Are you aware that your behavior makes it more likely that other people will die? Does this concern you? Or do you think, "That idea triggers me, so I won't think about it?"
Don't reply with some airy argument about "Death comes for us all," or "We all kill each other every day if you think about it, innit?" Very specifically: If you become a vector for this disease, you could kill many people--much loved by their families--in a super-spreader event.
Old, fat, sick people, perhaps, but also maybe some people who just got unlucky. Would you want someone else to be that careless about the life of someone you love? To speed blind drunk down the freeway right when your daughter is driving home, say?
Do you want the aircraft mechanic to say, "Screw it, most of the time these planes don't need the backup hydraulic system anyway. I can't be bothered to check it. It's a sunny day. Time to work on my tan. Life's about living, right?"
Or do you think, perhaps, a well-lived life at times requires discretion about risk, restraint, and concern for the well-being of others? That living in a civilized society at times requires us to inconvenience ourselves so that we don't create tragedies for others?
If this is hard: The reason we should not be careless with other people's lives, or those of their loved ones, is that we would not wish them to be careless with ours, or those of our loved ones.
You can't really go wrong with, "Do unto others as you would have them do to do." I'm sure you wouldn't want other people to, say, shoot randomly into your parents' retirement home. Would you?
You wouldn't want someone carelessly to spike your drinking water with cyanide, say, because it would be a lark. So probably you shouldn't do things that are apt to spread a communicable disease that's already killed 540,000 of your fellow citizens.
If you do, you can't really complain that the rest of us are, as you put it, "self-righteous."
Though the word I'd used is "appalled."
You're rather lucky that the only punishment you're apt to experience for your psychopathy is the sting of a few "self-righteous" comments on Twitter.
In this world, anyway.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I don't think this is the fundamental profile. I think the fundamental profile--and it underscores all three types, and even the fourth type, "just stupid as a sack of hammers" is "People enamored of death." The real message of the anti-vax movement is Thanatos.
The real message of the anti-vax movement is that Freud was right: There is a death drive. It is as powerful, in human affairs, as Eros, the life drive. We underestimate its potency to shape human events at our peril.
Freud wrote this watching the rise of the Nazis.
But we can see the same drive at work today. We really can. There's no adult, in the modern world, who's *genuinely* confused about the efficacy of masks and vaccines. Truly there isn't. It's all a pose. If you were that stupid, you'd be unable to tie your own shoes.
Above all, it's terribly sad. The NYT is in the hands of people who are both stupid and vicious. The idea that they would even for a moment take seriously the complaints of these pampered, self-righteous little shits is depressing.
Pampered, ignorant, spoiled children, callow and ignorant of life, are now running the cultural show. The adults--who are supposed to teach them and set limits on behavior like this--are instead cowed by them, turning them into petty tyrants.
Obviously this is terrible for both the children and the adults. But it's terrible above all for our culture. These girls will be weak women, uneducated, incapable of thinking straight.
Are you serious? This is a wedding. She's 33. We're American: We don't have titles. We're all equal. Italian-Americans kiss people at weddings. He even asked, first! From the photo, it was a paternal, affectionate kiss--*completely* appropriate, at a wedding--not a sexual one.
Don't people see that the culture we're creating here is *horrible?* It's joyless, stripped of all affection, human contact, and spontaneity. Isn't it bad enough that the pandemic has robbed us of all of that?
What man wouldn't decide it's safest to avoid any flirtation, any gesture of affection, all mildly ribald or bawdy humor--even in a completely appropriate context, like a wedding? It's one thing to say, "Not at the workplace."
How does this sound like "sexual harassment?" nytimes.com/2021/03/01/nyr… Scene: a wedding. Not the workplace. Traditionally, a place where single men and women meet and flirt. The governor puts his hand *on the back* of a 33-year-old woman. Not a child.
He *asks* "Can I kiss you." Isn't that what men are supposed to do nowadays? Ask for permission before even going in for a kiss? (I think that's dumb in itself, but hell--he did it entirely by the new rules, right?)
How does this response make any sense? Why would any normal 33-year-old woman be "confused and shocked and embarrassed" because a guy who was "working the room and toasting the newlyweds" at a wedding asked, "Can I kiss you?"
I woke up this morning--I don't know why--with a burning question and I can't find the answer on Google.
Why is the price of salt inelastic?
We've been told all our lives, "The price of salt is inelastic." But if next time you went to the supermarket salt cost more than Beluga Caviar, you wouldn't buy it, would you?
I wouldn't. I'd start experimenting with low-sodium cooking that very day.
Maybe this whole thing about the price of salt being inelastic is actually bullshit?
Maybe all of modern economics is built on a house of sand?
Maybe it's all a heinous Deep State lie? Have we been brainwashed by the Salt Lobby?
The point I'm making--although you can't be blamed for having missed it because I didn't realize it until five minutes ago--is compatible with both arguments. No, we can't be expected to engineer for *highly* unlikely events. But quite a few disasters are more like this one:
Someone failed to engineer for a not-so-unlikely event.
"Very cold weather" in Texas isn't a wild outlier event. It's snowed 94 times in Houston since 1881. This should have been someone's clue that maybe it could happen again.
We--people--tend to be extremely incompetent and accident-prone, and we're running a ton of highly-complex systems that are, basically, beyond our competence. These systems massively improve our quality of life and life expectancy, but when they go wrong ... *disaster.*