The LA Times Thinks The Term "Social Distancing" Should Be Changed To "Physical Distancing" To SAVE LIVES But People Are Mad Online About It For The Wrong Reason
Is the phrase “social distancing” sending the wrong message to Americans who are struggling to get by during the COVID-19 pandemic? Some experts think so.
This should be a relatively easy blog. I basically have the template for this blog saved from like 8 years ago. Somebody or some group wants a name changed from one thing to another thing for a stupid reason, write 2-3 sarcastic paragraphs being condescending to that person or group of people, click publish.
But there's a twist. While the point stands that this is dumb: people are getting mad for the wrong reason.
This is NOT a PC story. This is not someone being "offended" by a name. I know, that was my gut reaction too, I just assume when someone asks for a name to be changed it's because they were triggered and offended. And sure enough, that is the narrative that the anti-snowflake warriors-against-social-justice-warriors jumped on. Top response was, shocker, someone with a flag in their handle, flag in their banner, and "patriot" in their profile.
Advertisement
It's why I haven't been able to use "triggered" or "snowflake" in like 4 years. I used to love those words. My favorite words. But they've been completely co-opted and dumbed down and overused to the point that they're no longer even used correctly.
Nobody is "offended" by social distancing. There is no group of Physical Distancers who believe Social Distancers are appropriating their culture. No small band of vocal PD'ers demanding the school tear down statues of Civil-War era Social Distancers.
What you should ACTUALLY be mad about is....(hold on, let me rephrase that to fill the role I'm playing here, "well,actually guy")
Well, actually: what is actually dumb about this story and what you should be mad about is this "expert" in the LA Times thinks that you are a stupid fucking low-intelligence dipshit and he is the knight in shining armor here to be your savior, and at the same time, the LA Times has capitalized on this guy in order to invent an issue that didn't exist in order to get more clicks out of Coronavirus during a slow period.
You're being tricked into caring about something so you will click on it and engage. Trust me I do it all the time. I know. But even I wouldn't do it with coronavirus - ME! The Barstool guy!
I'll break down what I'm talking about down in 3 easy bullet points:
1 — Yes factually speaking it was dumb to call this thing "social distancing" instead of "physical distancing." Talking just pure definition of words. Physical makes way more sense. Ok, kind of annoying if you're a big fan of the English language. But the ship on changing that sailed about 30 seconds after it was first used on day 1 by someone on TV.
2 —Most people I think know that isolation is not good. Most would also probably know that isolation is dangerous, for what it does to people mentally, based on just stuff they've heard about prisons and basically common sense. What's probably not as well-known is just HOW dangerous isolation is during a crisis like the one we are having now. They mention the '95 Chicago Heat Wave briefly in the article — I actually read about this recently, just coincidentally, not to brag or anything, but watch me flex with this knowledge. Nobody knows for sure but they estimate roughly 700 people died during the heat wave, and the CDC did an extremely thorough job researching who exactly died and what exactly was the pattern. The results weren't rich vs. poor or black vs. white or even AC vs. no AC, those were all pretty much even. The main factor was isolation — how many friends you had or neighbors who checked on you or just if you had people who care about you. Most Chicago residents died alone, behind locked doors and sealed windows, out of contact with friends, family, and neighbors, unassisted by public agencies or community groups (Source).
So do not doubt the importance of isolation, they aren't exaggerating that fact.
3. So we cleared up that the name is stupid and that isolation is a big deal. Point 3 is....we're done.
That's all we need to know. Those two things that could have been fit into a tweet or maybe a 3-4 tweet thread, that's it.
"While you are social distancing during the quarantine don't forget it's important to stay connected with friends and family, keep in touch with people and make sure to check-in with anyone you care about to make sure they're doing ok." Boom. Important thing to remember, thank you LA Times for the responsible journalism with this 1 quick tweet you sent, it was just retweeted by @Kmarkobarstool to spread the word.
But no. We got something else.
We got the LA Times who, apparently fresh out of panic-porn to scare people into clicks for the overnight shift, brought in an expert to do exactly what they needed to do for traffic: create an issue where there is not one, pick a part of the pandemic that hasn't been overused, and stir up some arguments and outrage about it. Positive or negative, doesn't matter, engagement is engagement.
Referring to those measures as “physical distancing” is more specific, more accurate and could ultimately save more lives, he said.
Aldrich fears the phrase “social distancing” suggests we should be turning inward and closing ourselves off from friends and neighbors in the outside world.
“That’s the exact opposite of what we want people to do,” he said. “You need to have as close social ties as possible when physical distancing is in effect.”
So now a Poli Sci professor from Northeastern is telling us "social distancing" is a controversy. Experts think people are in danger. We need to address this before everyone dies. And make sure to put this in question form on social media - people love being asked questions so they can tell you their most correct opinion.
Is the phrase “social distancing” sending the wrong message to millions of Americans who are struggling to get by during the COVID-19 pandemic?
There is a chance they think you are this stupid. There is a much better chance the LA Times just created a nonexistent controvery out of thin air to stir up Coronavirus emotions in order to generate clicks on what is essentially just another "social distancing is important" article. It's insulting but impressive. They got a story about staying at home to be their top trending story after weeks of the same stay at home blogs.
Advertisement
Because let me be clear.
If you can show me one person with an IQ over 0 who is in their home, who wants to call their friends, interact with people, connect with family, so they pick up the phone or open up the computer and say WAIT — what did that headline say? "SOCIAL distancing"? Oh my God, well, ok. I'm a good citizen and a good human being and you know what, since I live my life taking everything that I ever see or hear by its EXACT definition, disregarding all social and context cues, as well as common sense and literal things I've seen with my own eyes and know to be true, I will not SOCIALize with anyone because I am supposed to SOCIAL distance. So that person becomes isolated and is found dead. Because this phrase said social distance instead of physical distance and it caused so much confusion in this person, they literally fucking died
Honestly, I hate to say it, you know who would believe that? A tiny child, or…a senile elderly person. And…well. You know. Don't make me say it.
So basically if the LA Times thinks this is a serious article and not a clickbait strategy then it is an article for tiny children and senile eldery people.
PS,
This is such a Kmarko niche blog, my God. I can't imagine more than 10 people care about this, 8 people who clicked on it, 2 who read all the way to the bottom. One of them being myself. Hey other guy, thanks man, can you believe these fuckers at the LA Times? Or woman. Ok let's be honest it's my mom. Hi mom.
Update -
PPS -
My mom did read it. She told me she didn't have time to talk because she's watching Ozark but there was a typo on point 1.
The typo is fixed.