## The Long-Term Consequences of Covid-19

• 262
and the next generation will be known as the virus boomers

We're gonna have another wave of boomers? :groan:
• 262
Nature has made a comeback and is shining again with vigorous force.
• 262
I just hope china doesn't get more global influence from this. My job depends on English speaking countries holding the power
• 4.4k
We're gonna have another wave of boomers? :groan:Evil

Well we can't do the DIY because the hardware stores are shut, and we can't afford the heating 'coz we got no work, so what do you think we're all going to do all day?
• 412
I mean, I agree in one sense: nobody, especially wealthy politicians with a big stake in the economy, wants the shutdowns to go on.

That being said, legislation that would ordinarily provoke an outcry can pass without note right now because of the coronavirus. Politicians can, and will, take advantage of it while it lasts.
• 262
so what do you think we're all going to do all day?

Watch old reruns on UK Gold?
• 262
I went to the park today and the birds thought they were in charge
• 4.4k
• 556
I just hope china doesn't get more global influence from this. My job depends on English speaking countries holding the powerEvil

I so much hope that this is a wake-up call for the globalists and the start of some de-coupling from the PRC.
• 2.2k
I agree. I do agree, with almost all of that. Through and through. But, jesus, there's something to this sort of thing that reminds me of a subselection of biblilical prophets. Yes, it's bad, really bad! But who is this complaint being lodged to??? It seems like a moral complaint, which it is, and which is legiimate - but what court is hearing it? There's no god, as with the prophets, so ---- who is this addressed to?

I'm not content to smolder in the face of capitalism. how do we use this fuck you energy in a way that isnt a forum fuck you? I mean this. People are really coming together now. How to use it?
• 1.4k
Just as only Nixon could go to China, only Trump could bring socialism to the US. Historians will note the irony.
• 1.2k
The speed of travel, finance and communication has been increasing for 4000 years. So no, I don't consider the advent of internet revolutionary at all.

The gutenberg printing press and also paper and stone (writing) tablets changes things alot. Shouldn't we think a giant database of good and bad information at our finger tips would change things alot?
• 1.4k
Rationality's a fraud.
— fishfry
Rationality is a tool, and like all tools it is only well-suited for certain purposes. It can get you from a set of premisses to necessary conclusions, but it cannot stipulate those initial assumptions. That goes for both theoretical and practical rationality--if you want to achieve X, rationality can help you identify means to that end, but it cannot specify X itself; that requires a deliberate choice on your part.

It's often been a tool of powerful to suppress the powerless. Lately I'm coming to understand what I take to be this postmodernist point of view. The suspicion of rationality itself. Standards and objectivity as tools of oppression. Too often we see logic and rationality used to justify the worst acts. "We're only following procedures." In a sense rationality is opposed to putting people first. So it's not neutral. It can be judged as sometimes a negative force in the world. Every time a bureaucrat wags his finger at you while picking your pocket, you're being mugged by rationality.
• 1.4k
But why do good neighbors need a fence in the first place? The whole notion seems contradictory to me.

If that's been your personal experience I can't tell you otherwise. I have no idea what to say to someone who doesn't believe in fences or boundaries or whatever you're not believing in. This is my side, this is your side. People learn that in nursery school.
• 1.3k
Lately I'm coming to understand what I take to be this postmodernist point of view. The suspicion of rationality itself.
It is not rationality in general that is problematic, but the distinctly modern dominance of technical rationality, which is now widely treated as if it were the only legitimate form. If you are interested, I wrote three one-page columns about this for a structural engineering magazine several years ago: "Knowledge, Rationality, and Judgment" (here); "The Rationality of Practice" (here); and "Rationality and Judgment Revisited" (here). They all include suggestions for further reading.
• 1.4k
It is not rationality in general that is problematic, but the distinctly modern dominance of technical rationality, which is now widely treated as if it were the only legitimate form.

Good distinction! The technocrats.

If you are interested, I wrote three one-page columns about this for a structural engineering magazine several years ago: "Knowledge, Rationality, and Judgment" (here); "The Rationality of Practice" (here); and "Rationality and Judgment Revisited" (here). They all include suggestions for further reading.

I will check those out. Thanks.
• 4k
I'm not content to smolder in the face of capitalism. how do we use this fuck you energy in a way that isnt a forum fuck you? I mean this. People are really coming together now. How to use it?

What is the end goal of coming together? The ancient Israelites more-or-less adopted Mosaic Law (probably cobbled together from older oral traditions and some possible writings into a five book written Torah), when they reconstructed Judaism during Second Temple period under Ezra-Nehemiah leadership. What is the equivalent here? What is the Kumbaya aim? World peace? Better health care system? More social safety nets? Better environmental protections? The world acknowledging the absurdity of life ala Schopenhauer or Cioran (oh wait, that's my own pet project :lol: )?
• 2.7k
start a political party.
• 4.9k
I'm not content to smolder in the face of capitalism. how do we use this fuck you energy in a way that isnt a forum fuck you? I mean this. People are really coming together now. How to use it?

You're always asking for personal solutions to transpersonal problems. I don't have any answers for you. I don't have any answers for any particular people, and I am in no position to offer them. Here I just normalize a certain discourse, make it stock standard and create an atmosphere - make the obvious unobvious and the unobvious obvious. You do whatever you want or can.
• 2.4k
Just as only Nixon could go to China, only Trump could bring socialism to the US. Historians will note the irony.
So it goes. I bet many historians will smile when telling this story.

Of course, it's going to be marketed only as "socialism for the rich". Remember the half trillion slush fund Trump is going to personally administer? That's the way it's going to be marketed by the opposition.
• 2.2k
You're always asking for personal solutions to transpersonal problems. I don't have any answers for you. I don't have any answers for any particular people, and I am in no position to offer them. Here I just normalize a certain discourse, make it stock standard and create an atmosphere - make the obvious unobvious and the unobvious obvious. You do whatever you want or can.

Fair enough, I don't think I disagree with most of what you've said in this thread, factually. I just tire of the viewpoint/approach, which feels like a passive attack on power, a report filed. I don't think it's helpful now, and things about the temporalty of capitalism etc - it seems to be a vestige of pre-all-this. I'll leave it there.
• 2k
It won’t change much once things settle down. It will happen again but the difference is we’ll be prepared. South Korea handled this well because they’ve had to deal with other diseases the past couple of decades.

The warning signs were there, but humans being humans didn’t really take them too seriously as they were ‘somewhere else’.

Found a good talk by Bill Gates. Will post in a minute ...
• 262
120mins later...
• 2k
Haha! Got a little distracted :)

• 1.4k
So it goes. I bet many historians will smile when telling this story.

Of course, it's going to be marketed only as "socialism for the rich". Remember the half trillion slush fund Trump is going to personally administer? That's the way it's going to be marketed by the opposition.
ssu

I don't think the historians will have too long to wait. This ship's going down.

This bailout is 2008 on steroids. It's truly obscene. Bailouts for the banks. Bailouts for the airlines. A bailout for Boeing, which was undergoing a major corporate crisis due entirely to their own greed and incompetence. It's not just bailing out the rich. It's bailing out the stupid, corrupt, and greedy rich. That's not capitalism. Capitalism would be letting every single one of those companies fail. They should have let the banks fail in 2008. That's how capitalism is supposed to work. Stupid, greedy companies that are poor stewards of resources should be allowed to fail so that those resources can flow to more capable (and, one hopes, more decent) hands.

No wonder the kids are angry. This week I'm with Bernie. Except that he voted for the bill. Some socialist hero. He likes to give speeches with his talking points that haven't changed for 40 years but he's no fighter.

We're doomed. $1200 for all the bartenders and waitstaff and the people who run little jewelry shops and everything else. All the wonderful breakfast places in my little town shut down. What are the owners and workers supposed to do with$1200? But if you're Boeing -- you get bailed out.

Trump had to sign it, what could he do? A lot of times he gets captured by the forces he was elected to fight. He looks like a hero though. Everyone loves the bill except AOC and me. I'm with AOC this week, she gave a furious speech against it.

Check out this clip. I almost never agree with her but on this deal I do.

• 8.6k
bailout for Boeing

My understanding is that Boeing turned the money down, because the string attached was a government stake in the company. It's bad enough for them, I guess, to deal with the FAA without having to deal with Treasury Department. Nationalize the SOBs.
• 1.4k
My understanding is that Boeing turned the money down, because the string attached was a government stake in the company. It's bad enough for them, I guess, to deal with the FAA without having to deal with Treasury Department. Nationalize the SOBs.

Oh did they? That's good. I don't think it's a good idea for the government to have a direct stake in companies. Bad enough the Fed's buying corporate debt (as I understand it).
• 4.9k
It's bailing out the stupid, corrupt, and greedy rich. That's not capitalism.

Ah but comrade Fishfry, it is capitalism, always has been, always will be. Same thing happened in 2008. Same thing will happen after the next, inevitable financial crisis. This isn't socialism for the rich. This is just how things have always worked in the normal run of capitalism from time dot.
• 2.4k

StreetlightX, for you capitalism is simply everything wrong ever in our society.
• 4.9k
That's not true sometimes people are stupid and think otherwise - that's not necessarily capitalism's fault.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal