forasanerworld wrote:"Really a pointless topic"
I'm not sure what that meant
This is in response to both you and Stinky: yes, I understand that there is a massive hysteria over this virus and it has impacted all of us. That was not what I meant when I said it is a "pointless topic."
When I said it's a "pointless topic" I say it in a more general sense, regardless of people's reactions to and behavior in response to it. I don't know if either of you are American, and because of the legality of "Holocaust denial" in certain areas I am not going to ask either of you to reveal whether you live in the United States, it's besides the point. I will state that yes, I do personally live in the USA, and that is my focus in this post. If you do not live in the USA I will only ask that you pretend for a moment that you do, for the sake of my point, and if you are unfamiliar with something I bring up there's plenty of information if you Google it. I think non-Americans will find my overall message applies just as much to them as it does to those in the USA.Dwelling on pointless topics/subjects/issues while ignoring important topics/subjects/issues is what the government and media have been doing in ideological lockstep for a very long time. That itself is an important topic/subject/issue all on its own, but I consider it a completely separate /topic/subject/issue.
I will bring up a very specific illustrative example that any American here probably remembers, and others may know something about: The Trayvon Martin case. "Briefly" some 17yo Black American was shot and killed in a physical altercation with a "White hispanic" civilian. This happened in the state of Florida, and that is relevant here because the laws regarding self defense and gun rights vary considerably by US state. In the state of Florida, we have what is called a "stand your ground" self-defense law, which you can go research more into if you want but its name is straight-forward and descriptive enough for you to understand what it means.
The controlled mass media created a massive spectacle about this event to the point that every American who wasn't living under a rock knew about it. People rioted over it, friendships were probably severed in many instances. What is also of note in regards to this sooting is that the victim, Trayvon Martin, was legally a "child", despite being 17 years old and fully grown at the time, an athlete even -- in comparison to the man who shot him, middle-aged, chubby/out of shape, etc. In the USA, a "child" is just someone under the age of 18, this number is arbitrarily chosen and certainly varies considerably through time and space.
Anyway, the photographs presented of Martin on the TV screen showed a young child -- probably because the most recent photos revealed a physically matured adult male, emulating gangsta-rap thugs which routinely glorify criminal behavior in their song lyrics. It was also reported that he was walking around with skittles, a candy that is typically associated with children. Although any adult can go to the store and buy it most adults feel no compulsion to do such a thing but probably have vague memories of a strong preference for sugary candy while younger, and now consider it just tasteless junk, probably a bit too sweet to even enjoy.
What happened was the soon-to-be shooter, George Zimmerman, spotted Martin engaging in what he perceived to be a plot to engage in illegal activity (robbery). So, Zimmerman (who was armed) followed Martin (after making a phone call to the police) and somehow this resulted in a physical altercation: Zimmerman was attacked by Martin and then shot and killed him.
Now, I am not saying a life being taken is no big deal, but the USA is a very large place with a second Amendment saying we have the right to own firearms, and in this country over 300 people per day are shot. So in this context, we have an individual physically attacking someone who was armed with a gun with the end result being that he was shot and killed by the armed target. The death in this case was not unlawful: if you're attacked -- at least in the state of Florida, and some others -- you can use deadly force. There is another similar case in Georgia that is more recent, and the Black man was actually caught on camera physically attacking another civilian who was visibly armed with a gun. The Trayvon Martin case was not video recorded.
The Wikipedia page is exceptionally lengthy, sporting over 400 citations, and has images showing the bloody face of the shooter, confirming that he was indeed in a violent confrontation (with someone far more athletic/agile than himself who could easily have fled) prior to his use of the firearm:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_ ... von_Martin
There was trial to determine if the homicide was itself illegal -- again, the law in Florida stipulates that you can kill in self defense if there threat of death or great bodily harm, you have no duty to flee or lay there and take it - which in some places, as perverse as it sounds, that is what would be considered the only lawful behavior in this instance.
This trial, which had an obvious verdict from the outset, was televised on many news TV stations. This is an extraordinarily rare occurrence in general, and especially for such a clear-cut self-defense case. And after the trial verdict came out and it was determined that, yes, it was a case of legitimate self defense and there was no crime committed in the process of Trayvon Martin being shot and killed, additional riots took place. and the mass media didn't shut up about it for weeks after. The president at the time - Barrack Obama, who is half-Black - declared publicly "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon"
So no crime was committed, it was a simple case of "man with a gun is attacked, uses it and lawfully kills his attacker in self defense."
Period, end of story. What more is there to talk about? This was determined within hours of the shooting. But the story dragged on forever and it was a central subject of focus in the mainstream news media for a very long time.
I think i dwelled on this specific (off-topic) example more than enough to illustrated my point. Ordinary things which happen all the time, or things which should not be treated as national news headlines, are treated as such: and THAT is the salient issue here.
Buried deep in this completely inane event there is an important lesson: the media does use emotional exploitation in order to convince the public to expend time and energy on things that otherwise are rather objectively "pointless" to dwell on.
There is an aphorism: Man bites dog
. What this means is that an unusual event (in this case, a man biting a dog, in stark contrast to the reverse: a dog biting a man) will be considered more newsworthy than something usual, ordinary, average, not especially meaningful. This remains true even if two events have comparable significance or impact on our lives.
Do you pay to read mainstream news articles? Do you pay to go on YouTube or wherever and watch the mainstream news channels tell you what supposedly is taking place? Probably not, it's free. It is "free" for all of us to use despite the massive quantity of resources being poured into providing it. That alone should indicate that the product here is you: your mind, your beliefs, ideas, passions, dreams and concerns. Do you want legal or medical advice? Go pay a lawyer or doctor for their time, even if you have medical insurance the doctor is getting paid for his time spent with you. But the mainstream news? That's completely free for the most part.
And it becomes quite obvious in a democratic society why so much effort and resources would be poured into elevating the perceived significance of non-issues in the general public while simultaneously ignoring other things which are actually more important. I will let you decide for yourself what is more important than the things we are told to worry about. However, I would myself offer the idea that this entire system in which a small number of individuals are able to determine what millions of people deem to be significant is exceptionally exploitable under any and all circumstances conceivable. Also, the particular nature and motives of these arbiters of public opinion in the real world is incredibly important as well. And that should be discussed at length, with extremely careful consideration given into deciding (assuming such power exists) who exactly is chosen
to make these decisions. Of course, that it not happening for the most obvious reason imaginable.
I will just wrap this up by sharing this video where someone else explains it much more succinctly than I could ever hope to:
This subject has been understood and deliberated long before you or I were ever born. It's very important but most people don't think about it in this way. This novel coronavirus is probably nothing you should personally worry about in regards to your own health - and if you are one of hte few who should worry about it, then there are many other additional things you should also be worried about that wouldn't matter to most people However, if the media or the government decide to use "Coronavirus" as an excuse to implement policies you find disagreeable, then yes that is something to worry about. But their ability to take non-issues and beat you over the head with them and force you to do things you wouldn't otherwise do is a completely separate issue from the particular non-issue they have used as a prop.
I hope that's clear enough