I have certainly engaged in the struggle to find a balance in my new life. I am enraged with the changes I see in the world. I am constantly saying "I can't believe this" at the newest offence when nothing should surprise me anymore. I have several like minded children, grandchildren, and a few close friends so I have the social interactions I need but still turn to substack for the sense of community it offers. Knowing this small fellowship of people who come from differing backgrounds of faith, science, and political ideology has confirmed to me that the fight is worth having even though I suspect the loss is inevitable. Words that ground us in what matters in life are appreciated during times when the losses add up. Thank you.
Thank you for your response collealle. Everyone wants to have a sense of community and I am glad that Substack can serve as such a place for many people. I think unlike Twitter or Facebook it doesn't have the same effects that force you to keep checking back and becoming fully attached to it, although I wouldn't be surprised if Substack is moving in that direction.
There is something strange happening. Modernity is really changing a lot of how we interact socially and culturally. I think we're working under false pretenses that technological advancements are all good when I think it's more apparent that there is more going on that we're probably not aware of and we will likely pay for it at some point.
The Tom Hanks example is interesting. He is an older diabetic and yet he did fine with Covid. I actually felt at that point that WELL-MANAGED preexisting conditions were not a huge risk factor, as opposed to unmanaged. It would be interesting to know what early therapies he received at that time. I’m sure he took SOMETHING. My guess? HCQ or Ivermectin.
I think the important idea here is that government and medical agencies needed to find ways to influence the behaviors and ideas of Americans and Tom Hanks' public announcement was likely responsible for the eventual policies we adopted.
As for what he took, considering it was early on I wouldn't be surprised if they either threw the whole sink at him or he really just did not have a difficult time with it.
It's also upsetting to see how many people would willingly go along with whatever influencers say. It's weird that being an influencer itself comes with its own authority, but I think it also may be a few levels of parasocialization that may become a bit too meta.
Yeah, right, it is weird. It's the influence of celebrity and fame in this country. The power is in the ability to get a perspective our narrative out. It wouldn't matter if the celebrity influencer didn't know the truth from a hole in their rear. The power is in the celebrity itself, and it is can be incredibly powerful.
Well, to be fair John by commenting you actually are not engaging in parasocial relationships since there is a level of reciprocity at play here. Or maybe I won't say anything and we can keep it parasocial! Hahaha
I will say John, that I do admire those doctors but hesitate to see a lot of the obsequiousness coming from people who otherwise pride themselves as being heterodox thinkers. I disagree with the Germ Theory being a hoax mostly because I think it's the balance of pathogens and the body that really needs to be looked at. We need a lot more nuanced discussion that tries to tie things together and relate ideas to one another, and unfortunately it seems like many still want to be told what to think or be given heuristics to work off of.
If it makes you feel better not becoming entrenched in the discussion, then I absolutely don't blame you stepping away. It's the reason I made these series. It's a lot to dwell on all of these ideas when the end result makes you upset or angry.
I'll look into those books. As someone who is not religious I do find a lot of virtues with religion and I would argue that a lot of that has been lost for the sake of being contrarian among many secularists. A lot of those points are really important, especially the fifth one which is another way of stating "trust, but verify".
It may be difficult to remove all forms of technology, but being aware of how all sides will play on your emotions and understand that no one is really deserving of your blind allegiance will at least help become become more critical skeptics which is really what we need right now.
I have certainly engaged in the struggle to find a balance in my new life. I am enraged with the changes I see in the world. I am constantly saying "I can't believe this" at the newest offence when nothing should surprise me anymore. I have several like minded children, grandchildren, and a few close friends so I have the social interactions I need but still turn to substack for the sense of community it offers. Knowing this small fellowship of people who come from differing backgrounds of faith, science, and political ideology has confirmed to me that the fight is worth having even though I suspect the loss is inevitable. Words that ground us in what matters in life are appreciated during times when the losses add up. Thank you.
Thank you for your response collealle. Everyone wants to have a sense of community and I am glad that Substack can serve as such a place for many people. I think unlike Twitter or Facebook it doesn't have the same effects that force you to keep checking back and becoming fully attached to it, although I wouldn't be surprised if Substack is moving in that direction.
There is something strange happening. Modernity is really changing a lot of how we interact socially and culturally. I think we're working under false pretenses that technological advancements are all good when I think it's more apparent that there is more going on that we're probably not aware of and we will likely pay for it at some point.
The Tom Hanks example is interesting. He is an older diabetic and yet he did fine with Covid. I actually felt at that point that WELL-MANAGED preexisting conditions were not a huge risk factor, as opposed to unmanaged. It would be interesting to know what early therapies he received at that time. I’m sure he took SOMETHING. My guess? HCQ or Ivermectin.
I think the important idea here is that government and medical agencies needed to find ways to influence the behaviors and ideas of Americans and Tom Hanks' public announcement was likely responsible for the eventual policies we adopted.
As for what he took, considering it was early on I wouldn't be surprised if they either threw the whole sink at him or he really just did not have a difficult time with it.
I feel sad seeing young people doing the government's bidding.
It's also upsetting to see how many people would willingly go along with whatever influencers say. It's weird that being an influencer itself comes with its own authority, but I think it also may be a few levels of parasocialization that may become a bit too meta.
Yeah, right, it is weird. It's the influence of celebrity and fame in this country. The power is in the ability to get a perspective our narrative out. It wouldn't matter if the celebrity influencer didn't know the truth from a hole in their rear. The power is in the celebrity itself, and it is can be incredibly powerful.
Well, to be fair John by commenting you actually are not engaging in parasocial relationships since there is a level of reciprocity at play here. Or maybe I won't say anything and we can keep it parasocial! Hahaha
I will say John, that I do admire those doctors but hesitate to see a lot of the obsequiousness coming from people who otherwise pride themselves as being heterodox thinkers. I disagree with the Germ Theory being a hoax mostly because I think it's the balance of pathogens and the body that really needs to be looked at. We need a lot more nuanced discussion that tries to tie things together and relate ideas to one another, and unfortunately it seems like many still want to be told what to think or be given heuristics to work off of.
If it makes you feel better not becoming entrenched in the discussion, then I absolutely don't blame you stepping away. It's the reason I made these series. It's a lot to dwell on all of these ideas when the end result makes you upset or angry.
I'll look into those books. As someone who is not religious I do find a lot of virtues with religion and I would argue that a lot of that has been lost for the sake of being contrarian among many secularists. A lot of those points are really important, especially the fifth one which is another way of stating "trust, but verify".
It may be difficult to remove all forms of technology, but being aware of how all sides will play on your emotions and understand that no one is really deserving of your blind allegiance will at least help become become more critical skeptics which is really what we need right now.