dikgaj Profile picture
17 Oct, 8 tweets, 2 min read
At the moment, politics and governance has been reduced to the fine art of gaming the exact point when individual fear of death just about getting overwhelmed by collective anger at the blanket constraints. I sense the fear is beginning to get thin.
following up on private debates with friends, colleagues, I see no reason to deviate frm my summer position that 1) this is not a flu, neither shd it be deemed a bubonic plague - so no need to go extremes like headless chickens 2) vaccines will take time and not 3 month miracles
3) 2nd wave in autumn was likely (my mid-summer projection) 4) economic needs will trump most of health-expert demands 5) best is to follow a cooler head middle-of-the-road policy on all fronts - lets be careful but not set-fire-to-forest to kill scattered bug-stricken trees.
4) in practice most of measures like masks/sanitization will only delay the spread but wont stop it or eradicate it. Much of the touted products available to the public will be of dubious quality so they wont do what they are claimed to do.
5) at some stage we will have to balance out the hard straightjackets we have allowed modern economies to bind us into, and our fear of death and sickness. Medicine has long practised its de facto power to decide who shd live or die through "quality of life" assessments.
6) at a concrete level, its the backtracing to identify super-spreaders in immediate past events thats crucial - not just tracing and isolating everyone laterally and down the event subtree from current time. It wd lessen the restrictive consequences. Not being done mostly.
Governance through using fear of death will work only to a point, and is a tool that like antibiotics so paranoidly now banned for the common sheep - does tend to lose its effectiveness on overuse.
economies that sustain the majority - not just corporate tax from online giants - wont take a longer hit. Things will have to be allowed to resume soon. Otherwise ruling networks wont see what hit them.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with dikgaj

dikgaj Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @dikgaj

15 Oct
Rahul should then have included India in his list. INC claimed to be the only representative leader of India when they divided it allowing Partition jihad - transcoding it all as the birth pangs of a feminized nation with none being responsible. But his world history is bonkers.
For Pakistan, the "dominant powers" are not using its own internal divisions - they are using its jihadi foundations of society and state against neighbouring states. The blood& tears of Pak's ppl are internally created by its mullah rule that infests it like a persistent plague.
The history of every country in that list is far more complicated than the existence of a "single leadership" who "divided" the country. Most of their modern versions are results of repeated colonial, invasive surgeries with fractured cultures. Only Vietnam succeeded to an extent
Read 5 tweets
6 Oct
I like the idea. 2/3 of my 12th std mates went into med not because they wr passionate abt medicine per se but because they (1) its lucrative (2) half said they wd love to be obsgyn specialists so they cd feel up **** & *****, other half thought they wd hv a "shot" at the nurses.
ppl shdnt go into a discipline if they dont have a passion for the subject on its own, regardless of its perceived side benefits, and not just for making fabulous amounts of money. One who doesnt care for human beings deeply shdnt become a doctor, or a teacher, or a preacher.
If most students choose to exit India to become doctors, it might force us as a society and state to rethink how our core services run, from health care to law-enforcement to education. Periodic shakeups and reorientations are not bad for societal health.
Read 4 tweets
24 Sep
Ignorance of law is not accepted as excuse for crime. Ignorance of history is no excuse either to falsify. None in court dared cite historical evidence justifying epithet for Moinaldin& a "sufi" declared by default to-be-honoured in spite of historically recorded despicable acts.
Frm Goel's Hindu Temples: vol2 citing Sufi author voiceofdharma.org/books/htemples… what is honourable non-looting behaviour in one occupying a temple by force, slaughtering a cow to show power over target Hindus, getting a jihadi army to loot a Hindu chief's daughter for Sufi's 2nd wife? ImageImage
Medieval Sufi chroniclers themselves make no attempt to hide their violent intentions on Hindus, extol such actions by Sufis reconstructed now as "saints". Sirhindi claimed to be a Sufi: shall we cite his letters? Or the many other "sufis" and their violence/hatred on Hindus?
Read 5 tweets
21 Sep
1) looking at the history of judiciary over the last few centuries, especially under western European powers - judiciary go most strongly against ideologies, institutions, movements they think will curb their own powers. They bend to powers who they know can crush them at will.
2) modern judicial practice has one insidious aspect: it is unique in resulting in training through profession to hide latent agenda or motivations by skillful (not necessarily) and obscurantist or obsolete use of language.
3) thus when politicians who gained leadership wr also trained as legal professionals, as in India's freedom movement, the results were typically disastrous in the long term - as the two skill sets converged to heighten the deception of the people while initially lulling them.
Read 11 tweets
19 Sep
Total bull. A speech cannot be prejudged to be hate by a small group of individuals and blocked from public dissemination so that it can never be actually seen and analysed by all communities. There is always a route to respond after exposure.
When a small group whose workings and decision making process r not exposed and answerable to the people secretly decide to block something claiming it’s a hate speech we have no way of knowing whether they have any reasonable basis to do so or they are pushing their own biases.
Once something is in the public domain it can always be challenged by those affronted. The legal as well as media routes are open. The power to decide what is “hate” cannot be given over to opaque groups depriving people of chance to judge for themselves. That’s dictatorship.
Read 5 tweets
19 Sep
"Rape as an idea shd only be criticized where it is a national pastime (as even its defenders r open to be raped): not where it is beginning to claim its right to be a national pastime. As long as its defenders can control who gets raped, its all good".
Its ridiculous to claim that an ideology can only conditionally be criticized, depending on where, when, and by whom. If an ideology has flaws, it has them everywhere - and always. If extremists can derive their support from the ideology, then the fault lies with the ideology.
Siddiqui's argument can only be understood as refusal to accept that the ideology may itself hv elements that nurtures "extremist" views persistently and repeatedly over wide swathes of time and place as evidenced in history of that ideology and its real life implementations.
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!