While I really, really agree with that in general, there is one particular thing which really bugs me: very often the arguments brought against the current political players are post-fact and argued from hindsight.
I know it is a very unpopular position also around here, right now, but I would urge everyone to document the bullshit and the decisions taken, to be set into context of what the (excuse my French) arseholes in question did know ignore at the time of that bullshit, at the time of the decision, and even more important at the time of inaction.
There is going to be a discussion afterwards. There might be consequences, if we push for them.
If we don’t, there will quite possibly be landslide victory exactly for those who didn’t act, those who downplayed the pandemic, those who implemented policies against better advice for whatever wrong reason they had. Because the pandemic will pass at some point, and society does change already, and the ones in power are always favoured by “winning” a fight and are already using the pandemic to cement their power in many ways. Some even as a fnord. Others are starting to put blame on scapegoats.
We need to debunk, we need to document, we need to bring stuff to people’s attention. But it is no use to argue now, really. It often isn’t helpful at all to vent all your frustration in the strong ways.
We will need the facts, and we will need them later, and documented.
Personally, I would like to concentrate on other shit than on arguing with my political opponents right now.
@Richard_Kirk, please note that I am not at all saying you are wrong in any of the stuff you relayed (assuming you agree). I just used your post as an example because some sentences seem also to do post-fact arguing, and it is more carrying an atmosphere than documenting what went wrong.
I don’t, for one, believe in Nemesis. We need to do the work now so the juries can do theirs. There is no thing as fate.
