Coronavirus

My issue is that a phrase like "culture war capitalism" is itself a culture war weapon, which greatly dulls its efficacy. More generally, I'm exhausted by those who use terms like 'capitalism' and 'socialism' in order to invoke the basest, crudest forms of those systems as a catch-all against societal failings. Capitalism may profit off of demagoguery and disinformation, just as any other base human impulse exploited in advertising, but that doesn't mean that capitalism causes these things or allows to to flourish in ways that they cannot in socialist societies. Therefore, I think it's an empty characterization, and the writer may have a certain checklist for her own interested jargon to be employed. That's my guess. But articles like these are not going to be very helpful going forward, and there's so much more that someone could expound on this trend of closet vaccinations that would be more interesting and insightful and meybe even helpful to elucidate the social problems we need to address to improve our vaccination rates.

"unlike us" Unlike who? That's a not-obvious question. Because we've seen examples in the 20th century of non-capitalist governments using demagoguery and disinformation for profit, but that profit was in political control rather than dollars. I don't buy that a capitalist system necessarily makes these disinformation machines much more inevitable. In fact, while not perfect, Western news media under the "fairness doctine", which in America was largely driven under a 'loss-leader' system (non-profit), paradoxically proved to be highly profitable and more importantly popularly respected, and this was all within a robust post-war capitalist system.


The question is: does this writer feel that some websites that represent "us", or her own political convictions, are not also profiting on these culture war issues?

I think I already ranted about it elsewhere on this forum, but he main issue with these terms is that they can mean different things. They can represent poles towards which to tend (capitalism as an ideology of trying-to-get-towards-pure-capitalism, and socialism as an ideology of trying-to-get-towards-pure-communism). Or they can represent background components of a society, in which they are not mutually exclusive (but still a stake of difficult balance). And the point that I often make is that, almost always, "anti-capitalist" people march against capitalism-as-a-pole, within a society that they still wish rooted in capitalistic freedom (as opposed to a communist nobody wants). So there's a lot of confusion and bad faith around these terms.

But even in a balance, "capitalism" represents one pure component. And going "against it", denouncing it, is denouncing the harmful effect of its unchecked imperative.

In terms of medias, the pure "capitalistic" logic of if-it-gets-money-from-someone-then-it-is-virtuous can be balanced by imperatives, logics and priorities outside its values. And many countries have various forms of that, such as ethics committees that can regulate press freedom, and remove the press card from a corrupt journalist. Of course, there are many limitations (as with justice in general), it has to perpetually negotiate the limits of freedom of expression, it faces situations that are difficult to assess objectively, and it is inefficient in front of unethical outlets that don't rely on journalistic status. But it's one example of moderation outside purely financial values. And it is required, just like ecological regulations are required, etc. Every such authority regulating of any enterprise (based on other priorities than maximizing financial profit) goes against the "absolute freedom of market" that defined pure capitalistic ideology. And enterprises defend themselves by invoking this sacrosanct freedom ("if you're against it it means you're a secret Bolshevik").

But while all medias opt for clickbaity titles in order to survive in a capitalistic financial competition with terribly toxic consequences (precisely the power of money and anti-intellectualism), not all journalistic medias accept to bend, distort or obfuscate truth the same way, no matter how profitable. And those who don't are justified in raising the issue of how the system empowers those who do. Going "whatabout" on cosmetic matters is really avoiding the main issue of our times : the massive development of "post-truth" and "alternate facts" medias, shielded by "freedom of speech" and the lie that "truth prevails naturally" (this is simply not how cognition works, and they know it better than anyone). An issue that has terrible real life consequences in terms of racist violence or pandemics management.

So, here's no easy solution to it, and no solution free of their own pitfalls and dangers (who watches the watchmen and all that). But if there is a solution to mass misinformation, it will be outside of the pure capitalistic logic. And, in fact, any functional capitalist society requires massive components that escape its logic.

In other terms. The spread of lethal lies about the pandemic should be prevented. But pure capitalism, as a polar ideology, has no tool for that. It is, on the opposite, the tool of its spread. What will counter misinformation must also counter its capitalistic excuses.

But how dares it how dares it. Commies, the lots of them. Gulags, that's what they all want, right ? Right ?

Should we get back on topic with this thread? Which is Coronavirus.

__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.

Did anyone read The Premonition ?

But also : deadly misinformation about coronavirus, and how to deal with it.

Okay. I admit I have lost the thread of this thread somewhat. So I wasn’t sure if we were still discussing the pandemic.

But this goes back to the idea of morality. Namely, people who weren't vaccinated were willing to lie about it just to avoid the inconvenience of a mask. I'd probably feel differently if most people who were against vaccination were really going out of their way to say, "Look I don't trust this vaccine (or I feel it is against my religion), but I am going to take every other step I can to reduce the likelihood of me passing it on to someone else."

So if you're unvaccinated and also unwilling to mask or distance (which are clearly not dangerous), then, yeah, I think you are a bad person.

I also just got back from giving blood, and the woman who was doing the intake said that a surprising number of people with COVID symptoms were still showing up for their appointments, despite SO MUCH literature you get before donating that says not to do that.

To no surprise, my job Mandated masks once again today. Many complained, I laughed. Some argued, but it was apparent their arguments lacked any merit “it should be a choice!” Was the common refrain.

Thankfully, I always kept mine in my car.

Not like those people won't be wearing them under their nose. We'll show you!!!


I've gone back to wearing a mask around my parents. Currently sitting here on their coach, sweating after I just took a shower to come over here.Now that I rationally think about it, it's not worth it...my freedom has been compromised...I'm ripping this damn thing off and giving mom a big sloppy kiss cuz these colors don't run!!!

Just out of curiosity, why hasn't he been vaccinated?

Honest question; is a person more likely to get the virus if they've only been vaccinated or if they've only already had the virus?

I ask because I've heard conflicting answers. I don't believe either, I just figure if I needed to know I'd look it up, but this isn't about me.

Let's talk about an unvaccinated person who has already had Covid. They, like myself, may have heard or been told that because they have had the virus, they are just as or more safe than someone who has been vaccinated. Because of that, they may believe it's perfectly safe to be unvaccinated and not wear a mask. You are calling them a bad person, which I think is unfair. If you were the judgmental type, you may decide to call them some other things which may possibly be fair. I choose not to judge any of these people partially because that way I have no risk of misjudging someone, and also because I have nothing to gain from it. I believe that passing judgment is a partial cause of many of America's biggest problems.

Or what you believe are the implications of my position, which is two different things.

And I feel like I'm talking to a lawyer, the type who interrupts the person they're asking questions to by insisting it's a yes or no answer. I'll answer your questions how I want to answer them, if I decide to answer them. Try taking what I say at face value rather than trying to dig. Or do a better job at digging.

I have a moral obligation to call a stranger reckless on this forum? No, I certainly do not. I have more thoughts on these issues than I've shared here, but I've only shared the thoughts I've wanted to. That doesn't make it ok for you to make assumptions.

Wow, I am amazed at how wrong you're assumptions are. Everything you say here is wrong. That's a whole lot of misrepresentation.

Except you're completely wrong about what my words or actions really mean. You think you know better that I do? I'm not interested in your analogies because your entire argument is off base. Of course the analogies would be useless.

Emotionally charged terms? I guess that's a matter of point of view. I don't see it the same way.

Did I say someone said vaccine advocacy had to involve disparaging people, or acting "morally superior "? No, but you sure make it sound like I said that though.

I've restated it because you are getting it wrong.

What could possibly go wrong?

Sure, you could say that, and it would appear that in this case you would be correct. What I would do, if someone asked, would be to give the politician's exact quote, and then follow it up by saying, "what this means to me is that he's going to raise taxes". As a general rule, instead of picking and choosing when, I like to let the person I'm speaking to make up their own mind even when it is obvious. This is just how I look at these things, and it prevents me from passing along the incorrect interpretation of a message. No matter how intelligent you may be, when you take it upon yourself to interpret someone's words, you are at risk of getting it wrong since it's not always so clear cut. Back to the politician's message. Another person, and you know this happens a lot, could relay to someone else that the politician intends to raise taxes on black people. Well technically it is true, but at the same time it is misleading. This is the same type of nonsense you are pulling with me, except it's missing the true part. This particular point you are making is extremely ironic, but I'll get back to it.

Ok let me just get to why all of this is nonsensical and ironic.

It's obvious I am pro-vaccine, but really think about what I would say to a stranger who asked me if they should get vaccinated.

1. I would tell them that I chose to get vaccinated.
This would of course tell them that I think getting vaccinated is the right thing to do.

2. I would tell them to research the matter.
Of course the research would tell them to get vaccinated.

3. I would tell them to consult their physician.
Obviously their physician would tell them to get vaccinated.

For some strange reason this is not good enough for you and it now means I'm comparing tragedies???

"Whether you use a word or not, you can still take a position that expresses the same idea as that word."

That's what you said, yet you fail to see that what I'm telling the stranger to do is in fact to get vaccinated without actually saying the words. As I'm sure you know, there are many people out there who just flat out don't like being told what to do. I am not comfortable telling people what they should do with their body, but I can point them in the right direction without being pushy or condescending. I believe with a lot of people this is a more effective way of going about it.

By the way, this whole post of yours comes off as pretentious. We are not children who need a teaching moment.

I'm quoting these together because they're all the same: they're you saying "wrong" without providing any explanation. But I've laid out my reasoning and it's very simple, so if it's wrong, you should be able to explain why. It's a complete waste of time, and means nothing, to simply deny it with no elaboration.

Please note, by the way, the distinction between "wrong" and things which do not reflect your emotional intent. You say something above about what you "really mean" and ask "You think you know better than I do?" That makes me wonder if the issue is simply that the logical implication of your words doesn't match what you intended to say.

When it comes to your actual words, you actually don't know any better than I do: we can both see them. I don't know what you were thinking when you said them, and I'm not pretending to. But what you mean and what you say are not necessarily the same thing, and the distance between them is your responsibility, not mine.

Except for the part where I literally can't interrupt you and have never demanded the answer come in a particular form. Analogies are fine, but they have to at least sort of make sense.

This is needlessly hostile. Nobody said you had to do anything. But just as you get to decide how and whether to answer something, I get to point out if you're not answering, or if those answers don't make sense.

Here's the quote:

I will not disparage them or act like I am morally superior.

You quoted me, then responded with the above. That obviously suggests it's a response, yeah? So if this ISN'T about the kind of vaccine advocacy were were right in the middle of discussing...why say it? You just randomly tossed out a thing you weren't going to do, apropos of nothing in the middle of a conversation?

Then we both agree that it's quite possible to logically imply a thing you haven't said. So pointing out you didn't literally say a thing isn't sufficient, since you don't have to literally say things to express the same idea.

I 100% agree. Sometimes things are ambiguous and you can interpret them wrong. And other times they are not ambiguous at all. And those are the times I'm willing to dig in my heels and insist on an explanation. Where more interpretation is required, I'm generally more circumspect.

You're choosing one potential downside over another, yes. I'm not sure how that's even arguable. Maybe it's a reasonable choice, but choosing to either push people to get a vaccine or not is a decision, and decisions are literally, by definition, comparisons.

That may be true in general, and obviously this may be true for some people. But taking this stance because you think it's effective is different than taking it out of principle. If your position was "yes, they're being reckless and ignorant and we should be willing to say so, but I don't think it'll work so I do this instead," you could have said that at any point and I'd have accepted it (meaning I'd have found it reasonable, whether I agreed or not). But that's not what you said: you made it clear early and often that you had a personal problem telling people to get it. You were uncomfortable "telling people what to do with their bodies." That's what I'm responding to. I have no issue with the idea that in some cases the indirect approach may be more likely to persuade.

I don't know who the "we" is here. You? Vaccine skeptics? I honestly can't tell. And notice how, because it's ambiguous, I'm perfectly happy to ask rather than make any assumption.

What you call pretentious, I call thorough. More importantly, it's the only option left to me if you keep responding just by saying things are wrong without explaining why. I'm left to break down the logic as simply as possible in an effort to get you to explain which part you're objecting to.

His wife is incredibly opposed and I think she's sort of set the policy for the whole family.

I don't know, honestly. Obviously antibodies from having had it offers some degree of protection.

But those aren't the people I'm talking about. I'm talking about people who haven't had COVID and have either decided that they won't get it or that they'll be "fine" if they do get it.

One of the electricians who came to service my HVAC system told me he was sick with COVID for three weeks. He wants to get vaccinated, but you have to wait a certain amount of time after having it.

People who have recovered are a different category, and I don't know enough about the numbers to say what they should or shouldn't be doing. (The numbers I'm seeing most often online seem to say that people who've had it have about 80% protection for the 6 months after their infection, though the percentage is only 47% for those over 65).

I posted the summary of my feelings before to avoid this nonsense but I guess I need to post it again.

My wife and I have been vaccinated.

I wish everyone would get vaccinated.

If someone asked me if they should get vaccinated, I'd say it's what I chose to do. You should do your research, consult your physician, and make your decision.

If someone decides against getting vaccinated, I don't need to know their reason, but I will not disparage them or act like I am morally superior.

Do you really need an explanation for any of this? I'm trying to keep this simple to avoid these ridiculous drawn out conversations. Is that possible with you?

My point is that you are pushing me to answer in a way that satisfies you, rather than the way I want to.

I've come right out and said that I don't care for some of your questions so I'm going to pass. You feel the need to push on anyway. My feelings on the matter are clear. If any of it doesn't make sense to you, blame your incorrect assumptions.

That's been part of my very concise general feelings on this issue and it hasn't changed. You've talked about calling out recklessness and this is my way of telling you that I'm not going there. I'm not going to judge people who I don't know by calling them reckless, bad, idiots, rotten, stupid, irresponsible, or any other insulting word you can think of.

Of course, but it may be a good idea to say that it's just your interpretation for when you get it wrong.

You can insist on an explanation but it doesn't mean you'll get one to your satisfaction. That doesn't mean you should make up your own.

You seem to be of the belief that what I would tell a stranger isn't good enough. Because you don't think it's good enough, you believe I'm making comparisons. What I would tell a stranger is good enough whether you like it or not. You react as if I were telling people not to get the vaccine.

Of course being effective is different than out of principle, but I can combine the two. Omg there was a way to get you to accept my thoughts on the matter? That would be great if I cared, and I don't mean that to sound jerky. I've given my thoughts on the matter and I simply don't care what people think of them. And yes I'm uncomfortable telling people what to do with their bodies. I feel like I should be able to tell someone that without them saying, but whyyyy?

Whoever reads the post.

I shouldn't have to explain to someone why they're assumptions are wrong when they are not assumptions that I came up with.


So after more needless chatter, maybe from here you could just refer to the summarization of my thoughts? You know since what I said is so simple and clear.

No valid reason? So what type of person does that make him? Is he reckless? A Trump supporter? Have you pressured him enough to change his mind?

That's cool. I was just wondering because you didn't exclude them when you labeled a certain type of people bad. Are there any other exceptions for people who won't get vaccinated or wear a mask, or are the rest bad?