The risk of civil unrest turning into a substantial amount of violence is something I've been thinking about for some time, and an escalation is definitely possible if types the likes of Trudeau refuse to back down no matter what.
On the other hand - in your last piece "the reckoning" you brought up the amusing phenomenon of politicians and scientists "trying to get on the right side of history" (the lockdown skeptics) so as to save their asses before the whole thing breaks down. So it might as well be that the narrative gradually loses power and people tell themselves all is right again.
I'm more concerned about what comes after. Suppose that we're allowed some relaxation of measures and matters calm down, if only for a while, what's going to happen in the background while no one is paying attention? Accelerating digitization and eroding of privacy?
At that point there are two possibilities:
1) we'll have been outrun and we're sufficiently locked in into a digital cage with no further room to move around without being detected and sanctioned.
2) your scenario of hell breaking loose.
In any case, the situation after 2 years is such that the conditions for an ongoing mass formation have worsened even further: more atomized individuals, more disruption of social ties, and a general deprivation of meaningful communication.
I am afraid the only way this ends is violently, otherwise it doesn't end.
They are relentless, they will never give up.
I envision the media as a river, large, fast flowing. When we post something that doesn't align with the narrative it is like a rock being thrown into the media river. It creates a splash, then, in a few seconds the splash disappears, and the river continues flowing.
The risk of civil unrest turning into a substantial amount of violence is something I've been thinking about for some time, and an escalation is definitely possible if types the likes of Trudeau refuse to back down no matter what.
On the other hand - in your last piece "the reckoning" you brought up the amusing phenomenon of politicians and scientists "trying to get on the right side of history" (the lockdown skeptics) so as to save their asses before the whole thing breaks down. So it might as well be that the narrative gradually loses power and people tell themselves all is right again.
I'm more concerned about what comes after. Suppose that we're allowed some relaxation of measures and matters calm down, if only for a while, what's going to happen in the background while no one is paying attention? Accelerating digitization and eroding of privacy?
At that point there are two possibilities:
1) we'll have been outrun and we're sufficiently locked in into a digital cage with no further room to move around without being detected and sanctioned.
2) your scenario of hell breaking loose.
In any case, the situation after 2 years is such that the conditions for an ongoing mass formation have worsened even further: more atomized individuals, more disruption of social ties, and a general deprivation of meaningful communication.
Bottom line: it's not over, not even close.
This just might be the reason why people will keep complying.
I am afraid the only way this ends is violently, otherwise it doesn't end.
They are relentless, they will never give up.
I envision the media as a river, large, fast flowing. When we post something that doesn't align with the narrative it is like a rock being thrown into the media river. It creates a splash, then, in a few seconds the splash disappears, and the river continues flowing.
And so, it will never end.