Page 19 of 19 FirstFirst ... 9171819
Results 181 to 190 of 190

Thread: The new COVID thread

  1. #181
    All Star Sour Masher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Fantasyland
    Posts
    9,129
    Quote Originally Posted by Teenwolf View Post
    Some have changed their minds, admitted they were wrong just before dying.

    The biggest revelation for me was seeing an interview with Caleb Landry, the guy who started a militia of anti-vaxxers called the Freedom Defenders, then died from Covid. He said something that really clearly illustrated the connection between right-wing thinking and anti-vax/anti-science thinking. Masks and vaccines and following safety protocol is completely new and foreign, and that's entirely antithetical to Conservative ideology. They fear and fight against change, in all forms. Landry put it so succinctly, saying "we don't want masks, and we don't want vaccines. We just want to go back to things like they were before."

    That's it. It's more about a fear of change than anything else, and Conservative mindset fearing change forces them to dig in instead of confronting reality. That's been my biggest takeaway of late.
    Welcome back.

    I agree that conservatism, in general, is cautious to change, questing of the new is necessarily better, and slow to adapt or adopt, but I don't if that is the primary factor here. It seems to be a general antagonism against science, or maybe just a reaction to how eager the left has been to accept these vaccines as safe and effective....I really don't know. I cannot wrap my head fully around how this has become such a dividing political issue in this country.

  2. #182
    Journeyman Teenwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Thunder Bay, ON, CAN
    Posts
    3,408
    Quote Originally Posted by Sour Masher View Post
    Welcome back.

    I agree that conservatism, in general, is cautious to change, questing of the new is necessarily better, and slow to adapt or adopt, but I don't if that is the primary factor here. It seems to be a general antagonism against science, or maybe just a reaction to how eager the left has been to accept these vaccines as safe and effective....I really don't know. I cannot wrap my head fully around how this has become such a dividing political issue in this country.
    That's the thing, this left/right divide on science is seen all over the world, and it's right wingers leading the anti-vax movement everywhere. In Canada, it's the same story as the US. Conservative provinces, and conservative leaders have been spreading anti-mask and anti-vax idiocy up here too. My local hospital was the site of a protest by 2000 anti-vax Freedummies, and rest assured, chancellor, there wasn't a Black face in the crowd. They managed to block ambulance entry to someone critically injured... fucking pieces of shit. They lined up to cough in the faces of counter protestors. Really disheartening world out there these days.

    Seeing the same divide in different countries simultaneously shows us that there truly is something about the Conservative mindset that guides them to be anti-science. I wish I could find the exact Caleb Landry interview that clicked the light bulb for me, but fear of change makes a lot of sense as an instigating factor.
    "My favourite is when Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi say "we need a strong Republican party." And I'm like, "um, well, I don’t. Not sure why you do." And then I realized why they do need a strong Republican party. Because if there was no Republican party, even if you were a fan of the Democrats, you would be like "hey, now what's holding you back from doing good policy if there's no opposition?" Because they'd be revealed as frauds." - Judah Friedlander

  3. #183
    At its core, religion is anti-science, so it's not surprising to me that conservatives tend to resist science more.
    If DMT didn't exist we would have to invent it. There has to be a weirdest thing. Once we have the concept weird, there has to be a weirdest thing. And DMT is simply it.
    - Terence McKenna

    Bullshit is everywhere. - George Carlin (& Jon Stewart)

    How old would you be if you didn't know how old you are? - Satchel Paige

  4. #184
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    3,790
    COVID is now the leading cause of death for law enforcement officers in this country. Police unions are still fighting vaccination mandates, nonetheless.
    Anti-fascist.

  5. #185
    All Star Sour Masher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Fantasyland
    Posts
    9,129
    I don't know if anyone has seen this site, which collects those who have publicly proclaimed themselves as anti-vax to followers on social media and then died of covid. I don't know how I feel about it. On the one hand, it seems a little gleeful of people dying. On the other, it claims to aim to educate, and if an anti-vaxxer is convinced by seeing all these anti-vaxxers who have died of covid in one place, then it is a good thing, right? What do you all think of such a site?

    https://www.sorryantivaxxer.com/

  6. #186
    All Star Sour Masher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Fantasyland
    Posts
    9,129
    On the above site, I found the story of the Alabama Pickers, a couple who had a picking Youtube channel that also featured anti-vax videos. They have both died. I went to their GoFundMe page, which is on its ay to its goal of 35k for one of their funeral costs (I don't know if there is another GouFndMe for the husband that died as well. And I noticed something surprising. While many donations were heartfelt, some of the donations were made just so the donors could post harsh comments condemning the couple for their anti-vax opinions. They are paying for the privilege to publicly flog the dead: https://www.gofundme.com/f/funeral-e...ZYK8BSAnmvYlZY

    I find the practice crass, but at the same time, I find GoFundMe's in such cases pretty crass as well. I understand their families may need help with expenses, but I could never bring myself to ask for financial help from strangers to pay for a funeral for a loved one in any circumstances, let alone 35k for a funeral for someone who died of a disease she refused to be vaccinated for and who tried to convince others not to get vaccinated for. They seem like they will reach their goal. Whether it will be worth it to put on a fancy funeral will be dependent on whether read the "well wishes" of some of those donating them toward that goal.

    All I know is that if my family spends over 35k to bury me, or even worse, asks strangers to help pay for that 35k funeral after I hastened my own demise, I will come back to haunt them. I want to do one of those tree burials if possible...they have pod urns for $330 you can put ashes in. The uncremated version would be cool, but I don't think it is an option yet around me.
    Last edited by Sour Masher; 09-17-2021 at 11:06 PM.

  7. #187
    Quote Originally Posted by Sour Masher View Post
    I don't know if anyone has seen this site, which collects those who have publicly proclaimed themselves as anti-vax to followers on social media and then died of covid. I don't know how I feel about it. On the one hand, it seems a little gleeful of people dying. On the other, it claims to aim to educate, and if an anti-vaxxer is convinced by seeing all these anti-vaxxers who have died of covid in one place, then it is a good thing, right? What do you all think of such a site?

    https://www.sorryantivaxxer.com/
    It's an amateurish version of the Darwin awards. I think it's a great idea, and I will offer Martin Luther in my defense:

    "The best way to drive out the devil, if he will not yield to texts of Scripture, is to jeer and flout him, for he cannot bear scorn."
    I'm just here for the baseball.

  8. #188
    All Star Kevin Seitzer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    8,067
    Quote Originally Posted by DMT View Post
    At its core, religion is anti-science, so it's not surprising to me that conservatives tend to resist science more.
    I've been thinking about what you said here. I have trouble squaring what you said with what I know. It's true that a lot of science deniers are religious and their motivation for denying science is rooted in religion. But it's also true that a lot of scientists are religious and their motivation for doing good science is rooted in religion.

    I read a really good book a year or two ago on the topic of science denial and its roots in the history of science. It is The Workshop and the World by Robert Crease. He talks about how science denial was an inevitable outcome of the history of science because of the weaknesses of science.

    Traditional approaches to countering denial do not work because they generally address specific acts of science denial rather than the dynamic that encourages such acts. ...Denouncing science deniers addresses only specific people, politicians, or claims, and leaves intact the social and political atmosphere in which they can get away with it. Moralizing only makes the moralizers feel superior. Exposés are easily ignored and can be accused of being tainted. Conducting epistemology--proclaiming something like "Science works!"--preaches to the converted and comes off as aloof and abstract. Hoping for politicians with integrity is wishful thinking. One must start by understanding what makes the social and political atmosphere in which science denial takes place flourish, and what can be done about it.
    ...
    The scholars and authors discussed in this book can help understand the dynamic of science denial, and what has been done to counter it. Part of the dynamic is that the very structure of science creates vulnerabilities. ...The authors just discussed allow us to identify several features that are strengths of science: it's a collective enterprise (Bacon, Weber, and Husserl), it's technical and abstract and requires special training (Galileo, Descartes, and Husserl), and it's fallible (Galileo, Descartes). Furthermore, its power also comes from the fact that it can act into nature (Shelley, Arendt), can be passed on as a tool (Husserl), and has social and cultural consequences (Galileo, Vico, Comte, Weber, the Ottoman experience, Husserl).

    But these six features can also turn into weaknesses that fuel science denial. That it's a collective means that it can potentially promote elite or disguised interests and amount to a "hoax". That it's technical and abstract can make legitimate people dismiss it, saying, "I am not a scientist." That it's fallible can appear to make it reasonable to say that "The jury is still out." The fact that it acts into nature can expose scientific projects to fears of producing Frankensteins. That its tools can be easily passed on means that their users can neglect or forget what is required to maintain them. That science has social and cultural consequences--including threatening deeply held beliefs--can make it seem to threaten genuine human values.

    Someone is bound to object that it is hard to draw the line between the strengths and weaknesses of science. How can you tell, for instance, when a scientific collective is legitimate or pursuing an agenda, or when a model is solidly grounded enough to act on and when action is premature?...Like reducing crime, improving the authority of science requires both short-term tactics and long-term strategies.
    The author then goes on to detail some suggestions, but I like the one that he closes with:

    Tell the story of how we got into this situation. Science denial is like what Arendt said about totalitarianism; while historically unprecedented, it arose because of the way our traditions developed. The longest-term strategy is to keep doing for science denial what she did for totalitarianism--keep telling the story of what led to it. This story would include how people promoted the idea of the workshop, defended its authority, and defended as well the special training required of those who work in it. The story would include how other people came to point out the dangers and vulnerabilities of the workshop, and to suggest some ways to counteract these. The story, in short, would have to be a mirror in which each actor--workshop participant, nonworkshop participant, science denier--could recognize themselves and other participants. It would have to highlight the differences between individual acts of science denial and the atmosphere that makes them possible; the difference between the moles and the machine. It would have to exhibit, not hide, the vulnerabilities of science, or what drives the moles. The details make the story fun and compelling, the seriousness makes following it worthwhile.
    "Jesus said to them, 'Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are going into the kingdom of God ahead of you.'"

  9. #189
    Administrator revo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    fuggedabboutit
    Posts
    23,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Sour Masher View Post
    I don't know if anyone has seen this site, which collects those who have publicly proclaimed themselves as anti-vax to followers on social media and then died of covid. I don't know how I feel about it. On the one hand, it seems a little gleeful of people dying. On the other, it claims to aim to educate, and if an anti-vaxxer is convinced by seeing all these anti-vaxxers who have died of covid in one place, then it is a good thing, right? What do you all think of such a site?

    https://www.sorryantivaxxer.com/
    Like one of those schmucks on Fox & Friends said, "they have a right to die." That's what they chose.

  10. #190
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Seitzer View Post
    I've been thinking about what you said here. I have trouble squaring what you said with what I know. It's true that a lot of science deniers are religious and their motivation for denying science is rooted in religion. But it's also true that a lot of scientists are religious and their motivation for doing good science is rooted in religion.
    I know plenty of the former but few of the latter, which is unfortunate because I would be interested to hear that argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Seitzer View Post
    I read a really good book a year or two ago on the topic of science denial and its roots in the history of science. It is The Workshop and the World by Robert Crease. He talks about how science denial was an inevitable outcome of the history of science because of the weaknesses of science.


    The author then goes on to detail some suggestions, but I like the one that he closes with:
    Sounds like an interesting read, but I'll admit from the snippets you posted, the author seems too empathetic with the science deniers. Of course this was pre-COVID so such denial denialism wasn't as destructive as it is now.
    If DMT didn't exist we would have to invent it. There has to be a weirdest thing. Once we have the concept weird, there has to be a weirdest thing. And DMT is simply it.
    - Terence McKenna

    Bullshit is everywhere. - George Carlin (& Jon Stewart)

    How old would you be if you didn't know how old you are? - Satchel Paige

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •