4 ms·

If it helps you that’s good and I might do the same. But two things: a) this is a luxury you can afford because you live in a country where you can trust that

If it helps you that’s good and I might do the same. But two things: a) this is a luxury you can afford because you live in a country where you can trust that your house isn’t going to explode tomorrow. b) If everybody did this, a) would quickly no longer be true…

JR1427 2y ago
To clarify, I don't close my ears to everything going on in the outside world. I just don't get my information from news websites or tv stations etc. I still like to talk to people about what is going on. I find that less stressful, maybe because when talking with friends, family, colleagues, we don't tend to use such alarmist language (at least the people I talk to don't). As for point b), I can imagine this might not be true, as long as it really was the case that no-one was informed. Hard to plan and orchestrate bad things without information!
- konschubert 2y ago
  > As for point b), I can imagine this might not be true, as long as it really was the case that no-one was informed. Hard to plan and orchestrate bad things without information! Sorry, yes. My assumption was that the bad guys will still stay informed, just like the bad guys don't put down their guns because I would prefer us all to be pacifists.
hnben 2y ago
> b) If everybody did this, a) would quickly no longer be true… Maybe the spiral goes in the other direction: Because no one does, a) is not true. I.e. because many people are "keeping up with hour-by-hour events", your house may explode tomorrow. If everyone was living under a rock, your house would be safe. Maybe there are two equilibriums. One equilibrium where everyone needs to know about current events because their houses may explode, and another equilibrium where everyone lives under a rock because their houses are save.
shepherdjerred 2y ago
> b) If everybody did this, a) would quickly no longer be true… Can you elaborate on why you think this?

JR1427 2y ago

To clarify, I don't close my ears to everything going on in the outside world. I just don't get my information from news websites or tv stations etc. I still like to talk to people about what is going on. I find that less stressful, maybe because when talking with friends, family, colleagues, we don't tend to use such alarmist language (at least the people I talk to don't). As for point b), I can imagine this might not be true, as long as it really was the case that no-one was informed. Hard to plan and orchestrate bad things without information!

konschubert 2y ago
> As for point b), I can imagine this might not be true, as long as it really was the case that no-one was informed. Hard to plan and orchestrate bad things without information! Sorry, yes. My assumption was that the bad guys will still stay informed, just like the bad guys don't put down their guns because I would prefer us all to be pacifists.

hnben 2y ago

> b) If everybody did this, a) would quickly no longer be true… Maybe the spiral goes in the other direction: Because no one does, a) is not true. I.e. because many people are "keeping up with hour-by-hour events", your house may explode tomorrow. If everyone was living under a rock, your house would be safe. Maybe there are two equilibriums. One equilibrium where everyone needs to know about current events because their houses may explode, and another equilibrium where everyone lives under a rock because their houses are save.

shepherdjerred 2y ago

> b) If everybody did this, a) would quickly no longer be true… Can you elaborate on why you think this?