JuliusGoat

JuliusGoat, 12 days ago

Let’s pretend it’s deadly. Let’s say it’s a novel new strain of an old structure that we’ve known about for a long time.

Let’s imagine that one reason this virus spreads so effectively is because a large number of people who get it are asymptomatic.

JuliusGoat, 12 days ago

Next, let’s pretend it’s discovered that the best way of containing such a virus is for everybody to agree, for the sake of those who are most vulnerable, to accept some inconvenience. Maybe wear a slightly uncomfortable face covering, or avoid travel when infection is high.

JuliusGoat, 12 days ago

We might dare hope that in time the virus in our story would be defeated. But, even though the virus would seem to be gone, it would invariably (if we didn’t stay mindful of it), return in ways that would affect us all—because viruses mutate, grow, change, and eventually evolve.

JuliusGoat, 12 days ago

In this story, any society that was wise and knowledgeable would invest in vigilant systems to monitor and guard against outbreaks—would commit, in other words, to knowing as much as possible about viruses in general, and then on spending what it costs to combat and contain them.

JuliusGoat, 12 days ago

But, in our story, there’s a country that, despite vast resources, chooses to ignore the virus.

Can you imagine this? Millions of people who oppose the remedy on the basis of cost, or who choose ignorance about remedy rather than remedy itself?

Can you imagine millions of people, all framing their decision about a systemic virus exclusively along lines of personal individual risk and intention and freedom, demanding proofs of things already known, then refusing the proofs when they are given?

JuliusGoat, 12 days ago

And let’s pretend that in this society there exists a well-funded media infrastructure fully committed to validating the choices of these deliberately ignorant people, and increasing their ignorance by broadcasting further disinformation, false equivalencies, and outright lies.

JuliusGoat, 12 days ago

Or, try this: Imagine a government that decided only to fight the virus to the extent that capital was protected, and, outside of those bounds, would simply exercise a practiced ignorance, or else claim the virus was simply a part of the immutable unchangeable way things now are.

JuliusGoat, 12 days ago

Before long you might decide that such a society was committed, as a first priority, to ignorance of things already known. Before long you might even have to conclude such people had aligned themselves with the spread of the virus, no matter their stated intents.

JuliusGoat, 12 days ago

In our story, these people didn’t align themselves with the spread of the virus primarily by actively and deliberately spreading it. They aligned themselves with it by simply refusing to know things that are already known.

They refused to know things already known because they didn’t want to accept the responsibility that came with knowledge, because they were intent on avoiding any inconvenience or cost that might come with that responsibility.

JuliusGoat, 12 days ago

I hope this totally hypothetical scenario isn’t too divorced from everyone’s recent experiences to be relatable.

End of story one.

JuliusGoat, 12 days ago

Story two: let’s pretend there’s a disease called “cancer,” and that there’s a person who has it. Let’s say it’s been growing in this person’s body, stealthy and invisible, for long months and years.

Let’s say it’s only made certain localized parts of the body less comfortable as it grew—twinges and aches that in retrospect might have been considered warnings to heed. Now let’s say that for the first time there is an unignorable visible sign; a tumor grown too large to miss.

JuliusGoat, 12 days ago

Let’s imagine a doctor who runs some tests. She prescribes immediate surgery to remove all affected tissue, an aggressive campaign of medication and treatment, frequent testing, and a radical change to diet, exercise, and environment.

JuliusGoat, 12 days ago

Now: Imagine a patient who ignores all symptoms and refuses all the tests. You’d have to assume that—for whatever reason—they don’t want to know the frightening truth. Yes?

Or imagine our patient refuses the treatment, because in their estimation the treatment is too radical.

JuliusGoat, 12 days ago

You’d have to assume the patient had decided, for whatever reason, that the treatment was no longer worth the pain or the cost; that they’d decided instead (as some do) to let matters progress on the established course, with the fatal consequences that choice entails.

Correct?

JuliusGoat, 12 days ago

But now imagine our patient accepts the initial surgery, but refuses the lifestyle changes. You’d have to assume they’d decided that the likelihood of a recurrence wasn’t worth the effort to prevent it, or had deluded themselves that am obvious risk wasn't really a risk.

JuliusGoat, 12 days ago

Imagine our patient makes these decisions not from a difficult-but-clear decision that the fight is not worth the pain of treatment or the cost of change, but because they have decided to imagine—despite any evidence—that the fight can be won without incurring any cost.

JuliusGoat, 12 days ago

Imagine our patient insists that diet and environment don’t affect risk factors for recurrence of cancer, or insists that their body isn’t a system—that what’s happening in one organ in the abdomen can’t possibly affect any other part of the body.

JuliusGoat, 13 days ago

Folks for a few shining hours last week VERY FINE PEOPLE was beating Kristi Noem's book about shooting puppies (only the audiobook version but still) in the Politics & Opinion ranking, and I fully believe that if we can trick the RNC into buying 7 pallets of it we can get it there again.

JuliusGoat, 12 days ago

Yes it’s hard not to check this sort of thing obsessively but hey-o even if temporary this is pretty cool and thanks to those who helped do it.

JuliusGoat, 12 days ago

@dgoldsmith working on it