COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

[Mark Rippetoe]

I think in Manitoba and New Brunswick, they're allowing one household to interact with one and only one other household. ...... And yes, I don't do it. Not because I'm a thoughtless sheep, but because I don't think the threshold for breaking the law, in my particular situation, has been met.

Allowing. This is very difficult to believe. But if you have actually behaved in this shameful way -- denied the comfort of your dubious company to a woman and her children that love you merely because a poorly constructed government edict prohibits it -- then I am deeply embarrassed for you. A 10-year-old kid wants to hug you on her birthday, and you dare not let her for fear of breaking a fucking law? Words cannot express my contempt for this cowardly behavior. I always knew you were odd, but this is sickening. She needs a better boyfriend, and the child certainly needs a better adult role model.

You will be useful to the new government, and you will never be without employment, because you are obedient above all else, and governments require this.

[RKC]

Rip, I get that society is being wronged by government, and that change has to happen. And that this thread, among many things, serves as a support group for those of us who feel that way.

I'm fortunate enough to work for a company that provides what is considered an essential service (I work in water utilities). My financial future is not in utter chaos right now, and I have not yet had to bear the burden of that deep gnawing anxiety that comes with an uncertain economic future. I have not had a business that I have poured my soul into for decades perish in an instant, and frankly it's horrifying to imagine that happening.

But I've got a bit of skin in the game. I have not been able to hold my girlfriend, or hug her kids for months now, and it's painful to see a kid in tears because she can't hug you on her 10th birthday.

I also think that, while those measures may have been justified a few weeks ago, at least in my city, they are rapidly approaching the point where they are becoming an unjustified violation of society.

And one a right, and perhaps a moral duty, to react.

Some may choose to do it through forceful resistance. In some cases, I think that this is justified. I don't think that the current situation rises to that threshold, at least not in North America. As always, I'm happy to discuss why I believe this, and I remain open minded. And to be clear, I believe this regardless of what the constitution says. We cannot confuse laws for moral bedrock.

My own mode of action is to seek, develop, and spread ideas that I think have a good chance of improving things. And yes, these ideas cannot be only about the virus. The virus is but one element in this whole affair.

I also get that it's not just about the distancing - it's also about that it's enforced, rather than requested, or advised.

But learning about the virus is still important, and it's not easy to do. This thread has had some excellent technical contributions that serve to really inform. And that's powerful. Because if it's true that we ought to be loosening restrictions, one of the reasons it is true is because the threat of the virus is outweighed by the harms and risks of lockdown. And to understand the threat of the virus, one has to learn as much as possible about it. Doing so allows a convincing case to be made to those in your community (online and offline) who can then share and spread these ideas.

And one should not be vilified for not having skin in the game. We are not always responsible for our suffering, be it its presence or its absence.

I'm posting here under the assumption that this thread is not exclusively a support group.

You’re exactly what the powers that be are looking for. You say you love someone, but for the greater good you’ll withhold your love.

You should be on a poster trying on a new pair of Jack Boots. With the slogan “sacrifices have to be made, after all we’re all in this together”!

My freakin’ hell...

[spacediver]

Allowing. This is very difficult to believe. But if you have actually behaved in this shameful way -- denied the comfort of your dubious company to a woman and her children that love you merely because a poorly constructed government edict prohibits it -- then I am deeply embarrassed for you. A 10-year-old kid wants to hug you on her birthday, and you dare not let her for fear of breaking a fucking law? Words cannot express my contempt for this cowardly behavior. I always knew you were odd, but this is sickening. She needs a better boyfriend, and the child certainly needs a better adult role model.

You will be useful to the new government, and you will never be without employment, because you are obedient above all else, and governments require this.

You're making a lot of assumptions here, Rip. And you do not know enough about my situation (much of which I will not divulge here out of respect for others), nor about my thought processes to judge my behaviour.

[Mark Rippetoe]

I haven't assumed a goddamn thing. Your statement that you'd rather obey the government than love your family indicates that you would have fit in nicely in any of the 20th century's most egregious hellholes. I don't have to judge your behavior -- history already has.

[spacediver]

I haven't assumed a goddamn thing. Your statement that you'd rather obey the government than love your family indicates that you would have fit in nicely in any of the 20th century's most egregious hellholes. I don't have to judge your behavior -- history already has.

Cowardice involves failing to do what one believes to be the right thing, out of fear of consequences to oneself (e.g. judgment, punishment, injury, etc.)

If my girlfriend and I were to make the decision to violate the law, it would only be just under the following conditions:

1) That everyone in our situation, in my city, could also violate the law, without putting undue risk on the wellbeing of others (there are many people in these kids' lives who they would love to hug, and many kids in their neighbourhood who have people in their lives they would love to hug, and many couples in this city who would love not to be physically separated).

2) That the government had exceeded its grace period for action in the case that the first condition holds.

If 1) is not met, then violating the law is selfish. And one better be damn sure when making the assessment that 1) is indeed met. The bar should be high enough that you'd be willing to look a child in the eye and tell them that it was the right thing to do to break the law in this situation.

If and when both of these conditions are met, you can be damn sure I'll be breaking the law and encouraging others to do the same.

[David A. Rowe]

The craziest thing about this isn't what's to come, anymore. What's already happened has been surreal, but it's over and done with for all intents and purposes. It's the odd quiet right now. A sickly stillness. I don't really have any friends around here who aren't veterans, and we're all in the same boat. Deeply disappointed in the country for its inaction, and anxious to get on with whatever is next. Not one is mad.

It's kind of like stand-by on QRF. You wish a TIC would pop off so you could do something. Maybe that's why I've been craving cigarettes lately.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Cowardice involves failing to do what one believes to be the right thing, out of fear of consequences to oneself (e.g. judgment, punishment, injury, etc.)

If my girlfriend and I were to make the decision to violate the law, it would only be just under the following conditions:

1) That everyone in our situation, in my city, could also violate the law, without putting undue risk on the wellbeing of others (there are many people in these kids' lives who they would love to hug, and many kids in their neighbourhood who have people in their lives they would love to hug, and many couples in this city who would love not to be physically separated).

2) That the government had exceeded its grace period for action in the case that the first condition holds.

If 1) is not met, then violating the law is selfish. And one better be damn sure when making the assessment that 1) is indeed met. The bar should be high enough that you'd be willing to look a child in the eye and tell them that it was the right thing to do to break the law in this situation.

If and when both of these conditions are met, you can be damn sure I'll be breaking the law and encouraging others to do the same.

I have run out of words.

[Frank_B]

You're making a lot of assumptions here, Rip.

In your opinion, what is a tenable timeframe for which you’re willing to accept this “for the greater good?” 2-3 months? A year? 10 years? Surely there is a line the government could cross by which you might say, “That’s too much. Fuck them!”

Where is that line?

[Nicholas Laureys]

Spacediver has just confirmed my theory, dammit.
Albeit for Canada and not our America, but Westerners will be Westerners.
So as I said, the people in the "rougher" regimes, like Russia (maybe China, too?) will not violate the illegal voluntary involuntary curfew out of fear of a (likely) brutal response, while in the West, we are too fearful, PC, and dumb to violate our masters' illegal laws.

More data on my theory that the lesson of this illegality is to moveoneself as far away as possible from cities and these decrepit institutions, maintaing at least the protection from threat of foreign invasion that their armies provide:
The wife, SiL, and kids went shopping downtown (in this city in the regions), and unlike in our local grocery stores, there the security guards forced her to put on a mask to shop. She pushed back, asking if he'd be her "sugar daddy" and buy them all masks since she had no cash, and the man bought only her (wifey) one; this was the only way he'd let them shop.
I had seen that video of SJW women (in London??) taking off their panties and stockings them on like masks to comply with the illegal law, and asked the SiL and wife if they could've done something snarky like this, instead, or simply ignored the security guard's orders.
Both looked at me incredulously and explained that they would just have expected to have been arrested and/or hauled off to jail for such cutesy snark.
So, as I said, the Russians expect a harsh authoritarian hammer for disobedience, while we Westerners are just...comfortable with being violated??

Spacediver, in this situation, in Canada, would you have put on a mask, or pushed back at least a little?


A little off topic, but I'm curious, since, as I said, I'm late to y'all's party....has anyone discussed how curious it is the so many of the Middle Eastern and various other second- and third-world countries haven't instituted these involuntary voluntary curfew laws? What does that imply about the "dangerousness" of this new SARS flu strain?

[Yngvi]

I am most likely going to close up shop, take what savings I have, and move out of my home state, hopefully to a place that values freedom and start all over. The bureaucrats have pushed me to the point of leaving behind my friends, family, and a business that I built from nothing several years ago. Incredibly upsetting.

Most of us would welcome you in our states... but, where do we run when there is nowhere left to go? There are many more of them than there are of us.

In the event they are unable to displace, then outvote us, they will open the borders again until they can. They do not respect the constitution. They are not bound by the ethical rules of engagement that we are. They do not respect U.S. law, tradition or freedom. And they just plain do not like you.

I don't think anybody else had any trouble understanding it, new guy.

Careful Rip. Remember that freedom of speech is no longer respected and your words will deliberately be misconstrued or misstated to prosecute you, if at all possible.

Hiring, Blind Compliance, and dysfunctional leadership.
Have you ever been passed over for a job? A Promotion? Or served on a hiring committee where the “best” person was not chosen?
Political correctness, in the corporate and vast civil service, gives favor to diversity over strict qualification. This may explain some of the current dysfunction. We all know that. But more insightful is that we favor those that exhibit risk aversion. People that follow rules over those that break rules. Compliance enforcers over innovators. The embracers of consensus over individual accountability.

From what I have seen, the data actually suggest that the top-tier candidates almost never will get hired. I will try to dig up the articles/data if you are interested.

Why have you not been able to hold your girlfriend and her kids?

You're making a lot of assumptions here, Rip. And you do not know enough about my situation (much of which I will not divulge here out of respect for others), nor about my thought processes to judge my behaviour.

I am having trouble understanding if the problem is autism, prefrontal cortex lobotomy or this: Coronavirus May Be Found in Semen, Researchers Report - The New York Times