POTUS and FLOTUS have Covid-19

[ktgrok]

So it seems the nomination ceremony for Amy Barrett may turn into a superspreader event. We have another senator positive who was there, and Kellyanne Conway. 

 

[Pen]

6 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

I am not saying "supporters of the president get shouted down" and by even bringing such a thing up, which was no where in my post, it kinda points to what the problem is.  Part of the problem is presuming that because a person holds X view....they must also support Y......which is often what is done when you (general you) don't really know a person.

The fact that someon might support A concept.....that the president might also support....doesn't mean that they are automatically a supporter of Trump.

 

Nor is someone who supports either candidate necessarily a bad or stupid (or whatever) person for doing so.  Nor does someone who supports either candidate necessarily support all the things that person does or promotes.  

 

[SereneHome]

15 minutes ago, MercyA said:

Let me give a personal example. There was a time when I truly did not understand victim blaming as it related to cases of rape and sexual harassment. It's embarrassing to say, but there it is. 

I freely admit it was something I hadn't thought through well enough, if at all. I was not well-informed, and that is the truth. I said some insensitive things here that were probably hurtful to other people. And I was called out on it, and I learned from that.

Was it subjective for people to call me insensitive? Well, perhaps. But that doesn't mean they were wrong. If a group of kind, well-intentioned, intelligent women are telling you you are coming across as insensitive, maybe it's time to stop for a minute and consider that.

And I hope I am never condescending to anyone who is not well-informed through no fault of their own. Forgive me if I have ever done that! But I do assume most women on this forum have both the skill and the resources to become better informed, to be able to distinguish between good sources of information and bad ones, and to apply consistency and logic to their own viewpoints.

OK, since you don't know me I will just say that my following statement is in a conversational, not accusing, not angry tone

Do you REALLY  not see how that statement is condescending? It screams of "we will inform you and then you will know better". Except, may be I AM informed but I still hold a different opinion.

Even in your personal example - which I don't want to get into details and completely derail this thread - you are leaving NO POSSIBILITY that someone's different view can still be valid. NO POSSIBILITY! And of course, if you are able to debate that in a civil way, that's great. But when you have a community and posts start building up and people pick one or two words and go off - let's face it, it becomes nasty and not at all a civil and intelligent discussion.

And also - if everyone never ever questioned opinions of "kind, well-intentioned, intelligent women" (AGAIN, HIGHLY HIGHLY subjective) - no progress would ever have been made. Questions is good and should not be viewed as "not well informed" and "insensitive".

[Joker]

Bagels and I agree on pretty much nothing on this board but even I think there are several people here who jump on her constantly, especially in regards to Covid. She has reached out to me when it was obvious I was going through something and seems genuinely kind. This board is weird these days and I’ve been here a while. 
 

In regards to Covid and Trump - I’m struggling. He’s had zero compassion for what his policies and words have done to my family and I’m trying hard to find compassion now. I never wished illness on him but I’m pretty “meh” about him having it. I can not want anything bad to happen to him but also not twist myself into a pretzel if it does. 

[Pen]

1 minute ago, ktgrok said:

So it seems the nomination ceremony for Amy Barrett may turn into a superspreader event. We have another senator positive who was there, and Kellyanne Conway. 

 

 

And I read the President of Notre Dame (University) — which made me wonder if university spread would move to government/journalists   But he might have gotten it from

someone  else. 

[Ausmumof3]

16 minutes ago, SereneHome said:

I think I understand what your question is....and I had to stop and think for a minute.....

So, I pay very little attention to people's words, I pay a lot of attention to their actions. That multiplies 1000 when it comes to politicians. I don't listen to anything they say, I pay attention to what they do.

But no one should be glad when someone else is sick. And if Trump said anything to the extent, that's between him and whoever he prays to at night. But when so so many people in our society are now expressing such sentiments, that's very concerning to me, bc that's a much much bigger problem, in my opinion. Trump came and he will go, but we, as a society are deteriorating, and to me that's scary.

Maybe to some degree because a society can’t be better than its leaders.  You can’t really expect to be able to have the one person elected out of millions of Americans (or Australians in our case) act in a certain way and it not be seen as making that an ok way to act.  If that person is who is chosen as literally the best person to lead the country presumably that persons behaviour is condoned and endorsed by the citizens of that country.  So presumably that behaviour is acceptable for everyone else in that country.

personally I really hate the personal attacks in politics.  I wish there was a lot less focus on attacking what one party is doing wrong and way more on what actually policies both sides are planning to put forward.  

[Not_a_Number]

3 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

I feel like posts that talk about " supporters of the president get shut down" and other such things make it that sort of political issue.  There are some posters (and I am not going to name names and bring in a million quotes because that would require more work that this justifies)  who make almost all posts....political.  THey tie them to presidential supporters.  To political parties.  Sometimes...........it can feel like reading yahoo comments (though those are gone now) rather than a homeschool forum. 

But I'm not the one who makes it political 😕 . The problem is that a lot of people who support the president are anti-masking and anti-public health measures. So that does get shot down. But as Katie said, that's not people making the crisis political... that's the fact that it's been unfortunately made political. I didn't know it would. 

[Frances]

12 minutes ago, SereneHome said:

I think I understand what your question is....and I had to stop and think for a minute.....

So, I pay very little attention to people's words, I pay a lot of attention to their actions. That multiplies 1000 when it comes to politicians. I don't listen to anything they say, I pay attention to what they do.

But no one should be glad when someone else is sick. And if Trump said anything to the extent, that's between him and whoever he prays to at night. But when so so many people in our society are now expressing such sentiments, that's very concerning to me, bc that's a much much bigger problem, in my opinion. Trump came and he will go, but we, as a society are deteriorating, and to me that's scary.

I absolutely agree that we as a society are deteriorating, no doubt about it. The things (both words and actions) many people cheer about and support are absolutely sickening to me and I’m afraid we’ve sunk so low we will not as a society recover. It’s as though the floodgates have been opened wide and there is no closing them again.

[Not_a_Number]

5 minutes ago, SereneHome said:

And also - if everyone never ever questioned opinions of "kind, well-intentioned, intelligent women" (AGAIN, HIGHLY HIGHLY subjective) - no progress would ever have been made. Questions is good and should not be viewed as "not well informed" and "insensitive".

Her point wasn't that you don't question them. Her point is that you look inside yourself as well as outside yourself when you are called on something. And yeah, you might wind up thinking everyone else is wrong and you are right. I've certainly had that happen. But it's worthwhile to engage. 

[SereneHome]

2 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Her point wasn't that you don't question them. Her point is that you look inside yourself as well as outside yourself when you are called on something. And yeah, you might wind up thinking everyone else is wrong and you are right. I've certainly had that happen. But it's worthwhile to engage. 

The two don't have to be mutually exclusive and yet a lot of times it seems that it is.

[MercyA]

1 hour ago, happi duck said:

The "meh" and "shrug" thing interests me.  On the internet, imo, I think they both come across as a dismissive "screw you", even "f**k you".

Isn't that what they convey to everyone else?

To me, "meh" conveys something like, "I know other people get worked up about this, but I don't." An example: One poster might say "I went to the beach this weekend and there was a topless women there, right next to us! I was outraged!" Another poster might reply, "Meh, don't be so puritanical," as in, "Why are you even concerned about that?" So, yes, definitely dismissive, possibly deliberately provoking, but probably not usually reaching the level of "%$& you." 

But a lot of it depends on context, as Not_a_Number pointed out.

ETA: I remember once or twice being very mildly offended when a friend used a shrug emoji in a text convo with me. Maybe she just meant "I don't know!" 

Edited October 3, 2020 by MercyA

[EmseB]

55 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

OK, so, I'm not sure why we're debating the meaning of the word meh, when this was the quote:

 

"Meh, not too worried honestly. Praying for their recovery and that they have mild cases. There are advantages to having the best care in the world available though, especially when the virus is incredibly mild in most people, even in their age demographic." 

 

The message here is really clear. The virus is no big deal for most of us, even overweight 70-year olds.

I didn't get that at all from that post, despite you saying it's really clear, so...there ya go.

She was praying that they have mild cases, which to me implies that she knew they could have something other than that.

The lack of worry seems to apply to the stated fact that they will get the best medical care ASAP. And the unstated fact that Bagels has a lot going on in her life so may be not worrying over much about things like this that she cannot control.

But anyway. I'm don't think that her statement is about the virus, the world over, being no big deal, which seems to be a really uncharitable reading. I'm not defending her as she's not here any more, just saying how it could be less clear than what you have solidified in your mind as super clear that the virus is no big deal for those over 70. Because I read it totally differently.

[Pen]

I recommended this book on another thread, and think it is relevant here too: 

http://How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide https://www.amazon.com/dp/0738285323/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_PA-DFbFZ005WN

 

My church has had a part of the standard service Be prayers for the people, many different groups mentioned, including political leaders—I think a habit of praying for political leaders (among the mentioned groups) whether in one’s own country or elsewhere and whether of one’s own party  or the opposition or who one supported / preferred  or the other candidate who beat the one personally preferred was an excellent habit to have developed.

In regard to the main thread topic: 

I am praying for President Trump, his wife, staff, as well as also for all people everywhere who are coping with SARS2 — or any illness. 

 

 

[Pen]

4 minutes ago, MercyA said:

To me, "meh" conveys something like, "I know other people get worked up about this, but I don't." An example: One poster might say "I went to the beach this weekend and there was a topless women there, right next to us! I was outraged!" Another poster might reply, "Meh, don't be so puritanical," as in, "Why are you even concerned about that?" So, yes, definitely dismissive, possibly deliberately provoking, but probably not usually reaching the level of "%$& you." 

But a lot of it depends on context, as Not_a_Number pointed out.

 

I think that was how @Bagels McGruffikin Meant it—but now how several people perceived it. And posted what I did because it wasn’t clear to me that people had understanding of how others might perceive it differently than the intent.

 

[ktgrok]

4 minutes ago, Pen said:

I recommended this book on another thread, and think it is relevant here too: 

http://How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide https://www.amazon.com/dp/0738285323/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_PA-DFbFZ005WN

 

My church has had a part of the standard service Be prayers for the people, many different groups mentioned, including political leaders—I think a habit of praying for political leaders (among the mentioned groups) whether in one’s own country or elsewhere and whether of one’s own party  or the opposition or who one supported / preferred  or the other candidate who beat the one personally preferred was an excellent habit to have developed.

In regard to the main thread topic: 

I am praying for President Trump, his wife, staff, as well as also for all people everywhere who are coping with SARS2 — or any illness. 

 

 

Yes - every week in church we pray for our own leaders, and world leaders, and another diocese by name (rotates). I won't lie...that was hard for m after a particular electio, the first time, but it IS a good habit. 

And we pray for all who are ill, each week, and lately we've added "especially those impacted by Covid 19". Trump will be included, obviously, in both sections this week. 

I have also started a personal practice of praying for a candidate when I see a campaign sign/sticker for them. It felt like a good way to train myself out of a different, more visceral reaction to some of them. This worked well until I found myself driving home today and after praying for each sign I saw stuck in someone's grass, almost saying, "God, please bless....Fertilizer Applied - Stay off Until Dry", lol. 

[Pen]

2 minutes ago, Plum said:

I've used it both ways 🤷‍♀️😊

 

When I typed out “I don’t know” the 🤷‍♀️ Emoji Appeared on my choices bar to use — so I came to equate the two. I had never typed “shrug”(which also makes the same emoji appear) and thus did not know the second meaning till recently. 

[Frances]

30 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Certainly, this board is not as bad as it could be.  I have been on boards (and left them) where things are worse.

But I have described this before, in as neutral terms as possible......a very large number of people who hold viewpoints that aren't liberal in nature feel shouted down and just quit offering their opinion.  Like...a lot.  

But if you look at posts that get liked when contentious issues are being discussed, they often are often fairly even between both sides. There do appear to be more on the “right” who only like posts and never or very, very rarely post, but it’s hard to know all of the reasons why. Certainly we’ve had situations where individuals or their children were gay or transgender and they endured some pretty horrific stuff on the board before leaving. I also think lots more people on here are moderate or of somewhat mixed views than is generally recognized. They may have strong feeling about certain topics (often because it’s more personal to them), but overall there is more of a mix. But often that is not seen, except perhaps in the politics club, because many issues are generally off limits on the main board. 

[Liz CA]

12 hours ago, PrincessMommy said:

He's a world leader and is out in the public all.the.time.  It was only a matter of time before he contracted it, IMHO.  

 

Yup. Didn't the UK prime have it too and a few other well known people (was it Albert of Monaco?) who are often seen at things like galas and fundraisers? 

[Pen]

2 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

Yes - every week in church we pray for our own leaders, and world leaders, and another diocese by name (rotates). I won't lie...that was hard for m after a particular electio, the first time, but it IS a good habit. 

And we pray for all who are ill, each week, and lately we've added "especially those impacted by Covid 19". Trump will be included, obviously, in both sections this week. 

 

 

I think we are in same denomination. I wonder if any others also do it. 

[Terabith]

1 minute ago, Pen said:

 

 

I think we are in same denomination. I wonder if any others also do it. 

I know Catholics and Episcopalians and Orthodox and ELCA Lutherans do it.  

[ktgrok]

Just now, Terabith said:

I know Catholics and Episcopalians and Orthodox and ELCA Lutherans do it.  

Yup, all those. Maybe Methodists, since they are an offshoot of Episcopal/Anglican?

[Katy]

Well I'll confess that WRT POTUS catching this, at 2am when DH woke me up to tell me, my first reaction was glee.  Then I felt immediately ashamed.

An old IRL church friend posted something on FB expressing annoyance with people laughing about it.  I couldn't respond.  This is someone who has previously defended the president about every illogical stance he's taken and every awful comment he's made and dismissed it all because he claimed to be born again and promised to change the Supreme Court to overturn Roe.  So she (a healthcare worker with a child in the military) was illogically sure he must be correct about this virus being no big deal.

And my thoughts- 210,000 thousand lives don't matter in the least to you but an embryo does.  I'm not trying to get political here.  I'm often somewhat to the right of most on this board, and even when I'm not someone I love is so I understand the arguments.  I literally couldn't tell if this was virtue signalling on her part or if she's honestly in such a bubble she has no idea what kind of person this President is.

He could have decided the first week of February to screw the election and do the right thing.  He could have given a Presidential address from the Oval Office and said, "Some of my political advisors have told me this will cost me the next election, and I'm willing to accept that.  There is a very dangerous virus circulating. It's airborne, it will kill many people, and we are going to need to work together to make some tough choices between saving lives and our economy, the position I have been most strong on.  There's been a lot of partisan bickering in the past 3 years but now we have one common enemy, this deadly virus. I'm calling on Congress to come back into session immediately, we need to all work together on this for the sake of us all."  There would have been less than 10,000 American deaths and he'd be a hero right now instead of in the hospital.

I don't wish him anything bad.  I hope he recovers quickly.  But it is tough for me to see a man so cavalier about so many things, a man who calls my parents losers for enlisting, a man who doesn't care what happens to the people he is meant to protect, and not feel a bit of schadenfreude.  And if that makes me a terrible person, so be it.  I hope God has more mercy for us all than my first instinct.

[Frances]

39 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

I am not saying "supporters of the president get shouted down" and by even bringing such a thing up, which was no where in my post, it kinda points to what the problem is.  Part of the problem is presuming that because a person holds X view....they must also support Y......which is often what is done when you (general you) don't really know a person.

The fact that someon might support A concept.....that the president might also support....doesn't mean that they are automatically a supporter of Trump.

Very true. For instance, I can think of one policy of Trump’s I agree with (and is very unpopular on the left), even though I very much don’t support him. Conversely though, to vote for someone is to support them, as in enable them to act. If enough people don’t vote for Trump for president, he can’t act as president. It doesn’t mean they like him or all his policies or words or actions, but they are supporting him.

[Ausmumof3]

40 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

I have been in a state today where interactions that I think would not normally lead me to tears have been doing so.

And I noticed that in someone else irl today too. 

I wonder if 2020 stress reactions are adding to our online reactions and feelings too? 

 

 

I think so.  You guys are going through hell this year really.  The fires in California would normally be generating so much news and support and are currently getting very little because there’s just so much going on that’s difficult.

[Liz CA]

1 hour ago, SereneHome said:

It hasn't been my experience on this board.

As a matter of fact, it has been the opposite. I was told that my opinion was stupid and I didn't know what I was talking about.  The person never bothered to ask me how I came up to my conclusion or what sources I had.

There were other instances when no other perspectives have been even entertained, again, bc evidently I was just not well informed enough. And if I could be informed, then I would see the light of my wrongness.

I know people here see themselves as able to intelligently debate, for the most part, I found it differently. I had someone yelling at me and leaving in a huff, again, bc she just couldn't understand how I can be so insensitive and miss informed.

And I didn't say anything about Mercy talking about "logic" bc again, in my experience, posters get very emotional very quickly and there is no logic in sight....

Yes, indeed! And in a world where information moves ahead (or backwards) at lightening speed, we can all afford to offer a little grace especially since we don't know if our own "cutting edge" informational status has not already been superseded by the next, latest and greatest blurp.

[MercyA]

47 minutes ago, SereneHome said:

OK, since you don't know me I will just say that my following statement is in a conversational, not accusing, not angry tone

Do you REALLY  not see how that statement is condescending? It screams of "we will inform you and then you will know better". Except, may be I AM informed but I still hold a different opinion.

Even in your personal example - which I don't want to get into details and completely derail this thread - you are leaving NO POSSIBILITY that someone's different view can still be valid. NO POSSIBILITY! And of course, if you are able to debate that in a civil way, that's great. But when you have a community and posts start building up and people pick one or two words and go off - let's face it, it becomes nasty and not at all a civil and intelligent discussion.

And also - if everyone never ever questioned opinions of "kind, well-intentioned, intelligent women" (AGAIN, HIGHLY HIGHLY subjective) - no progress would ever have been made. Questions is good and should not be viewed as "not well informed" and "insensitive".

I'm curious how long you've been here, SereneHome. (NM; looked it up! Since 2012, same as me. 🙂 ) Because I've participated in debates on abortion and a few other topics here in which almost *no one* agreed with me. I listened, I considered, and I did not change my mind, because I was still (and am still) convinced that my position is well-informed and morally and logically consistent.

I am not at all saying that we shouldn't question others' opinions. I AM saying that we should have no fear in questioning our own views, particularly if people we know and trust are pointing out potential holes in our knowledge or logic.

I believe in absolute truth and that it can be known. I believe that some people are better informed than others. I don't believe all opinions are equal. I believe some positions are better supported by science than others. I believe some positions are more moral than others. I don't apologize for any of those things, and I don't think I should.

I agree with you that questioning is good. 🙂 

Edited October 3, 2020 by MercyA

[Pen]

1 minute ago, Liz CA said:

Yup. Didn't the UK prime have it too and a few other well known people (was it Albert of Monaco?) who are often seen at things like galas and fundraisers? 

 

Yes. Boris Johnson of UK was very very sick with it . I think he said he felt close to death. Certainly came close to being put on ventilator. And I saw a list of others with quite a few names, but don’t recall about Monaco.  Brazil had several high in government including Jair Bolsonaro. Iran had several.

I think massive numbers of contacts and often long indoor meetings would be hugely likely to increase risk of infection regardless of masks or similar (yes, I strongly favor masks!, but same as I have said I don’t think travel in car with someone sick is free of risk even with a mask, I also don’t think the work of government is going to be safe even with 6 feet distance and even if masks are used. Masks reduce viral load but do not eliminate it.  And the POTUS mask looks like the type that helps be protective of others, but not an extra filtration self protection one.  It is hard to tell by looking of course.) 

I guess on the flip side of masks etc there was leadership by example of keeping working, keeping government going, and no use of special PPE that the ordinary person (or even many HCW) could not get. 

[Ausmumof3]

4 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

Yes. Boris Johnson of UK was very very sick with it . I think he said he felt close to death. Certainly came close to being put on ventilator. And I saw a list of others with quite a few names, but don’t recall about Monaco.  Brazil had several high in government including Jair Bolsonaro. Iran had several.

I think massive numbers of contacts and often long indoor meetings would be hugely likely to increase risk of infection regardless of masks or similar (yes, I strongly favor masks!, but same as I have said I don’t think travel in car with someone sick is free of risk even with a mask, I also don’t think the work of government is going to be safe even with 6 feet distance and even if masks are used. Masks reduce viral load but do not eliminate it.  And the POTUS mask looks like the type that helps be protective of others, but not an extra filtration self protection one.  It is hard to tell by looking of course.) 

I guess on the flip side of masks etc there was leadership by example of keeping working, keeping government going, and no use of special PPE that the ordinary person (or even many HCW) could not get. 

Pretty sure either Trudeau or his wife had it as well.  I think it generated a bit less attention because he wasn’t one of those who called it no big deal.  Also I know Peter Dutton had it here in Aus.  (Think he got it from the first time it was spreading through US politicians).

[ktgrok]

11 minutes ago, Katy said:

 I hope God has more mercy for us all than my first instinct.

There is the old saying about not "entertaining" bad thoughts. That it isn't sinful to have that first thought, just to "entertain it" as in, to embrace it purposely. 

I have had a few...visceral reactions....that I'm not proud of. But I think what matters is what we choose with our will, after that unplanned, unconscious moment. 

(for me, it was actually not the president, but on of his staff, that caused that in me. Sigh.)

And then there is the Orthodox idea of "working out our salvation with fear and trembling"...the idea that iwe are indeed a work in progress. 

Hugs. 

[Rosie_0801]

11 minutes ago, MercyA said:

I'm curious how long you've been here, SereneHome. (NM; looked it up! Since 2012, same as me. 🙂 ) Because I've participated in debates on abortion and a few other topics here in which almost *no one* agreed with me. I listened, I considered, and I did not change my mind, because I was still (and am still) convinced that my position is well-informed and morally and logically consistent.

I am not at all saying that we shouldn't question others' opinions. I AM saying that we should have no fear in questioning our own views, particularly if people we know and trust are pointing out potential holes in our knowledge or logic.

I believe in absolute truth and that it can be known. I believe that some people are better informed than others. I don't believe all opinions are equal. I believe some positions are better supported by science than others. I believe some positions are more moral than others. I don't apologize for any of those things, and I don't think I should.

I agree with you that questioning is good. 🙂 

Some people have better boundaries than others.

[Pen]

3 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Pretty sure either Trudeau or his wife had it as well.  I think it generated a bit less attention because he wasn’t one of those who called it no big deal.  Also I know Peter Dutton had it here in Aus.  (Think he got it from the first time it was spreading through US politicians).

 

That’s right.  Here’s a list of some major ones... of course many more less prominent also have.https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-world-leaders-trump-jair-bolsonaro-boris-johnson-covid-19-a9607071.html

 

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, Animula V. Blandula said:

OK, I'm rambling at this point. Long day. I guess bottom line for me is that I hope I figure out how to filter the political stuff out of my feed because it kills my enjoyment of the forum.

I'm sorry about that 😕 . 

[Frances]

Some leaders do seem to change their views on the virus after getting sick.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/02/us/coronavirus-public-officials.html?action=click&module=News&pgtype=Homepage

 

[EmseB]

I haven't heard much about it, but didn't VA Gov. Northam and his wife just get diagnosed? I honestly don't think the virus respects ideological or political boundaries.

[Ausmumof3]

Apparently twitter will be censoring tweets expressing any wish or hope that the president dies and suspending the accounts of people expressing that wish.  That seems like a good/responsible thing to do.  

[Not_a_Number]

4 minutes ago, Frances said:

Some leaders do seem to change their views on the virus after getting sick.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/02/us/coronavirus-public-officials.html?action=click&module=News&pgtype=Homepage

 

That's unsurprising, I think. I meant, I'm embarrassed to say, but it felt very much like "not my problem" when it was all the way in Italy...

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, EmseB said:

I haven't heard much about it, but didn't VA Gov. Northam and his wife just get diagnosed? I honestly don't think the virus respects ideological or political boundaries.

Of course it doesn't. But it's more likely to infect people taking no precautions. It doesn't mean it'll ONLY infect those people, but that's how it'll skew. 

[lewelma]

1 hour ago, ktgrok said:

But...how is the this even a liberal/conservative issue? A virus, sickness, people dying...that's not big government vs small government or economic theory or whatever....

I think it is liberal/conservative because it is about whether we act together as a nation and a team or whether the individual is empowered to make decisions appropriate to them.  This is kind of the heart of 2 different worldviews mostly identified with the 2 different political parties in the US.

I'm in NZ and definitely like the team approach, but there is an intellectual argument to empower the individual like Sweden has. Without getting political and acting as an outside observer (I immigrated to NZ 25 years ago), it seems that the USA has struggled with covid because they did not embrace either NZ's approach (team) or Sweden's approach (individual responsibility), and got all muddled because there was a difference of opinion as to the approach, which then got full of rancor. 

Edited October 3, 2020 by lewelma

[Pen]

55 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

So it seems the nomination ceremony for Amy Barrett may turn into a superspreader event. We have another senator positive who was there, and Kellyanne Conway. 

 

 

Last I read 7 people associated with the nomination ceremony and 11 people associated with the debate in Cleveland. 

The Nomination ceremony seems important in that it was outside and presumably people attending got tests done.   Based on apparent statistics from outdoor protests, where many also have not been masked and were at close quarters etc—and yet cases seem to have been low, that figure for the SCOTUS Justice Nomination ceremony has surprised me. 

 

Previously I had expected lots of sickness spread even at outdoor activities, but then statistics seemed to indicate that I was wrong.  Now, I am not sure. Maybe many more people got sick, but did not get tested. 

[ktgrok]

Just now, lewelma said:

I think it is liberal/conservative because it is about whether we act together as a nation and a team or whether the individual is empowered to make decisions appropriate to them.  

I'm in NZ, and definitely like the team approach, but there is an intellectual argument to empower the individual like Sweden has. Without getting political (I think) and acting as an outside observer (I immigrated to NZ 25 years ago), it seems that the USA has struggled with covid because they did not embrace either NZ or Sweden's approach, and got all muddled because there was a difference of opinion as to the approach, which then got full of rancor. 

But the discussion wasn't about how to handle it from a national standpont, it was about if it is offensive to use terms like cowering, meh, etc. 

[Terabith]

30 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

Yup, all those. Maybe Methodists, since they are an offshoot of Episcopal/Anglican?

Methodists don't have set liturgical prayers, so they aren't consistent about who they pray for.  I mean, lots of them do, but they just don't have the same kind of set liturgy.  (I grew up Methodist and got my M.Div from a Methodist seminary.)  

[ktgrok]

Just now, Pen said:

 

Last I read 7 people associated with the nomination ceremony and 11 people associated with the debate in Cleveland. 

The Nomination ceremony seems important in that it was outside and presumably people attending got tests done.   Based on apparent statistics from outdoor protests, where many also have not been masked and were at close quarters etc—and yet cases seem to have been low, that figure for the SCOTUS Justice Nomination ceremony has surprised me. 

 

Previously I had expected lots of sickness spread even at outdoor activities, but then statistics seemed to indicate that I was wrong.  Now, I am not sure. Maybe many more people got sick, but did not get tested. 

I read somewhere that there was an indoor component as well. 

[ktgrok]

Just now, Terabith said:

Methodists don't have set liturgical prayers, so they aren't consistent about who they pray for.  I mean, lots of them do, but they just don't have the same kind of set liturgy.  (I grew up Methodist and got my M.Div from a Methodist seminary.)  

How did I not know you have an M.Div? Very cool. (if I ever get an advanced degree, that's what it will be)

[Terabith]

1 minute ago, Pen said:

 

Last I read 7 people associated with the nomination ceremony and 11 people associated with the debate in Cleveland. 

The Nomination ceremony seems important in that it was outside and presumably people attending got tests done.   Based on apparent statistics from outdoor protests, where many also have not been masked and were at close quarters etc—and yet cases seem to have been low, that figure for the SCOTUS Justice Nomination ceremony has surprised me. 

 

Previously I had expected lots of sickness spread even at outdoor activities, but then statistics seemed to indicate that I was wrong.  Now, I am not sure. Maybe many more people got sick, but did not get tested. 

I have heard there was also an indoor event, with at least a significant number of people attending?  And people are bunched up pretty tightly, too, but yeah.  I'm really wondering about this and ramifications for outdoor spread.  

[Terabith]

1 minute ago, ktgrok said:

How did I not know you have an M.Div? Very cool. (if I ever get an advanced degree, that's what it will be)

I don't talk a lot about it, because I don't do anything with it, and honestly, I'm not sure it was the right call.  

I mean, I decided after my pastoral internship that it literally wasn't the right call, though the fact my supervising pastor was an active schizophrenic really didn't help. 

[EmseB]

3 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

Last I read 7 people associated with the nomination ceremony and 11 people associated with the debate in Cleveland. 

The Nomination ceremony seems important in that it was outside and presumably people attending got tests done.   Based on apparent statistics from outdoor protests, where many also have not been masked and were at close quarters etc—and yet cases seem to have been low, that figure for the SCOTUS Justice Nomination ceremony has surprised me. 

 

Previously I had expected lots of sickness spread even at outdoor activities, but then statistics seemed to indicate that I was wrong.  Now, I am not sure. Maybe many more people got sick, but did not get tested. 

There were, as I'm reading on Twitter, a lot of indoor events held for the nomination as well that weren't as publicized.

[Not_a_Number]

6 minutes ago, lewelma said:

I think it is liberal/conservative because it is about whether we act together as a nation and a team or whether the individual is empowered to make decisions appropriate to them.  This is kind of the heart of 2 different worldviews mostly identified with the 2 different political parties in the US.

I'm in NZ and definitely like the team approach, but there is an intellectual argument to empower the individual like Sweden has. Without getting political and acting as an outside observer (I immigrated to NZ 25 years ago), it seems that the USA has struggled with covid because they did not embrace either NZ's approach (team) or Sweden's approach (individual responsibility), and got all muddled because there was a difference of opinion as to the approach, which then got full of rancor. 

Eh, we were never going to go for Sweden's approach (although it didn't go that well for them, either), because the culture is so different, and because the people encouraging the individualistic approach were also advocating people NOT having personal responsibility. 

I actually think the more liberal states have pushed personal responsibility much more heavily. I'm in NY, and last I checked, lines were socially distanced voluntarily. People are masking up outside. Lots of people are still distancing. It's not perfect, but that's what I think of as personal responsibility. 

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, EmseB said:

There were, as I'm reading on Twitter, a lot of indoor events held for the nomination as well that weren't as publicized.

Oh, interesting. I really hope that's true, because news of outdoor spread would make me quite unhappy. Your anecdotal evidence plus the protests have made me feel a lot safer outside. 

[lewelma]

3 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

But the discussion wasn't about how to handle it from a national standpont, it was about if it is offensive to use terms like cowering, meh, etc. 

Well, emotive words are never helpful. But they flow out of these two different worldviews where each side refuses to see the other's arguments. I might also mention, that Bagels may feel meh, because she has had some serious tragedy in her life, so may have worked hard to reduce her emotional load. 

[ktgrok]

Just now, lewelma said:

Well, emotive words are never helpful. But they flow out of these two different worldviews where each side refuses to see the other's arguments. I might also mention, that Bagels may feel meh, because she has had some serious tragedy in her life, so may have worked hard to reduce her emotional load. 

I do get that, and I personally don't assume ill intent by her, but I was clarifying in my post to her why others were likely getting upset by her words, in case it was a matter of people talking past each other.