Spiro C. Thiery » Thu Jul 30, 2020 4:48 am wrote:liminalOyster » 28 Jul 2020, 10:44 wrote:
In short, I have yet to see anything anyone has posted here that includes theorising that would not fall into the glossary of terms over at the aforementioned blog.
Likely, but the rigorous engagement with challenges to said posting seems a bit wanting,
I couldn't agree more. Wait. I do agree more, insofar as I would spin that there is plenty of rigorous engagement and challenging of said posting, and the nature of it is wanting indeed. A more recent example features a discussion that includes a lot of assumptions challenged by a lot of counter-assumptions.
This thread could be a model for how politics works, particularly the two-party kind. We got the anti-vax party and the anti-anti-vax party, which demonstrates a tendency toward being simply pro-vax without rigorous engagement in the same way that the video channel "influencers" and those here who post their shit will deny being right-wingers while only ever demonstrating sympathy for right wing demagoguery.
An unsaid thus naturalized popular position gets masked by a reactionary opposition to the negative/critical position, yes. This is common,
EDIT:
I wonder how much of this is a personal representational effect (not just for you, but in general in public conversation). IOW, how much of it is about trying to fix the position of the other speaker?
Because I am neither implicity "pro-vax" (and don't believe such a thing exists), nor "anti-vax" nor "anti-anti-vax," but could, based on given posts or statements be misunderstood as any of the three (though admittedly the sum total would make me appear "pro-vax.")
What I've always liked about RI is that it's kind of fundamentally committed to working hypotheses about the known based on theorizing the unknown. Hence whenever popular politics impose themselves here (as in the case of SLAD's perpetual anti-Trump feed), it feels foreign and almost fascist. Trumps grotesque but IMO not at all what he appears to be.
But these terms (pro, anti, anti-anti) are all terms more or less from the pop political vernacular.
Vaccination is basically a form of body modification. Sure it has mimetic roots (antibodies) in a "natural" (occurring without the application of human labor) process, but also has connections to, say, bulimia, tattooing, designer babies, stem cells, abortion, etc. Hence to have anything but a fairly ambivalent relationship to it en totale feels as if it would associationally speak also to all those other terms, too. Upon which I have varying opinions, including no opinion.
So I'm definitely not "pro-vax."
Vax are just part of the world. I trust and intuit their efficacy in many times/places/situations. I get them. I give most to my children.
Anti-vax seems grounded, first, in a piety toward a form of "nature" I don't empirically believe in - that the world is best left untouched and has a guiding, teleo-logic. At the same time, I passionately agree with the body autonomy which underlies the anti-vax argument against mandatory vaccination. But then, notice, I've already tried to argue that Vax can be compared to bodily modification. Also, there's a fine line between the aforementioned teleo-logic and the common-in-Europe precautionary principle of public health which refuses to take root here. Which further complicates things because, in general, I agree with that ethos. Though sometimes I suspect that maybe accelerationist techno-futurism is a better answer. Though I never say this in person.
As for anti-anti-vax, I find it laborious to involve too much in that. Because it happens on top of these other two terms which I already feel complicated relatioships too. But I'm very familiar with VAERS and that numerous strong claims about it have been posted on this board at times both by those who would fall into either of the two aforementioned positions. There is a class of people (I've read their own statements) who want to "use" VAERS to prove something about vax, I've also read the position of those who would claims that VAERS has zero epistemological value.
My point is that I don't identify with any of the three positions or camps you propose. Which, in support of what you're saying, is not entirely different than how I feel about Trump/Anti-Trump/Anti-Anti-Trump or Abortion/Anti-Abortion/Anti-Anti-Abortion. Nor do I care about influencing anyone (here at least). But I value this outpost because it attracts and retains people with positions and thought-streams that often fall outside of or transcend these triads.
So, thanks for the challenge engagement, which is precisely why I like RI.
PS. FWIW, I currently entertain all the following taboo possibilities: 1) Something weird is going on with Hydroxylchloroquine and the truth of its efficacy or non-efficacy has been lost to a partisan-econmic theater, 2) Dr Stella is bananas but probably her demon etc theories, stated in other words, are not so crazy, 3) COVID is a legitimate pandemic caused by a zoonotic virus that is killing (both now and delayed) a huge number of Americans, 4) masks unambiguously reduced risk of aerosol and droplets when worn correctly, 5) I don't believe a word out of Bill Gates mouth, 6) I don't trust Fauci further than I can throw him (two feet maybe) but believe a lot of words coming out of his mouth, 6) I won't be surprised if hindsight reveals that the oh-so-crazy 5G theories were on the right path, 7) we could basically end the crisis if we chose, and fairly easily at much smaller economic hit. This list is probably ad inifnitum. But its always a good and high principle on this site to privielge Cui Bono. So focusing on 7 is the best course of action and pretty much returns us to familiar RI territory.
Who is benefitting at this time from the crisis. The answer to this one is worthy of rigorous curiosity, intuition and suspension of judgment.