3 ms·

The difference is that I am happy to stay home. I believe it is the right thing to do for the tribe and an incredible bargain, an incredible cheap price for (mi

The difference is that I am happy to stay home. I believe it is the right thing to do for the tribe and an incredible bargain, an incredible cheap price for (minor) virtue and a sense of community, of togetherness.

jansan 6y ago
That was not the point that was made. The OP claimed that not being able to leave you house for a prolonged period of time is not a problem at all. Keeping people locked up in their houses is bad. Even if it is the best decision is a certain situation, it is still bad.
- luckylion 6y ago
  The difference is similar to being put on a diet and being starved. "House arrest" of dissidents usually entails much, much more. Threats, no entertainment, no internet, no social media etc pp. Lock down (which, in most of the world, it isn't, it's just "don't go down town and party", you can still go for a walk) is very much different. For all the mindfulness hype of the past years, I've expected people to take it better. It sucks, yes, of course, plenty of things suck. It will be over at some point (another thing that's very different form being put under house arrest as a dissident), and your life isn't in immediate danger. Acknowledge that it suck and move on. And turn off the news. Don't watch it. You'll hear when the lock down is over, and you don't need to know about the minutiae of potential horror, fear and the apocalypse.
  - jansan 6y ago
    >> "House arrest" of dissidents usually entails much, much more. Threats, no entertainment, no internet, no social media etc pp. Do you have any sources for this? I have the feeling you made this up.
    - luckylion 6y ago
      House arrest in authoritarian countries is not to save money, it's to isolate the person you're putting under house arrest without throwing them in a dungeon. Cutting off their ability to organize and communicate is the norm in those cases, so even Wikipedia mentions it: While house arrest can be applied to criminal cases when prison does not seem an appropriate measure, the term is often applied to the use of house confinement as a measure of repression by authoritarian governments against political dissidents. In these cases, the person under house arrest often does not have access to any means of communication with people outside of the home; if electronic communication is allowed, conversations may be monitored. They will often also forbid friends and associates from visiting the home of the person placed under house arrest.
- zarkov99 6y ago
  I was the OP. And I did not say it was no problem at all, I said its not that big of a deal and that others have endured far worse with more dignity. Of course it would be better if we did not have a lock down.

jansan 6y ago

That was not the point that was made. The OP claimed that not being able to leave you house for a prolonged period of time is not a problem at all. Keeping people locked up in their houses is bad. Even if it is the best decision is a certain situation, it is still bad.

luckylion 6y ago
The difference is similar to being put on a diet and being starved. "House arrest" of dissidents usually entails much, much more. Threats, no entertainment, no internet, no social media etc pp. Lock down (which, in most of the world, it isn't, it's just "don't go down town and party", you can still go for a walk) is very much different. For all the mindfulness hype of the past years, I've expected people to take it better. It sucks, yes, of course, plenty of things suck. It will be over at some point (another thing that's very different form being put under house arrest as a dissident), and your life isn't in immediate danger. Acknowledge that it suck and move on. And turn off the news. Don't watch it. You'll hear when the lock down is over, and you don't need to know about the minutiae of potential horror, fear and the apocalypse.
- jansan 6y ago
  >> "House arrest" of dissidents usually entails much, much more. Threats, no entertainment, no internet, no social media etc pp. Do you have any sources for this? I have the feeling you made this up.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    House arrest in authoritarian countries is not to save money, it's to isolate the person you're putting under house arrest without throwing them in a dungeon. Cutting off their ability to organize and communicate is the norm in those cases, so even Wikipedia mentions it: While house arrest can be applied to criminal cases when prison does not seem an appropriate measure, the term is often applied to the use of house confinement as a measure of repression by authoritarian governments against political dissidents. In these cases, the person under house arrest often does not have access to any means of communication with people outside of the home; if electronic communication is allowed, conversations may be monitored. They will often also forbid friends and associates from visiting the home of the person placed under house arrest.
zarkov99 6y ago
I was the OP. And I did not say it was no problem at all, I said its not that big of a deal and that others have endured far worse with more dignity. Of course it would be better if we did not have a lock down.