Not so bothered anymore

[mangojango]

I find it annoying that many people were so bothered about "helping other people" and "not being selfish" before the vaccine - now they're alright (Jack), they don't have anything to say about the pandemic, helping other people and I feel left in the lurch regarding the effects of lockdown etc.

Our lives with young kids are definitely not back to normal.

Well said, BoaCunstrictor

The focus was on pure numbers, not on people. It was a competition to see who could do 'better' among different countries. People didn't come into it at all. Many older people were essentially left to rot in solitary isolation in care homes because a death from despair and dehydration didn't count in the pissing contest.

This is sadly all too true

I do care about the suffering of others, which is why I want children and young people to stop missing out on their lives. And I want people to have confidence their businesses can survive. And I want people’s mental health to improve. And I want to minimise the endless string of things that will delay young people having babies (I.e. not being able to date properly as was the case during lockdowns), which will trash generations that haven’t even been born.

I care about the suffering of vulnerable people but I am also aware that we can’t have everything we want. And so my choice would be to address the much larger population’s suffering. Vulnerable people have always needed to take more care, and it’s unfortunately a fact of life!

@ManyMaybes well said. I completely agree with you.

@TheKeatingFive

i am beyond fed up of compromising my life for a society that doesn't recognise the costs of those compromises and sacrifices.

This is a great encapsulation of my feelings. I also suspect this is why people are vocalising their position more now.

@TheKeatingFive

Sorry to tag you but I can’t see who made the original comment. One problem, I think, is that some people seem to believe they’ve been virtuous in adhering to lockdown because they care for the ‘vulnerable’ and therefore, they’ve selfishly sacrificed. The reality is most of society adhered because it was law (or guidance) and the vast majority of people are law abiding citizens.

@ZoBo123

The vulnerable to Covid were given priority over those vulnerable to the effects of restrictions. I think initially we were in a state of emergency and society accepted that was the right thing to do. As time has progressed it is now the right thing to protect those who are vulnerable to other things and we shouldn't be afraid to express that opinion. The ending of restrictions will help a different group of vulnerable who equally deserve societies support.

@ZoBo123

If you think we prioritised the protection of the vulnerable to Covid, I can only assume you’ve had your eyes and ears closed for the last 18 months. The priority was to protect the NHS from being overwhelmed and we know the elderly and unwell people disproportionately use health and social care services. Shielding prevented this group of people from being put in a position where they’d become ill and require intensive and prolonged NHS and social care.

FWIW, I do not think restrictions should continue but I dislike the implication that ‘the vulnerable’ would have chosen lockdowns and that we haven’t made our own sacrifices. I’m certainly not suggesting I’ve had a harder - or easier - time than others. It’s not a competition. However, I strongly feel we need to put time and resources into those who have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic, regardless of their circumstances.

Sorry to tag you but I can’t see who made the original comment. One problem, I think, is that some people seem to believe they’ve been virtuous in adhering to lockdown because they care for the ‘vulnerable’ and therefore, they’ve selfishly sacrificed. The reality is most of society adhered because it was law (or guidance) and the vast majority of people are law abiding citizens.

There's also the fact that lockdown has been very much harder on some people than on others.

Someone in a settled relationship, who doesn't socialise or travel much and has been able to save thousands WFH in their nice spacious home will have had a very different experience from a single person whose livelihood has been damaged - perhaps beyond repair - by the pandemic, and who has been unable to do the things they love - maybe travel, maybe socialising, maybe nightclubbing - for well over a year.

Nobody is to 'blame' if their circumstances mean that the past 15 months have been relatively easy for them. But let's not continue with the prestence that 'we're all in this together', because we're really not.

@IcedPurple

Oh yes, some people have definitely been through a harder time than others. Unfortunately, in life in general, some people do seem to struggle more and face more adversity. I do think we, as society, should be doing more.
I suppose what I was thinking is that you cannot always tell from the outside what others are going through.

No, we aren’t all in this together. We’ve never all been in the same boat or even the same storm. Some stories and experiences are incomparable.

@Mickarooni and were personally scared of the virus.

‘Not so bothered anymore’

Tbf, personal circumstances meant I wasn’t too bothered in the first place. At least I’ve been consistent, if not to everybody’s tastes.

I think what is happening is more than a reasonable compromise between protecting the old/vulnerable & not absolutely flushing the economy & our children’s future down the toilet. I’m interested in who will be footing the bill for it all though. Should be those who benefitted most?

Very fortunate to be living in an era where magic potions can be developed/distributed within 12/18 months. I do wonder how long society would have stuck to things had their been no vaccines for a disease that let’s face it, presents absolutely no risk to humanity as a whole going forward.

@ButteringMyArse I can see where you’re coming from but I would point out that you’re condensing peoples pov’s, ime peoples reasons for wanting/not wanting restrictions (specifically) are a lot more complex than that. I agree that individual interest will be the driving force behind whatever they’re canvassing for. Whichever side they fall on their rhetoric is likely to fall into the category of moralising, it depends which side the reader falls as to whether they find that they have an emotional response to that.

@psychomath I don’t disagree with a lot of what you’re saying but I do disagree that there is no value in ‘lip service’, granted there’s not much immediate real life value but there is a value in generally agreeing on what is good or bad. To take the primark example further, if we can largely agree sweatshops are a ‘bad thing’ then benign support of any measures to tackle that means that there is no overt opposition iyswim. If the boundaries are broken then that becomes benign opposition and ‘who gives a shit’.

Maybe recycling is a good example. Before it became common to have it as part of household refuse collections people might recycle or might not, it was generally agreed it was a ‘good thing’ to do but hauling recycling up to designated bins wasn’t something most people were inclined to do regularly. Because of the general consensus it was a ‘good thing’ there was an acceptance of the introduction of household collections and pretty much everyone does it. Benign support/opposition has a value in introducing larger societal changes.

My original point is that judging others judgments strikes me as pot and kettle. My point of view isn’t strengthened by shouting down someone else’s.

@ButteringMyArse I can see where you’re coming from but I would point out that you’re condensing peoples pov’s, ime peoples reasons for wanting/not wanting restrictions (specifically) are a lot more complex than that. I agree that individual interest will be the driving force behind whatever they’re canvassing for. Whichever side they fall on their rhetoric is likely to fall into the category of moralising, it depends which side the reader falls as to whether they find that they have an emotional response to that.

I'm talking about a specific group here cornetto, and have been quite clear on that point. If a person has different motivations then clearly they aren't in that cohort.

It's also incorrect that whichever side a person falls on is likely to fall into the moralising category, because some people are making moral arguments and others are not. There are some people who are making arguments stemming from selfishness and proclaiming them to be more moral than other arguments stemming from selfishness, but it's not a behaviour everyone is engaging in. This fact cannot be analysed or both sided away. And it's why the behaviour I describe is so unpalatable.

Now I understand you being concerned at people verbalising that they don't give a shit about others. That's valid. It's not possible to fully understand this phenomenon without realising that it's possible to verbalise not giving a shit about others without using those specific words.

I think it’s clear I just don’t agree with you (nor you with me) here @ButteringMyArse.

To quote your post that prompted mine

I quite understand people being more bothered about whatever vulnerable group they or someone close to them belongs to. No objection there, that's just human nature. But the moralising? Repulsive

Repulsive? That’s a moral judgement isn’t it?

It is indeed a moral judgement. You say that like you think it being one is relevant? But I've been quite clear throughout my posts that it's the nature of this particular moralising, the pretence that one's own selfishness is more legitimate than that of others, that's the problem. And nothing you have said has negated this: much of it hasn't even succeeded at addressing it.

Fair enough @ButteringMyArse. I’m not looking for an argument just trying to understand why one flavour of moralising is ok but not another. A lot of your explanations have relied on presumptions about other peoples motivations which I would dispute.

You’re implying that your own moral judgement isn’t repulsive to anyone else because of your reasons, but that can’t be true can it? Your reasoning isn’t immediately obvious to anyone else and you’re assuming it would be agreed with.

We agree that people are motivated by self-interest but it’s not actually about the moralising itself is it? It’s simply not wanting to hear it; which is fair enough, but reads like an attempt to shut down a view you don’t align with by making it something shameful by utilising moralising yourself.

Fair enough @ButteringMyArse. I’m not looking for an argument just trying to understand why one flavour of moralising is ok but not another. A lot of your explanations have relied on presumptions about other peoples motivations which I would dispute.

It's really quite simple: some moralising is based on views that are worse than others. Like the type I criticised. And really, you're evidently fine with making presumptions about people's motivations, as we saw from your statement that people have more nuanced views.

You’re implying that your own moral judgement isn’t repulsive to anyone else because of your reasons, but that can’t be true can it? Your reasoning isn’t immediately obvious to anyone else and you’re assuming it would be agreed with.

There's no implication or assumption, as it makes no difference whether other people find what I say repulsive or not. Almost certainly some of the people I'm criticising will. That doesn't matter.

We agree that people are motivated by self-interest but it’s not actually about the moralising itself is it? It’s simply not wanting to hear it; which is fair enough, but reads like an attempt to shut down a view you don’t align with by making it something shameful by utilising moralising yourself.

No, it's about them being morally in the wrong to present their self interest as superior to that of others. People are allowed to be twats if they want, I can't prevent that. Presenting accurate assessment of people's actions isn't shutting them down, though if it was, you describing some people's statements as saying they don't give a fuck about anyone else would amount to this too.

In summary then: acting like one's own form of selfishness is ethically better than other people's is repulsive, not doing this is better than doing it, and you can be saying you don't give a shit about others without using those exact words. None of this is remotely complex, and there's a reason nearly everything you've posted trying to dispute it is wrong.

Well I think it’s fair to say we disagree then @bellamountain.