Read on Twitter
One of the ethical(?) problems I haven't wrapped my head around: Is it good for people to suffer *unnecessarily* so that other people don't feel unfairly treated?
e.g. If you could fish off your backyard, should you not, bc it makes people who can't jealous?
e.g. If you could fish off your backyard, should you not, bc it makes people who can't jealous?
Early on, I added a close friend who lived alone to our bubble. This was before it was clear whether a single person + multi-person bubble was within the rules.
Friends of other people in my bubble *lost their shit*. They were outraged.
Friends of other people in my bubble *lost their shit*. They were outraged.
It wasn't bc it was unsafe, it was (explicitly): why should I get to see a friend when *they* don't get to see their friends?
The level of anger - from people that I barely knew - really took me aback, and it's really shaped all my "anger is dangerous" views.
The level of anger - from people that I barely knew - really took me aback, and it's really shaped all my "anger is dangerous" views.
From my friend who lived alone's perspective, it's easy. This is an absolute essential need for her to stay sane.
But from my perspective, I *am* able to see a friend, and it does make my experience easier, and I can understand why it makes people resentful.
But from my perspective, I *am* able to see a friend, and it does make my experience easier, and I can understand why it makes people resentful.
But the generalised problem: should people who have an easy time have a harder time to make other people feel better? It's a weird thing to ask, and I'm not sure if it's a real fairness claim, or just cranky resentment.
