Conversation

I think I have my tactical ducks in a row now, but still missing the coup d’oeil. The problem with a virus as an adversary is that it makes for such a fundamentally meaningless conflict, it’s hard to “do strategy” around it in a traditional sense. Like division by zero error.
2
22
So much strategy depends on gaslighting an adversary and you can’t gaslight a virus. It doesn’t have a morale and psyche for you to collapse.
2
12
The simpler an adversary the better they can serve as a mirror. The simplest ones put you into conflict with yourself. The virus as bisector, creating two kinds of humans, each the shadow of the other. Reacting to the virus in mirrored ways.
1
9
There is the effort against the virus which isn’t really a war but more like a big science project, like Apollo Then there is the war caused by the virus among factions created by irreconcilable responses to it
1
6
I think there’s only 2 factions, currently represented by the save lives/reopen fast false dichotomy. The falseness is superficial. Sure there’s no economy to reopen really if it’s running amok. But the deeper divide is not yet clear. It is some sort of veiled eugenics debate.
2
13
Replying to
True people aren't monolith - but when you propose veiled eugenics - whoever supports - tries to operationalize eugenics - that essentially is a simplistic approach - essentially operating as if people were monolithic. Hence the need for 'veiled eugenics' you propose