gain power and influence.

This is why after every social chaos horrid leaders come to power.

War and chaos serves only immoral, imbalanced and selfish opportunists.

 

[Pieter Boelen]

This is why after every social chaos horrid leaders come to power.

After EVERY one?
I surely hope not.
There must be at least some exceptions; right?

War and chaos serves only immoral, imbalanced and selfish opportunists.

It sure doesn't serve anyone else; that's much is certain!
It's a sucky business altogether.

 

[Cerez]

After EVERY one?
I surely hope not.
There must be at least some exceptions; right?

:/ Not really...

It tends to follow. Anarchy gives power to those who are willing to step over others to seek it. Even in a time of law and order, and peace, they are constantly trying to undermine the system and twist the rules. When the rules fall apart, they get free reign to do as they please.

Throughout history, the pattern is usually corrupt leadership (working for its own interests instead of the people it represents) leading to social chaos leading to anarchy leading to even more corrupt new leadership taking power (despotism) leading to an overthrow of the government by the suffering people (revolution) leading to the re-establishment of a more democratic system that represents the interests of the people. Then the people grow complacent, the leaders grow more selfish and corrupt, and the cycle repeats as generations turn.

At least that's what they taught me in history class, and that's the pattern I've seen ever since researching history.

It sure doesn't serve anyone else; that's much is certain!
It's a sucky business altogether.

Sure is... very, very sucky... But it's reality.

Not all people are good and want to help others. Some would rather stuff their own pockets and turn the other way when passing by the suffering they've caused -- or even worse: look directly at it and revel in it.

 

[Pieter Boelen]

It tends to follow. Anarchy gives power to those who are willing to step over others to seek it. Even in a time of law and order, and peace, they are constantly trying to undermine the system and twist the rules. When the rules fall apart, they get free reign to do as they please.

But... but... but...
FREEDOM!!!

Rules stand in the way of freedom, you know.
And freedom is the most important thing; far beyond anything else.

Sorry, that was sarcasm.
I'm paraphrasing what I understand from certain creepy sentiments I've been seeing in the world these days.

Throughout history, the pattern is usually corrupt leadership (working for its own interests instead of the people it represents) leading to social chaos leading to anarchy leading to even more corrupt new leadership taking power (despotism) leading to an overthrow of the government by the suffering people (revolution) leading to the re-establishment of a more democratic system that represents the interests of the people. Then the people grow complacent, the leaders grow more selfish and corrupt, and the cycle repeats as generations turn.

At least that's what they taught me in history class, and that's the pattern I've seen ever since researching history.

That sounds uncomfortably sensible.
Dear FSM; will we EVER learn???

Not all people are good and want to help others. Some would rather stuff their own pockets and turn the other way when passing by the suffering they've caused -- or even worse: look directly at it and revel in it.

Or they don't even (want to?) realise that they have any hand in the suffering
Or cannot see that there is even suffering in the first place.

I find it hard to believe that most people are actively evil. Not even passively evil.
They're just... passive altogether.

 

[Cerez]

Sorry, that was sarcasm.
I'm paraphrasing what I understand from certain creepy sentiments I've been seeing in the world these days.

Good you said that. I was about to take you seriously.

The balance is actually a lot more important than freedom. Freedom of choice means nothing if people's basic human needs are not being met. True freedom is having everyone's human needs met. In such a system, even if it had very strict rules, all people would feel free to do as they will. But such a social system would not require strict rules, because no-one would be seeking to abolish them. Doing so they would be undemining their own freedom.

I find it hard to believe that most people are actively evil. Not even passively evil.
They're just... passive altogether.

Most people are not "evil" by nature -- they are willingly complacent. But a few, imbalanced people have no sense for morality, or actively suppress their sense for morality. These people usually end up seeking positions of power in human society, and leading others.

This is not to say that everyone with ASPD is necessarily a bad person -- but most pose a danger to society. (Even a good person with ASPD will tell you that.)

And, unfortunately, this is the one thing that is still hardest to monitor and control/regulate in human society -- partly exactly because these people are often the ones in positions of social status/power. They have more reason/drive to be there than anyone else.