Now That Trump's President... (not any more!)

Although I'm personally not a fan of the masks. And in the Netherlands we're doing fine without them (they're only mandatory in public transport), the thing I absolutely agree with, is to do what the experts say. Have clear rules based on evidence and apply them. That's the only way to get the population to do what is necessary. With some variation in the outcomes (Sweden? There's a debate there...), it's pretty evident it's clear to put experts center stage during a crisis like this.

I mean, if our experts in the Netherlands would say "wear a mask! they are mandatory!" ....well, I'll basically shut up and do as I'm being told. Even if I personally don't agree, or if what they propose is not perfect. It will never be perfect. We can only solve this by collectively following the experts.

In Trump land, well, experts have become irrelevant and to collectively do as Trump says...euh..yeah.. you might as well jump off a cliff. He doesn't give a F about people. He's only interested in getting re-elected (to keep himself out of potential indictments). So now you have half of the people listening to experts and the rest listening to Trump. A class half filled with idiots is guaranteed to be in a constant state of chaos. 10%/20% would be manageable. More than that? You know the deal.

  On 7/17/2020 at 7:56 AM, goDel said:

Thats a very narrow explanation of what is going on over here in the Netherlands, and in the US.

 

Not really. Schools were closed in a panic, and later it was admitted they shouldn’t have been. Such a vanishingly small number of children gets COVID-19 the risk more than outweighs he problems caused by children not going to school. These problems are the same all over the world: kids get depressed and kids that live in unstable homes are far, far better off at school than at home. These arguments were made in NL, Denmark, the UK and probably elsewhere and they’re the exact same arguments this Trump spokesperson makes.

This is just an illustration of how toxic politics in the US has become: no matter how sensible a position is, it will be vilified and dragged through the mud because the other side has adopted it.

QED.

  On 7/17/2020 at 8:21 AM, rhmilo said:

Not really. Schools were closed in a panic, and later it was admitted they shouldn’t have been. Such a vanishingly small number of children gets COVID-19 the risk more than outweighs he problems caused by children not going to school. These problems are the same all over the world: kids get depressed and kids that live in unstable homes are far, far better off at school than at home. These arguments were made in NL, Denmark, the UK and probably elsewhere and they’re the exact same arguments this Trump spokesperson makes.

This is just an illustration of how toxic politics in the US has become: no matter how sensible a position is, it will be vilified and dragged through the mud because the other side made it.

QED.

Expand  

When it comes to national policies, there's more than just the risk of kids getting COVID19. At that point during the crisis it was a necessary step for a number of reasons. It the height of the crisis the trust of the public was crucial. And the demand to close schools was very strong from all kinds of directions. Even from the medical field. Remember that one of early arguments to keep schools open, was to help nurses and doctors (and other jobs that were defined as crucial) to be able to keep doing their work. So when besides a large part of the population, even the nurses and doctors called to close the schools, the government had to cave in. When the evidence isn't strong, but a large part of the population demands you to do it anyways (similar to why we currently have mandatory face masks in public transport), the better option is to do it. That's because there's plenty of other policies you want the people to follow as well (social distancing, stay home...etc) which are considered more important. If those "weaker" policies help in getting people to do the more important stuff as well, than there's not much of a choice.

When it comes to Corona in the US, I'd rather call Trump toxic. He single-mindedly is responsible for this toxicity, if you ask me. There's an argument for blaming the GOP in Congress as well. But we've past that station with the impeachment procedure, if you ask me. Again, talking specificly about the Corona-response. Ignoring other political subjects.

The US is beyond hope. It's a post-truth society where it's so muddled that to most truth is something unknowable.

  On 7/17/2020 at 9:06 AM, azatoth said:

The US is beyond hope. It's a post-truth society where it's so muddled that to most truth is something unknowable.

Yup. And it's spreading.

  On 7/17/2020 at 9:18 AM, rhmilo said:

Yup. And it's spreading.

This should be the new American flag

It's the decadence of a falling empire. They might go fully nuts and start a World War at some point

It’s called rain

If anyone wants to import some of Britain’s rain, crack on asap

  On 7/17/2020 at 2:28 PM, Rubin Farr said:

It’s called rain

 

Expand  

  On 7/17/2020 at 9:06 AM, azatoth said:

It's a post-truth society where it's so muddled that to most truth is something unknowable.

that's a good way to put it. some thoughts:

• liars accuse those who would call them out as themselves being liars.
• hostile foreign disinformation operations have the objective of disrupting the target's information supply. they sew distrust and confusion.
• the question of which sources of information are more trustworthy is an important one. there are only so many and it's possible for individuals to compare and contrast, in order to learn where and what the spins may be. this is the basic practice that constitutes the solution. not only do you learn the spins, you also learn the mechanisms by which editors and writers of different outlets produce very different stories about the same events. for example, good journalistic practices of citing sources and providing a replicatable process for verifying information may be found in some outlets more than others. also, stories may be authored around such journalistic practices of information lineage, or, alternatively, they may be authored around purposes of presenting a narrative using suggestion and innuendo. the fundamental structure and read of an article is different, depending on whether they are reporting new facts and presenting context around those, or whether they are engaging in battle in the information space and seeking to influence opinions.
• we cannot expect 100% of the population to dig in, that way. we are forced through trial and fire to establish new social norms by which individuals interact with each-other and communicate about journalism, which is newly important because of the changed information environment.
• people in the early 90's didn't know shit about politics and journalism. they were much more distant from it, and had to take what they could get to a much greater extent. world actors knew they had that veil. now, with the internet, the public gets greater access, but also, now they have to sift through the raw material themselves, which was something that the journalistic institutions of the past, functioning as middle-men, had served the purpose of.
• so those conversations with your family members in which you inquire about what news sources they use are actually fatefully important. those discussions do not have a feel of being a societal ritual, because this is a newer social function. but when you are able to be real with someone in a friendly way and help illuminate some aspect of the situation for them, this is an example of the new behaviors that are being evolved by the species as an adaptation to a change in the environment. the responsibility is decentralized. now the individual nodes tend after each-other.
• everyone doesn't have to have an opinion. we need to quash the childish reflex for someone who doesn't analyze news to feel entitled to weigh in. i don't know how but somehow we need to gently explain to these people that they need to either dig in or be quiet. it's not a pointless question like what's your favorite sports team. don't give me an answer if you don't know. say you don't know.

tl:dr: you describe the appearance of the problem well, but it is approachable. humanity cannot allow a post-truth world. we have entered into an era of informaton warfare but it does not have to last forever.

  On 7/17/2020 at 4:19 PM, very honest said:

that's a good way to put it. some thoughts

• people in the early 90's didn't know shit about politics and journalism. they were much more distant from it, and had to take what they could get to a much greater extent. world actors knew they had that veil. now, with the internet, the public gets greater access, but also, now they have to sift through the raw material themselves, which was something that the journalistic institutions of the past, functioning as middle-men, had served the purpose of.

Long post, but this section is complete bollocks.

  On 7/17/2020 at 5:11 PM, cwmbrancity said:

Long post, but this section is complete bollocks.

i was speaking in generalities to make the point of comparing the typical citizen's interaction with news then versus now. maybe i should have described that comparison differently. back then the channels through which one could access info were extremely more limited. there was less access and there was less info available. journalistic institutions had evolved to function as the apparatus of society responsible for news, and they filtered out stuff like russian military disinfo, which now simply gets posted to a blog and retweeted. they provided that fact-checking service, however imperfect. now that we have the direct access, we need to be able to fact-check. that's the point, stated differently.

---

Donald Trump: "I don't like the cdc, they keep saying to wear masks and then not wear them then wear them again. So I've made the choice to pull their access to statistical data. These two things logically follow each other, and what I am saying is definitely the truth, and not an attempt to stop the truth/begin to spread misinformation about the virus from affecting the economy. BTW, White people get coronavirus too....so horrible question. SAD."

  On 7/17/2020 at 8:20 PM, ghsotword said:

Expand  

  On 7/17/2020 at 1:24 PM, Rubin Farr said:

This should be the new American flag

Expand  

Nah, it's missing a "don't" right after "you". Then it'll be just right. 

Not that this needs evidence, but just a couple days ago: https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/07/09/889356233/stop-getting-tested-ohio-politician-tells-constituents 

  On 7/17/2020 at 1:24 PM, Rubin Farr said:

This should be the new American flag

Expand  

I agree

for those keeping up with trump's accomplishments, you can now add 'ultimate book of the month club' member despite having a "low life dummy" and "war-mongering fool" as a consultant

What a loser, I have never had anyone violate an NDA on me.

Big strong man goes to complain on twitter for the nth time.

so uh

this looks like provocation... and to what ends?

Trump has been messaging about taking over cities with higher crime rates.

Fox falsely portrays BLM protests as "rioters." it was only really the first weekend, back in may, when rioting as an organic part of the protests occurred.  after the first week or so the statistics would show that 99% of protests were completely peaceful, and whatever incidents existed in the remaining 1% could typically be attributed to infiltrators, provocateurs and opportunists, who are distinct from the protestors. really, it seems more like it would round to 100% of the protests were peaceful, after that first week or two, yet fox never stopped talking about rioters and violent thugs in the cities...

we saw trump conferring with pence, esper, and barr about invocation of the insurrection act, which would allow an unchecked martial law situation. we saw trump, during that first week of protests, trying to inflame unrest with antagonistic public statements.

as the BLM movement has tempered, organized, and protests have decreased, we now see barr deploying secret police and abducting protestors

the next day portland protests swelled in size. are they trying to stoke unrest, while simultaneously establishing a secret police?

trump outrage plays into their hands. people need to play things smart and keep an eye on the others.