zlacker

>>david9+(OP)
History books can tell you facts that happened, but they can never truly tell you how it feels.

I feel we're riding a knife's edge and there's a hurricane brewing in the gulf of absurdity.

====

Incidentally, I feel like this is why it is so hard to actually learn from history. You can read about the 1918 'Spanish' Flu, but you think "we're smarter now". etc.

>>csours+kk

  You can read about the 1918 'Spanish' Flu, but you think "we're smarter now". etc.

Interesting how this quote can be interpreted in fully opposite ways depending on what "side" you were on during covid

>>ttoino+Rq
> depending on what "side" you were on during covid

It's bizarre that there should be "sides" for how to deal with a public health issue. I can understand differing approaches, but it's the extreme polarisation that flabbergasts me.

>>ndsipa+uU
It was simple. People without ethical limits seen their opening to weaponize fear and discomfort ... and succeeded.

>>watwut+kC1
Your sentence can also be applied to both ‘sides’

>>ttoino+mJ1
No, I do not think so. I am genuinely curious whether you actually mean it ... or whether you are playing semantic game.

>>watwut+L42
Absolutely not playing a semantic game. I chose my side of this crisis -- but steelmanning your own argument and understanding the other side is good to do

   It was simple. People without ethical limits seen their opening to weaponize fear and discomfort ... and succeeded.

People without ethical limits = people not wearing masks and not practicing social distancing

weaponize fear and discomfort = get close to others (masked) in public and breathe in front of them