Will pandemic deepen divisions? - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Will pandemic deepen divisions? (/thread-19458.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Will pandemic deepen divisions? (/thread-19458.html)
Will pandemic deepen divisions? - oregontim - 04-18-2020
Growing concerns ... isn't it reasonable to assume that as the pandemic advances, it will affect urban more than rural populations? Which will reinforce political divisions? And pull the country even further apart?
Seems like rural vs. urban can easily become "pandemic was over-hyped" vs. "reopening too soon was dangerous and irresponsible." And, to make matters much worse, the respective facts in both cases will reinforce their radically different sense of what actually happened. Hospitals struggling in cities, normal in local towns, and all that.
As I write this, April 18, it seems like we can see the politics dividing the same way. Republican governors are the last to close down and the first to open up, and Dems vice-versa. The White House wants to reopen, the opposition calls that dangerous and irresponsible. Trump incites protests (literally, his LIBERATE tweets yesterday) in closed states run by Democratic governors.
And the built-in divides resonate. Fox News pushes reopening soon, while MSNBC pushes staying shut down, and so forth.
And, looking ahead, it seems like there will be ample facts to support both sides. And we, as a nation, become more two different countries at war with each other.
My questions:
- Does this seem like a reasonable guess?
- If so, is it inevitable?
- How does this impact government now, for the November elections, and beyond?
RE: Will pandemic deepen divisions? - teejers1 - 04-18-2020
(04-18-2020, 01:46 PM)oregontim Wrote: Growing concerns ... isn't it reasonable to assume that as the pandemic advances, it will affect urban more than rural populations? Which will reinforce political divisions? And pull the country even further apart?
Seems like rural vs. urban can easily become "pandemic was over-hyped" vs. "reopening too soon was dangerous and irresponsible." And, to make matters much worse, the respective facts in both cases will reinforce their radically different sense of what actually happened. Hospitals struggling in cities, normal in local towns, and all that.
As I write this, April 18, it seems like we can see the politics dividing the same way. Republican governors are the last to close down and the first to open up, and Dems vice-versa. The White House wants to reopen, the opposition calls that dangerous and irresponsible. Trump incites protests (literally, his LIBERATE tweets yesterday) in closed states run by Democratic governors.
And the built-in divides resonate. Fox News pushes reopening soon, while MSNBC pushes staying shut down, and so forth.
And, looking ahead, it seems like there will be ample facts to support both sides. And we, as a nation, become more two different countries at war with each other.
My questions:
- Does this seem like a reasonable guess?
- If so, is it inevitable?
- How does this impact government now, for the November elections, and beyond?
I fear you are right about the political divide, with red governors focusing solely on opening up to boost economy/Trump, and blue governors leaning the other way (having no interest in boosting Trump). But as someone here said, maybe let the R governors open up (see Florida photo) and hope for virus wildfire.
I actually think the divide will magnify the haves and have-nots. Yeah, rich people can be old and in bad health, but they also have more resources to make up for those deficiencies. Not so the poor.
All I know is (i) you can't recklessly jump the gun on SiP; and (ii) you can't SiP until vaccine is made on mass scale (assuming that takes 1-2 years). There will be forays that are "successful," (manageable increase in cases) and others that are not and will be short-lived. That is my guess.
And I'm actually okay with that - particularly because everyone is learning on the fly.
RE: Will pandemic deepen divisions? - akiddoc - 04-18-2020
(04-18-2020, 01:46 PM)oregontim Wrote: Growing concerns ... isn't it reasonable to assume that as the pandemic advances, it will affect urban more than rural populations? Which will reinforce political divisions? And pull the country even further apart?
Seems like rural vs. urban can easily become "pandemic was over-hyped" vs. "reopening too soon was dangerous and irresponsible." And, to make matters much worse, the respective facts in both cases will reinforce their radically different sense of what actually happened. Hospitals struggling in cities, normal in local towns, and all that.
As I write this, April 18, it seems like we can see the politics dividing the same way. Republican governors are the last to close down and the first to open up, and Dems vice-versa. The White House wants to reopen, the opposition calls that dangerous and irresponsible. Trump incites protests (literally, his LIBERATE tweets yesterday) in closed states run by Democratic governors.
And the built-in divides resonate. Fox News pushes reopening soon, while MSNBC pushes staying shut down, and so forth.
And, looking ahead, it seems like there will be ample facts to support both sides. And we, as a nation, become more two different countries at war with each other.
My questions:
- Does this seem like a reasonable guess?
- If so, is it inevitable?
- How does this impact government now, for the November elections, and beyond?
The rural states are not going to escape Covid-19, but it is going to have a flatter curve there. Theoretically it should be easier to track cases in less densely populated states, but I'm not sure those states have the public health infrastructure to do the job. Once it sweeps through parts of those states, which is pretty much inevitable, maybe the common experience will help unify the country a bit.
RE: Will pandemic deepen divisions? - OutsiderFan - 04-18-2020
I'm going to guess Russian chaos agents are going to do their best to use the pandemic as a political wedge issue. I don't think it has much staying power to be honest. And when you consider the number of people protesting vs. the numbers who believe shutdowns through May - until testing improves - it's hardly worth paying attention to really.
RE: Will pandemic deepen divisions? - oregontim - 04-18-2020
(04-18-2020, 02:05 PM)teejers1 Wrote: I actually think the divide will magnify the haves and have-nots. Yeah, rich people can be old and in bad health, but they also have more resources to make up for those deficiencies. Not so the poor.
Excellent point, thanks for the addition. Clearly very important. And I could see this one getting very bitter. Rent strikes, demonstrations, riots ... also probably much more visible with urban poor than rural poor, no?
RE: Will pandemic deepen divisions? - DenverCard - 04-18-2020
I don't seek to inflame anything by sharing the following article. I emphasize that I very much welcome points of view from those whose perspectives are different than mine, as there is no better way to be moved to really think through one's beliefs -- so long as those points are well thought out and are founded on reasonable assumptions.
With that said, among all that has left me shaken by this virus, this does so as much as anything:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/17/technology/bill-gates-virus-conspiracy-theories.html?searchResultPosition=1
RE: Will pandemic deepen divisions? - Mick - 04-18-2020
Rural areas tend to have older populations with a higher prevalence of chronic health conditions, according to a Syracuse paper. At the same time, they have access to less health care.
https://lernercenter.syr.edu/2020/03/24/why-coronavirus-could-hit-rural-areas-harder/
Here's testing by state:
![[Image: Figure-4.-COVID-19-Testing-Rates-are-Low...States.png]](https://lernercenter.syr.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Figure-4.-COVID-19-Testing-Rates-are-Lower-in-More-Rural-States.png)
Leftcoast - Leftcoast - 04-18-2020
Quote:Will pandemic deepen divisions?
Yes, they already are deeper.
That is what happens when your leader and commander-in-chief fans the flames of division rather than seeks to bring us together. Read the tweet below that conflates guns and the second amendment with shelter-in-place policy. Is there any other way to read this than as a naked attempt to cynically manipulate and enrage his most volatile supporters? (Tell me if I’m wrong and there is a legitimate reason to tie them together while undermining Virginia’s governor. I WANT to be wrong.)
What other US President would have done this?
Quote:LIBERATE VIRGINIA, and save your great 2nd Amendment. It is under siege! - Tweet from Donald J Trump, April 17
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1251169987110330372
276
RE: Will pandemic deepen divisions? - oregontim - 04-18-2020
(04-18-2020, 03:12 PM)DenverCard Wrote: ... among all that has left me shaken by this virus, this does so as much as anything:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/17/technology/bill-gates-virus-conspiracy-theories.html?searchResultPosition=1
Chilling. A must-read item, IMO.
RE: Will pandemic deepen divisions? - OutsiderFan - 04-18-2020
I sure would love to see the Venn diagram of Stanford graduates and Qanon nut jobs. Would the circles ever touch each other?
RE: Will pandemic deepen divisions? - BostonCard - 04-18-2020
(04-18-2020, 05:15 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: I sure would love to see the Venn diagram of Stanford graduates and Qanon nut jobs. Would the circles ever touch each other?
Sadly, I would expect that there would be a small group of Stanford grads who would subscribe to the worst of the conspiracy theories. The attachment is emotional, not intellectual.
BC
RE: Will pandemic deepen divisions? - teejers1 - 04-18-2020
(04-18-2020, 03:12 PM)DenverCard Wrote: I don't seek to inflame anything by sharing the following article. I emphasize that I very much welcome points of view from those whose perspectives are different than mine, as there is no better way to be moved to really think through one's beliefs -- so long as those points are well thought out and are founded on reasonable assumptions.
With that said, among all that has left me shaken by this virus, this does so as much as anything:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/17/technology/bill-gates-virus-conspiracy-theories.html?searchResultPosition=1
So, if fringe lunatics are spreading "conspiracy theories" in their own little worlds, and no one of note cares about it, does a NYT article highlighting same make things better or worse? Does it "mainstream" the fringe ideas? Does it try to trash in MSM that which was existing in fringe marginalia?
Regardless, I was not scared by this article. Bill Gates is bright and can take care of himself (and has all kinds of ammo to do $o). As for the wingnuts espousing ridiculous theories, who really cares? I had never heard about any of that stuff till you linked the article. Had you?
RE: Will pandemic deepen divisions? - Snorlax94 - 04-18-2020
(04-18-2020, 05:45 PM)teejers1 Wrote:But I had heard on multiple instances that Anthony Fauci now needs security because people are threatening his life.(04-18-2020, 03:12 PM)DenverCard Wrote: I don't seek to inflame anything by sharing the following article. I emphasize that I very much welcome points of view from those whose perspectives are different than mine, as there is no better way to be moved to really think through one's beliefs -- so long as those points are well thought out and are founded on reasonable assumptions.
With that said, among all that has left me shaken by this virus, this does so as much as anything:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/17/technology/bill-gates-virus-conspiracy-theories.html?searchResultPosition=1
So, if fringe lunatics are spreading "conspiracy theories" in their own little worlds, and no one of note cares about it, does a NYT article highlighting same make things better or worse? Does it "mainstream" the fringe ideas? Does it try to trash in MSM that which was existing in fringe marginalia?
Regardless, I was not scared by this article. Bill Gates is bright and can take care of himself (and has all kinds of ammo to do $o). As for the wingnuts espousing ridiculous theories, who really cares? I had never heard about any of that stuff till you linked the article. Had you?
And of course, I am glad journalists made me aware of it, and no, I don’t think journalists shedding light on this is harmful. We need facts and informed citizens.
RE: Will pandemic deepen divisions? - DenverCard - 04-18-2020
Teejers:
I admit that my exposure to the crazier ideas linked to this pandemic, and to all manner of other topics, is limited because I generally choose to avoid platforms where I will encounter such ideas, including Twitter and my younger brother, who elicited a Christmas-marring rant from me a couple of years ago when he characterized the Newtown parents as "crisis actors." So I had not know about the anti-Gates beliefs until I read the article I cited. But I would point out to you that Laura Ingraham is mentioned in the NY Times article as one promulgating crazy crap, and she has a large audience on Fox.
In the face of the divisions we face, I believe that it will be incumbent on the majority of conservatives who are reasonable and can comfortably weigh and calmly discuss the different possible ways that the virus might be tackled to marginalize the radical elements on the right. Fortunately, it seems that more and more have been doing that recently.
Again, I appreciate your involvement in this forum where I imagine you feel you are subject to a fair amount of criticism.
RE: Will pandemic deepen divisions? - Genuine Realist - 04-18-2020
(04-18-2020, 06:12 PM)DenverCard Wrote: Teejers:
I admit that my exposure to the crazier ideas linked to this pandemic, and to all manner of other topics, is limited because I generally choose to avoid platforms where I will encounter such ideas, including Twitter and my younger brother, who elicited a Christmas-marring rant from me a couple of years ago when he characterized the Newtown parents as "crisis actors." So I had not know about the anti-Gates beliefs until I read the article I cited. But I would point out to you that Laura Ingraham is mentioned in the NY Times article as one promulgating crazy crap, and she has a large audience on Fox.
In the face of the divisions we face, I believe that it will be incumbent on the majority of conservatives who are reasonable and can comfortably weigh and calmly discuss the different possible ways that the virus might be tackled to marginalize the radical elements on the right. Fortunately, it seems that more and more have been doing that recently.
Again, I appreciate your involvement in this forum where I imagine you feel you are subject to a fair amount of criticism.
DC,
I'm not at all inflamed by the article, but I am a'weary of the NYT. That piece is typical New York Times-ese, of the type that has cost that once respect institution so much credibility in the last three decades. The presentation is somewhat akin to the manner in which it created the myth of a White Nationalist or Supremacist movement out of nothing in the year after Trump was inaugurated. Back then, it began to cover the same ditsy rallies that had been going on continually for decades, as if they were new and ominous events. You had to read to the third, fourth, and fifth paragraphs to learn that there were 10, 20, or 30 (on a good day) participants from an entire State. (This even applies to the infamous Charlottesville incident, in which the actual number of White Whatevers was the same miniscule fraction. The vast majority were Civil War sentimentalists - completely misguided historically (that's a different post), but not American Nazis.) The rallies hadn't changed. But the coverage did.
Here the trick is in the number of You Tube clicks, 10, 14, 18,000. But You Tube these days has over a billion views a day. By way of comparison, I am linking a video from an idiot 9/11 conspiratist from last year, a lecture by Richard Gage, which is absolute nonsense, and which to date has . .. 208,000 clicks. That doesn't mean there is a raging conspiracy movement about 9/11. It means the Internet is that big. I'm not going to root around YouTube looking for crazy conspiracy theories involving Trump. But they're there, and I would bet many times the size of the sites that target Gates. It doesn't mean that the Left has given way completely to anti-Trump conspiracy nonsense.
Basically, the Times isn't reporting a movement. It isn't even reporting noise. It's reporting Internet static.
So it includes an interview from Laura Ingraham, that actually isn't about any crazy Gates conspiracy, but some concern that the tracing app that Google and others are developing is another step towards Big Brother - akin to the concern that NSA surveillance caused a few years ago. For a lot of reasons (again, that's another post), I think that the entire concern about the surveillance state misplaced paranoia. But it's fairly mainstream, including any number of op-ed writers in the Times itself. You don't cite it side-by-side with wackos about Gates - at least, not if you're responsible.
Add to the melange that well known Right wing spokesman Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (huh???), and you have what has unfortunately become a staple of the Times - a sort of miasmic opinion piece, intended to hoist a flag for the ever narrowing readership it cultivates, based on a mass of factoids that don't stand up to analysis. It's the sort of thing that has cost it immeasurable credibility since 1990. Back in the days of Scotty Reston, I doubt that sort of article would even make it to the editorial desk. But times - and the Times - have changed.
I'm sure Bill Gates is the target of a few crazies. Every public figure is. But a major target of a significant number of right wing adherents? Not on this evidence.
RE: Will pandemic deepen divisions? - teejers1 - 04-18-2020
(04-18-2020, 06:12 PM)DenverCard Wrote: Again, I appreciate your involvement in this forum where I imagine you feel you are subject to a fair amount of criticism.
Thanks for comments, but no worries at all. Don't give the criticism I receive here much thought beyond reading them and digesting (or trying to) the basis for same.
Besides, I can't help it if all the people on here failed to see the massive deficiencies in Shaw's handling of Stanford's offense as early as I did . . . As with most criticisms of my opinions, that's your guys' problem not mine!! [Can't add humorous/appropriate icons . . . not sure where they went].
RE: Will pandemic deepen divisions? - oregontim - 04-18-2020
(04-18-2020, 05:45 PM)teejers1 Wrote: Regardless, I was not scared by this article. Bill Gates is bright and can take care of himself (and has all kinds of ammo to do $o). As for the wingnuts espousing ridiculous theories, who really cares? I had never heard about any of that stuff till you linked the article. Had you?
And I had never heard of pizzagate until some guy stormed into DC pizza place with three guns and started shooting.
This stuff resonates. It gets people on the streets for the wrong reasons. It inspires the wrong impulses. The stark tribal divisions, which borders on a cold civil war, are dangerous. And specifically, getting back to the pandemic theme of this group, inspiring people to oppose social distancing, here in the USA in middle April of 2020, seems dangerous; the opposite of leadership. Or do I think that just because I'm being brainwashed by CNN, NYTimes, Wapo, ABC, CBS, NBC, and the like?
RE: Will pandemic deepen divisions? - chrisk - 04-18-2020
It is actually good overall for Gates to get this kind of notoriety. It further marginalizes the right-wing crazies in the eyes of the majority of Americans.
Why the Chinese Narrative Matters - Genuine Realist - 04-18-2020
The Chinese narrative - of mis-, and dis-, information extending well into February matters, because I think it is essential to take the war against the virus out of the realm of partisan, and particularly Presidential politics. It's not a matter of pointless xenophobia. It's to take the realistic position that is pointless to look back at tactics that may or may not have succeeded at some time in the past. Finger pointing does us no good at all.
The nation and the world are going to face a fairly stark choice of lesser evils.
(a) The lockdown is necessary to save lives and prevent the collapse of our health systems. BUT it comes at of potentially ruinous damage to the economic system.
(b) An end to the lockdown is necessary at some point in time. BUT it will come at the cost of a measurable number of lives and damage to healthy individuals.
The goals are absolutely irreconcilable. There is going to be wild disagreement as to the right balance, and no way to determine any ultimate truth.
I think we'd better start with the assumption of good faith. Whenever the lockdown ends, it's going to be too soon, for those who believe Trump is the Devil. It's going to be too late for those who assume the Democratic Party is led by partisan economic ignoramuses. Speaking personally, although Trump has never had my vote and never will, I don't believe he's going to disregard the cost in human life at any time. Although the Democratic Party definitely has its share of crazies, I think the mainstream is fully aware that there is no dichotomy between human life and smallor even corporate business, that they are both essential elements of the larger society. Unemployment kills people as well as viruses.
Recognizing that the nation as a whole did not recognize the seriousness of this situation until early March gets us away from the worst of the name calling. The alternative is useless. If an inanely partisan reporter asks if 'Trump has blood on his hands', Trump fires back in his uniquely un-Presidential manner, with a series of tweets that show prominent Democrats labored under exactly the same false assumptions he did. No one gets anywhere.
We are all in this other, with of immense proportions, infinitely debatable decisions that have to be made going forward. We might at least begin by trusting one another.
RE: Why the Chinese Narrative Matters - 2006alum - 04-18-2020
(04-18-2020, 10:23 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote: We are all in this other, with of immense proportions, infinitely debatable decisions that have to be made going forward. We might at least begin by trusting one another.I agree, but the "we" is the entire world, as viruses don't see borders.
(04-18-2020, 10:23 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote:
The Chinese narrative - of mis-, and dis-, information extending well into February matters, because I think it is essential to take the war against the virus out of the realm of partisan, and particularly Presidential politics.
Seems like this contradicts your very valid takeaway.