4 ms·

" it's that the quality of people in leadership roles is not sufficient" This is rubbish, they are high quality leaders, not only that, they are perceptibly so

by jariel 6y ago

" it's that the quality of people in leadership roles is not sufficient" This is rubbish, they are high quality leaders, not only that, they are perceptibly so. This statement is easily disproven by the examples in almost every other country besides the US where masks are generally not contentious (they are in some small circles, but not broadly), the difference in the US being 1/2 of the countries populist leaders are either against masks or don't openly support them. 'The problem' is that Trump, Fox News, certain famous individuals, and Conservative politicians will not openly support masks, and attack the credibility of the medical system. If Trump and Brett Favre were to make a 10 second video vignette promoting mask wearing, and Trump+Fox+GOP+Everyone else were behind this ... then there wouldn't be much of an issue. " but leadership everywhere has forfeited that by using the pandemic as leverage for a pre-existing social management agenda" Again, this is conspiratorial falsehoods. "but if people find their leadership is using deception against them" More conspiratorial falsehoods. This is a disturbing misunderstanding of the situation: Americans would, by and large, be 'mostly ok' with masks, if 1/2 of the populist leaders told them to be. That's the only issue here. Turning the pandemic into a political weapon is the problem.

motohagiography 6y ago
I'm appreciating how ironically we are in agreement. There are people who can influence people, and those who can't. The former are real and credible leaders, the latter are not, and this is the danger. That the U.S. has almost a popular majority who do not believe their mandarin class has the national interest in mind (hence their preoccupation with so-called "globalists") is the evidence of this danger. It's not enough to be merely correct, you need to be able to prevail on the population to wear masks or make greater personal sacrifices to stop the pandemic. I live in Canada, where our prime minister is amusing to the sort of people he flatters, but the level of tolerance people have for sacrifice based on his word is very low. He'd be called a "lame duck president," in the U.S. My point is that leadership weakness is what puts the whole country in danger if it in fact ever had to unite to do anything. I agree that the U.S. president could get the entire country onside if he chose to, but clearly he is not convinced it's worth destroying the small businesses that would cost the country a generation of growth. If this were a partisan argument, I'd just bait you into reinforcing more of your prejudices and aspirations, but there is a serious conversation to be had about the the credibility of leadership in bringing people through a crisis like a pandemic. It's not enough for us to blame the outgroup, the virus doesn't care, so we need to look at what adapting to beat it might look like.

by jariel 6y ago

motohagiography 6y ago

I'm appreciating how ironically we are in agreement. There are people who can influence people, and those who can't. The former are real and credible leaders, the latter are not, and this is the danger. That the U.S. has almost a popular majority who do not believe their mandarin class has the national interest in mind (hence their preoccupation with so-called "globalists") is the evidence of this danger. It's not enough to be merely correct, you need to be able to prevail on the population to wear masks or make greater personal sacrifices to stop the pandemic. I live in Canada, where our prime minister is amusing to the sort of people he flatters, but the level of tolerance people have for sacrifice based on his word is very low. He'd be called a "lame duck president," in the U.S. My point is that leadership weakness is what puts the whole country in danger if it in fact ever had to unite to do anything. I agree that the U.S. president could get the entire country onside if he chose to, but clearly he is not convinced it's worth destroying the small businesses that would cost the country a generation of growth. If this were a partisan argument, I'd just bait you into reinforcing more of your prejudices and aspirations, but there is a serious conversation to be had about the the credibility of leadership in bringing people through a crisis like a pandemic. It's not enough for us to blame the outgroup, the virus doesn't care, so we need to look at what adapting to beat it might look like.