Cool.

  • SeventyTwoTrillion [he/him]
    ·
    edit-2
    3 years ago

    "For the officials, virus control comes first. The people's lives, well-being, and dignity comes much later."

    ...what? I'm confused about what this even means. Virus control is literally about saving people's lives, protecting their physical and mental wellbeing, and preserving their dignity. In the US, how is not controlling the virus protecting people's lives when it kills thousands of people every day? How is not controlling the virus protecting their wellbeing from the disease itself, and long covid? How is not controlling the virus and letting your citizens choke to death on their own lung fluid, dying on the floor in a hospital that's run out of beds, preserving their dignity?

    The only way this makes sense is if you believe that the only reason China is doing virus control is solely because the government just loves doing authoritarian stuff, and the whole "saving people from the virus" thing is just an accidental byproduct, and that byproduct is bad actually because if you let it spread to over a billion people then they'd get herd immunity or something (and of course, if China actually did this and just let it spread, the US would currently be stamping their feet and crying and denouncing the intentional mass genocide of the Chinese populace, so there's nothing they could do in the west's eyes to win).

    I don't understand how an individual who has a functioning brain stem could think this way. The liberal mindset has truly hit rock bottom and is now grabbing the pickaxes to go even further down into utter idiocy.

    • BrookeBaybee [she/her,love/loves]
      ·
      3 years ago

      During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.

    • CrimsonSage [any]
      ·
      3 years ago

      My well being both physical and mental, as well as that of all my friends and family, has deteriorated significantly and we have all be able to avoid COVID so far. Just the constant threat and fear has greatly negatively impacted my life.

    • Dimmer06 [he/him,comrade/them]
      ·
      3 years ago

      No you misunderstand, "the people's lives" is their when they go shopping. If they can't do that then they might as well die.