This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Let's review the structural implications Covid Vaccine now that the memory hole continues to gape its cthululic mouth.
The Covid vaccine trials were mysteriously delayed until after the 2020 election. I do not think I need to expound on why that influenced the outcome of that election.
The Covid vaccines that were authorized during the period of mandates, passports, and general coercion, all relied on methods of genetic antigen production. Even though it was possible to have adjuvanted-protein preparations, the agencies only allowed the genetic methods of antigen presentation to be approved. When adjuvanted proteins were released, it was way past the mark of people losing their jobs, access to education, or access to healthcare (transplants). The curious side of me thinks this was an intentional, structural attack of nearly every organization in the country. Think Foucault "science is a grid of understanding that falls on your life" type of epistemic understanding. The idea that western nations forced a choice between unvaccinated or genetic methods makes me think this was intentional. A Joe Rogan podcast (sorry) with an epidemiologist who flew her children to Indonesia to get the adjuvanted-protein vaccination comes to mind of the deliberate choice to limit the market structurally (and painfully for some).
The Covid vaccines ended up being a "flu shot" type vaccine. Never before 2020 would you hear this type of fervor about flu shot compliance. So we have a new genetic method of antigen production paired with people "playing dumb" about the nature of the injection. First, the narrative was that the vaccine can stop covid, and then when it didn't, "experts" did not act surprised and were fine with presenting "flu shot" type outcomes (less severe disease). In an interview with current director of the NIH Jay Bhattacharya, a PhD, he coyly smiles and denies getting last seasons flu shot due to "being too busy," when I think it was a wink and a nod about how valuable flu shots and covid shots are, as well as bit of defiance in the face of the structural vaccine moment.
The covid vaccine (genetic versions) were marketed as safter than getting Covid. This statistic was the last pravda that was settled on, it has not changed since the vaccine moment simmered down. I generally agree with the statistic, that the covid vaccine safety profile was comparable to an infectious, deadly disease.
In my conversations with "in-the-know" doctors, the way to wink and nod about the Covid Vaccine attack is to discuss "absolute" versus "relative" outcomes. If you mention this to me, I assume you found the structural Covid Vaccine changes to be interesting, whether malevolent or not.
I think the above structural changes were malevolent. We went through one of the most sophisticated plans to epistemically drive Western countries to a desired outcome. When you look at who is most familiar with structural theories of society, you general find Foucauldian style academics to have the understanding of how making a "genetic vaccine moment" in America could help your friends and hurt your enemies. I think you could assign partisan blame if you were so inclined.
We have seen deliberate attempts to smudge together all vaccines into one monolithic product and doctrine.
You can tell how I felt about the vaccine moment. That being said, I receive TDAP boosters and the yearly flu shot (it is mandated, I would refuse out of defiance but I am not too concerned about getting a protein flu shot). I am not sure how many people still know, or care, about the above events. But I think there are relatively powerful people out there who have a similar understanding to the chessboard maneuvering of the American Genetic Vaccine Moment. When someone laughs, or mocks, any type of vaccine hesitancy, I do not necessarily object to their facts, but it reminds me about the grim smile of the doctrinaires who created one of the most epic, covert, structural attacks on Western people in their own countries, with plausible deniability and a righteous indignation about any resistance to it.
When I see smug laughing and smiling about anti-scientific sentiment (which can now be considered structural counter-attack), I remind myself of what is at the bottom of that smile. Proof of the existence of enemy doctrines. Proof that people will turn on you quickly. Proof that structural understanding of self-lessness and altruism, is a Western culture no-mans-land.
I hope you note there is not numerous debate of facts in the above writings. The only fact I think you can debate is whether the Vaccine Moment was a malevolent, planned, opportunistic structural attack on a segment of Western Society.
I don't really see much to engage with here; your assertions are packaged in such a way as to discourage careful consideration and it would probably be helpful for you to clearly articulate a thesis.
For example,
Just don't know what to make of this. That sounds kinda like something I could believe, but it's vague enough that I can't exactly go find out more or argue, can I? Except to say that I'm not sure I have seen that, no. Perhaps someone will demonstrate it at some point, in which case I'll likely adopt the position and also be upset about the matter.
Also you seem to be a single-issue poster which indicates crankery in general. Leaves me less interested in investing in understanding whatever it is you're trying to say.
Have you not seen critics of the COVID vaccine (any COVID vaccine) consistently described as anti-vaxers? The only time I recall a serious offline conversation about this, an old friend took my criticism of the social dynamic as criticism of vaccines in general despite my explicit words to the contrary.
99% of the time, critics of the vaccine are anti-vaxxers. Weird rationalists are weird.
nah, it's probably around 5% of the time people criticizing the covid shot are against all vaccines
although, I appreciate you responding downthread demonstrating people do indeed smudge together all vaccines as a tactic to label anyone criticizing a single one as an "anti-vaxxer," i.e., against all vaccines
Probably a lot of the people posting here who criticize it aren't against vaccines (although even then I'm not so sure). This place is, compared to the general population, weird.
Lots of people outside of the motte get tetanus shots even when they say the covid shot and the flu shot are harmful or garbage. Attempting to claim "95%" of these people are anti-vaxxers is a bad argument.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link