The government is not really a thinking body. Individuals think, but far less so when their livelihood, day to day operations and mode of achieving success requires very specific time scales. Our leaders are not scientifically literate, nor do they have experience with the entire range of possible threats. In most cases, their experience with biological threats has been rather low - many of them are raised in families and communities who don't just value public office, but have the resources to be able to think about pursuing occupations which aren't essential for basic survival. That is to say, they aren't food industry or infrastructure jobs - they are about governance, social commentary, social engineering, philosophical pursuit and management from a more abstracted, macro level.

To be able to think about these things, one must have sufficient resources to not be as concerned about basic survival, such as feeding onself. Thus, is it any surprise that some of them might overreact to a threat, especially given the pressure of consolidating an elevated need to avoid making mistakes, given the critical nature of the potential threat, with making decisions that have a high probability of falling within a range of normalcy. That it falls within a range of normalcy is important, as, given the murky outlook into such unfamiliar and grave events, the risk of inviting criticism is more pronounced than usual for any behaviour which falls too close to the edges of potential behaviours. If anyone decides to provide a heavily-weighted response to the threat, then they can immediately decry anyone with a lesser response as "not doing enough" for the benefit of those for whom they are accountable. This quickly escalates to a war of condemnation, and no politician is interested in allowing their reputation to suffer

Hypocrisy

For years, now, I've listened to rhetoric from intelligent individuals who denounce and condemn the corporations for infringing on privacy, all the while demanding that legislation is created and passed for the purpose of preserving and ensuring privacy rights for citizens. In doing so, they've also always been making the case that government oversight and power has to grow, to ensure that it has the means by which to administer "new rights" in the face of corporate monopolies, and technological change.

In light of Covid

What can we say about the mode of unthinkingness currently inhabiting the manner of conduct of all politicians at this time. There might be exceptions, but even those who are seem to be, or are at least posing to be, fighting for the minimally reasonably changes that we so urgently require at this time are not acting in any way especially befitting a representative of people, or even of reason. It would seem that there's always some short term gain to be made, even in the fight towards what might be regarded as good things. How much do we impede the natural inclination for one to actually be in touch with their values, their unfiltered values that would drive them towards an opinion of some kind, regardless of their status as a politician? How much is this hindered by the necessity of the electoral process, or the short duration of the types of roles within which they operate? Of course their roles change, and mature, and likely have a linear aspect to them, like in other domains, in spite of the concept of the smaller range of durations for which the most remarkable or spoken of positions are constrained? Yes, these are run on sentences, but it's a run on time and I guess it's affecting us all.

As we go on about this subject, it's important to mention that as time goes on, the information that we are exposed to seems less and less clear. It doesn't become easier to understand, because even the most basic original assumptions for which we expected to see some clear confirmation within a few months, even these things are less perceptible and contaminated with the most toxic and exhaustively nonsensical discourse one could never imagine. This has been going on for the entire history of mankind, or biological organisms, as far as one can decipher at this time, but no matter how long it has gone on, any normal human being that has at least a dimwit's intelligence and some degree of experience interacting with the technological implements of this day can attest to the fact that the discourse and the methodology expected in such discourse has dwindled in quality and wilted to the point of being a satirical farce. The normal mechanisms which would normally allow for the continuation of a conversation, in spite of discomforts which are normally expected in conflict of opinion, even these normal mechanisms have disappeared, it seems, whereas I believe there was a time when both actors would utilize them to keep moving towards a resolution. After a time, it was only one of the actors, and now neither actor wishes to do more than simply demonstrate their superiority of insight, or maybe it's something a bit different. Perhaps it's the pain of leaving one's worldview. So much morality has been programmed into them through the various aforementioned implements, and they've brought us to the point where to break from the view would lead one to a choatic path of self dissolution and deranged lunacy. No one is able to contend with that for too much time, and that it is constant and from so many concurrent sources just causes everyone to refrain, abstain and retract or rescind themselves and their previous expectations. There are fewer expectations in terms of a standard of what needs to be fulfilled in order for the discourse or exchange to be valuable or even healthy. It's not about that at all anymore - now it's somethign more akin to the expectation of failure. Why must that be so? It's not with everyone, and each of us likely have enough interaction, perhaps within one another's tribe, for which the exchange maintains many oft hese things. But I would wager that even these connections are affected and are likely not fulfilling the minimal standard one would have expected a few years ago from even normal strangers. Is that going too far? I'm speaking in general terms, there are still great moments between friends, and the relationships which have kept themselves going throughout the lockdown are probably working out quite well. People seem to be knit closely in their family groups, and it's liekyl that most of the groups which we do see going outside to the park, or in pbulic at all, are families. It's crazy that everyone has beeen split into their families, and in some cases this has caused families to split apart.

Families split apart

Did the government realize that splitting families might be a consequence of putting them together in close quarters for so long? When, already, there has been growing political divide even within families, and that the joke of every festive season always has something to do with division and distancing, or conflict of any kind, between those that do and do not approve of Donald Trump. This has become ridiculous for quite some time, now, but certainly this is not something which onyl selective persons are connecting it to their own lives. If politics in particular is dividing families, and politicians have families and are necessarily more interested or at least active with the consumption of political information and opinion, then certainly it can be expected that they would be somewhat aware of the likelihood that constraining persons to close and constant contact with their own families might even cause them to become more broken and divided. Perhaps this is a stupid theory, but it can certainly be reviewed.

Abolish the what?

Yes, even politicians themselves are calling for the abolishment of all sorts of things, so long as it happens to be uttered on social media and enough people are able to connect with the idea for some reason or another. In most cases, the ideas themselves are never even proven with any clarity, just with an assumption that since this declaration has been made, it must follow that you understand that its implications symbolize the benefit for one "side" or the other, and that you must participate and make your selection clear, in tandem with your tribal affilitation of course. There's no scrutiny or development/refinement of understanding of the matter. There are no shared insights through the discourse themselves, they almost follow such a simplistic and predictable approach that one can't help but, again, retract themselves from the exchange, and making many lazier in their intellect, though in some cases more hostile and belligerent.

What then - how do we go from here? Do we abolish the abolitionists? How do we do that, exactly, when there are good reasons to abolish some things sometimes - aren't there? Likely the rotten state that might result from the movement itself as this time; I'm sure a few years of having them decide what a society maintains will cause for the impregnation of foundation-level components that will necessarily need to be removed in order for humanity to flourish once again. This will be a form of abolition, I suppose, though often these things are acted upon a more obvious which might not cause it to be a movement of any kind, but just a clean-up of sorts wherein there isn't the same type of coercion or use of force which might have been associated with the simple fact of having that component be present at all. The language, of course, sounds like the radicals which are speaking of removing components which are the actual foundation of thought in this sphere, and saying tha tthey must be removed because it is painful for them to be present and their removal is simply the resolving of the pain and concluding of the suffering. But this is less abstract than that, I mean we can literally get into why the components, or elements that are corrupt and implanted in the foundation of our society, are causing real damage that can be measured empirically, and that their removal is not somet traumatic conflict-causing process, but a simple discontinuity in the use of those components - that's what I'm getting at, that these basic ideas about use of force and reducing someone to their properties for which they have no control over, are awful ideas and that the discontinuity of use necessarily causes an improvement in the human condition, the quality of life, the reduction in unnecessary pain and suffering, and so forth

So how is it that different people are conceiving the issue of defunding the police differently? In some cases they truly think that enacting a few modest changes which slightly divert some excess expenditures towards more useful and socially conscious uses will be a welcome move, something which improves the quality of society and reduces the need for violent interactions with the police. Surely, if everyone is of sounder mind, and has better facilties and services to serve them in a manner which is more particular to their needs, then there will be less crime, fewer health problems, fewer emergencies, and so forth. It sounds like a great idea, and why not? We could do the following:

Police have too much excess funding, because of inefficiencies
Police have too much funding specifically geared towards militarization - that is, equipment which would normally be associated with the army, and thus used for inflicting massive damage, or surveilling the enemy.

It's easy to conclude that, because it is the case that inefficiencies can exist, and that there is certainly a such thing as "too much force", that those two points would suffice to lead one to conclude that there is money available which would be best used for a cause which, at the surface, has better optics and also fulfills the need of addressing some of the socially conscious issues of today. Fulfilling in the sense that, it can be argued to be sought in the name of today's socially conscious issues. Simply having somethign to do which is relevant can be very attractive for just about anyone, but especially someone who thinks political and is trying to aim for the approval of many. Short term strategy, but at least it's an inclination towards action - proactive change, starting with.. who? Me? Did I think of these ideas myself, or am I simply pushing them along because I know what ideas are politically salient at this point in time. Surely, knowing that it's the right idea is an indication that it is something popular, and thus appealing to someone with a political outlook, or even a socially manipulative one.

Well, why not? Let's look at the issues specifically

Excess Funding

We look at the police today, and we see that they are out of shape, often overweight, probably not having to perform recurring fitness exams or risk being thrown off the force. At the very least, receiving physicals which bear no weight on whether or not they shoudl be allowed to continue as a police officer.

The image of the doughnut eating pig is forever in everyone's minds, and so it's easy to become manic with glee as we look at the issue in greater detail. Money might be available for me which has Nalways been there, but I was too blind to see. It's almost like I'm doing the work of making sure money is better allocated in society, and the image of a fat cop is the only evidence I really need to come to the conclusion that it's a worthwhile target, and get suddenly it's worth championing.

But do we really know if there are excesses? And, furthermore, do we know if there might be expenstes for which there is an excess? Is the excess an expenditure, or is it something for which other expenses are incurred? We do that at the moment.

Government Sanctioned Seggregation

They introduce new practices, to support the use of PPE (personal protective equipment), but then they also need to mitigate these practices or the recommendations of this practices, to coincide with woke culture. The new practice is enforced, mandatory, use of masks, except by people of colour.

Now, of course one can easily argue that there are mostly white people in this small county, and that it's mostly a symbolic gesture meant to be in keeping current with heightened sensitivities resulting from George Floyd's death, and the initiatives which have been erupting or catalyzed in his honour. Reacting to this in this way is probably the result of a few factors:

Avoid harm. We need to demonstrate that we aren't racists, or that we are at least actively anti-racist, by proving that we, at the community level, are able to come together and make concessions, alter our way of life, for the benefit of people of colour. This, at least in principle, might reduce the chance that we will be the targets of retaliation and outbursts of anger, coming from the groups which are popularly understood as having been falling victim to societal inequities. How convenient that this also;
Signal to one another. Reveal something striking, intellectually astute, and resonating from a higher class of privilege, for if you are occupying a space designated to those of higher status, then you are likely less at risk to many sorts of mortal threats which plague those below you. While you are occupying this space, you are protected by a veil of divinity, you are above humanity, helping to lift the rest of its members up to a higher standing, approaching your own. In doing this, you are performing a transcendental act which fulfills Universal Being. This means that you are part of something divine and infinite, and since it exists seemingly forever, then why can't you?

gov_does_not_think.md 15 KB Постійне посилання Історія Запис