Heh, not to be provocant but I'm actually more interested in the topic of animism/paganism and that's why I'm here and I'm starting to be over the 'woke' thing and even over Covid and vaccines. I feel like these beasts just grow and grow the more we talk about them and are both at the same time unsubstantial. I honestly don't say that to be provocant though! As long as you feel like exploring these topics I will still follow along because you do have interesting things to say about them. But the reason I personally follow is the pagan thing :)
judith butler's prose style alone makes it impossible to trust or believe a single word she says. she has to be one of the most dishonest and toxic intellectual frauds of the last 30 years. the postmodernist profs may not have proved that there is no such thing as 'truth' but they have absolutely proved that there is such a thing as lies.
She's quite circular in her speaking style, as well, and relies a lot on unspoken social justice dogmas for her conclusions. Anyone already steeped in all that would have been nodding along happily to what she said, but anyone not would have left confused. They call this 'dogwhistling' when right-wingers do it....
Well, at over 150 minutes I don't have time to watch this as I have brush to clear on my property which in its own way is a philosophical endeavor.
It's an interesting trio, though, perhaps I'll be able to listen to the audio over a period of time.
I do want to encourage you to continue to consider the issue of 'wokeness' because in the milieu where I live it permeates the culture. The erasure of class is quite problematic in my view.
On the vaccine mandates, what about mandated childhood vaccinations? If the covid vaccine were sterilizing I would be more in favor of mandates. As it is, seems no more reasonable to mandate it than the influenza vaccine.
We live in (biologically) unnaturally large congregations of individuals and if we are to survive we have to have technological interventions, just like factory farms do.
I'm about halfway through and they're talking about Zemmour and West is characterizing whiteness (or at least white nationalism) as wanting to claim land as "My land" and Butler is wringing her hands over the French fear of Muslims. But it seems to me that the concerns Zemmour is capitalizing on- loss of attachment and sovereignty as it is located in a specific land, place, history, and culture- are exactly the kinds of fears leftists are quick to validate when it is, say, a post-colonial African nation, or a remote indigenous tribe in the Amazon experiencing those fears.
It's a little bit different when we talk about this in the US, because we are a nation born in colonialism, and we all know, unless we are Native American, that we came from somewhere else. But for all intents and purposes, the descendants of Gauls, Franks, and Normans have been in one place with a common identity, language, and culture for long enough that they are, for all intents and purposes, indigenous to that land, and it is their land.
And the impulse to protect one's land and cultural identity is pretty universal. Indigenous tribal groups have been fighting over land and territory since at least the beginning of recorded history. Respect for that fact is one of the reasons leftist are so fond of things like land acknowledgments.
So why is it different when the people wanting to preserve their land and culture are white? I'm asking this honestly, as someone who has recently stepped back from my own leftist identity and tried to take a more curious and honest look at things. It feels much easier for me to be pro-immigration in the United States, where we have always been a nation of immigrants and we still have a relatively low population density, on average. But European Countries, which are relatively small, population-dense, and which have a much stronger claim to national identity and ties to the land than white Americans do, force me to re-consider.
I also want to be clear I don't think the answer to all this is far-right nationalism. But I do think the left just wants to write these fears off as being retrograde and white supremacist rather than honestly engaging them, which leaves room for the actual fascists to capitalize.
One really important thing to note about the European situation is that it isn't as different from that in America. France as a nation is only 200 and some change years old. Germany is only a little more than a century old, as is Italy. So, national identity is a very new thing here, and it was constructed the same way American identity was.
Also, the reason for immigration in the same in both places. Bringing immigrants in creates a new lower class of workers who provide cheap labor in a kind of pyramid scheme. Both right wing and left wing governments have opened up to mass immigration in the past in order to bring in more labor, and those immigrants inevitably change the cultural fabric.
When those immigration waves are paced out, each group has a chance to integrate and society has a chance to adopt, but this has been more like a tidal wave in the past few decades. Neither the immigrants nor those already in the country have had time to integrate with each other, and this causes strife. Right wing governments then blame the immigrants, while left wing governments blame the people who were already there, and neither of them admit that they themselves caused the problem both groups are facing.
Regarding the idea of vaccine mandates: I'm not arguing one way or the other, but one thing that adds to the complexity of the issue is that (at least where I live) the VAST majority of anti-vaxxers could also give a fuck about doing anything--even the simplest things--to keep other people (including themselves) from getting infected and spreading it around. Things are much harder to navigate when a large chunk of the population doesn't necessarily share a sense of responsibility for their role in the larger communities they inhabit.
I work in health care, and while I am highly critical of much of the western medical paradigm, I think vaccination is one thing we do really well. So I am supportive of the COVID vaccine, encourage people to get it, and am also sympathetic to those who are suspicious of vaccination. My tendency is to want to oppose vaccine mandates, but when the hospitals are being overrun by people who are unvaccinated and believe COVID is a hoax, causing HC workers to become overwhelmed and leave the profession, as well as limiting services for everyone else, it is harder for me to maintain that position. One solution that seems reasonable to me is to mandate that everyone either be vaccinated or sign a waiver declining vaccination, with the caveat that they can be denied healthcare should they contract COVID. That would never fly in the US for many reasons, cultural, political, and legal, but I do think people who decline the vaccine should be forced to think through the consequences of their decision.
yeah that's an obvious extension of this line of argument. It reminds me of how insurance companies in the US worked with corporations to create tiered plans according to "healthy habits." Some even tried to work with digital health trackers like FitBit--employees who wore them and turned over their data got "discounts" if they were being active enough.
Of course they could have just done what even conservative governments do in Europe and give everyone the same amount of care at the same rate and stop trying to claim more biopolitical power...
I also sympathize with folks who are skeptical about vaccination--I get that skepticism too. However, as I mentioned in my previous comment, it seems to be a a true rarity to have skepticism coupled as well with a sense of responsibility for others. I agree with your idea of having a waiver and possible denial of healthcare. I've been saying something similar for a while now. I also agree it would probably never fly! My best friend's wife is a nurse and her stories from the past year-plus have been heartbreaking and maddening.
I see something similar in the dynamic at play with climate change and the environment. It would be one thing if a lot of the climate-deniers also had a sense of this issue something along the lines of: "While I am skeptical of the climate science/climate change, etc. I also think we have a real need to treat this planet a lot better than we currently are . . ." I imagine there are some out there who have this concept, but it has to be a rarity--I can't recall anyone who does either in public or my personal life. Instead having an attitude towards the earth that is more or less homicidal seems to also be part of the total package.
Hmm. I think he is, and I think that it actually greatly helps us all that there are leftists like him speaking to otherwise highly propagandized people. Angela Nagle has also been on Fox news programs, and having seen clips of both of their appearances, I think they're doing good there.
In fact, Fox gets a lot of mileage out of the 'all leftists are whiny woke people,' but then when Glenn and Angela appear, viewers see that there are those on the left who stand for something else entirely.
Also worth noting: none of the other networks (including Democracy Now) will even invite Greenwald. He's pretty much blacklisted as a traitor to the DNC.
You are absolutely correct.
Heh, not to be provocant but I'm actually more interested in the topic of animism/paganism and that's why I'm here and I'm starting to be over the 'woke' thing and even over Covid and vaccines. I feel like these beasts just grow and grow the more we talk about them and are both at the same time unsubstantial. I honestly don't say that to be provocant though! As long as you feel like exploring these topics I will still follow along because you do have interesting things to say about them. But the reason I personally follow is the pagan thing :)
judith butler's prose style alone makes it impossible to trust or believe a single word she says. she has to be one of the most dishonest and toxic intellectual frauds of the last 30 years. the postmodernist profs may not have proved that there is no such thing as 'truth' but they have absolutely proved that there is such a thing as lies.
She's quite circular in her speaking style, as well, and relies a lot on unspoken social justice dogmas for her conclusions. Anyone already steeped in all that would have been nodding along happily to what she said, but anyone not would have left confused. They call this 'dogwhistling' when right-wingers do it....
Well, at over 150 minutes I don't have time to watch this as I have brush to clear on my property which in its own way is a philosophical endeavor.
It's an interesting trio, though, perhaps I'll be able to listen to the audio over a period of time.
I do want to encourage you to continue to consider the issue of 'wokeness' because in the milieu where I live it permeates the culture. The erasure of class is quite problematic in my view.
On the vaccine mandates, what about mandated childhood vaccinations? If the covid vaccine were sterilizing I would be more in favor of mandates. As it is, seems no more reasonable to mandate it than the influenza vaccine.
We live in (biologically) unnaturally large congregations of individuals and if we are to survive we have to have technological interventions, just like factory farms do.
I'm about halfway through and they're talking about Zemmour and West is characterizing whiteness (or at least white nationalism) as wanting to claim land as "My land" and Butler is wringing her hands over the French fear of Muslims. But it seems to me that the concerns Zemmour is capitalizing on- loss of attachment and sovereignty as it is located in a specific land, place, history, and culture- are exactly the kinds of fears leftists are quick to validate when it is, say, a post-colonial African nation, or a remote indigenous tribe in the Amazon experiencing those fears.
It's a little bit different when we talk about this in the US, because we are a nation born in colonialism, and we all know, unless we are Native American, that we came from somewhere else. But for all intents and purposes, the descendants of Gauls, Franks, and Normans have been in one place with a common identity, language, and culture for long enough that they are, for all intents and purposes, indigenous to that land, and it is their land.
And the impulse to protect one's land and cultural identity is pretty universal. Indigenous tribal groups have been fighting over land and territory since at least the beginning of recorded history. Respect for that fact is one of the reasons leftist are so fond of things like land acknowledgments.
So why is it different when the people wanting to preserve their land and culture are white? I'm asking this honestly, as someone who has recently stepped back from my own leftist identity and tried to take a more curious and honest look at things. It feels much easier for me to be pro-immigration in the United States, where we have always been a nation of immigrants and we still have a relatively low population density, on average. But European Countries, which are relatively small, population-dense, and which have a much stronger claim to national identity and ties to the land than white Americans do, force me to re-consider.
I also want to be clear I don't think the answer to all this is far-right nationalism. But I do think the left just wants to write these fears off as being retrograde and white supremacist rather than honestly engaging them, which leaves room for the actual fascists to capitalize.
One really important thing to note about the European situation is that it isn't as different from that in America. France as a nation is only 200 and some change years old. Germany is only a little more than a century old, as is Italy. So, national identity is a very new thing here, and it was constructed the same way American identity was.
Also, the reason for immigration in the same in both places. Bringing immigrants in creates a new lower class of workers who provide cheap labor in a kind of pyramid scheme. Both right wing and left wing governments have opened up to mass immigration in the past in order to bring in more labor, and those immigrants inevitably change the cultural fabric.
When those immigration waves are paced out, each group has a chance to integrate and society has a chance to adopt, but this has been more like a tidal wave in the past few decades. Neither the immigrants nor those already in the country have had time to integrate with each other, and this causes strife. Right wing governments then blame the immigrants, while left wing governments blame the people who were already there, and neither of them admit that they themselves caused the problem both groups are facing.
Regarding the idea of vaccine mandates: I'm not arguing one way or the other, but one thing that adds to the complexity of the issue is that (at least where I live) the VAST majority of anti-vaxxers could also give a fuck about doing anything--even the simplest things--to keep other people (including themselves) from getting infected and spreading it around. Things are much harder to navigate when a large chunk of the population doesn't necessarily share a sense of responsibility for their role in the larger communities they inhabit.
I work in health care, and while I am highly critical of much of the western medical paradigm, I think vaccination is one thing we do really well. So I am supportive of the COVID vaccine, encourage people to get it, and am also sympathetic to those who are suspicious of vaccination. My tendency is to want to oppose vaccine mandates, but when the hospitals are being overrun by people who are unvaccinated and believe COVID is a hoax, causing HC workers to become overwhelmed and leave the profession, as well as limiting services for everyone else, it is harder for me to maintain that position. One solution that seems reasonable to me is to mandate that everyone either be vaccinated or sign a waiver declining vaccination, with the caveat that they can be denied healthcare should they contract COVID. That would never fly in the US for many reasons, cultural, political, and legal, but I do think people who decline the vaccine should be forced to think through the consequences of their decision.
yeah that's an obvious extension of this line of argument. It reminds me of how insurance companies in the US worked with corporations to create tiered plans according to "healthy habits." Some even tried to work with digital health trackers like FitBit--employees who wore them and turned over their data got "discounts" if they were being active enough.
Of course they could have just done what even conservative governments do in Europe and give everyone the same amount of care at the same rate and stop trying to claim more biopolitical power...
I also sympathize with folks who are skeptical about vaccination--I get that skepticism too. However, as I mentioned in my previous comment, it seems to be a a true rarity to have skepticism coupled as well with a sense of responsibility for others. I agree with your idea of having a waiver and possible denial of healthcare. I've been saying something similar for a while now. I also agree it would probably never fly! My best friend's wife is a nurse and her stories from the past year-plus have been heartbreaking and maddening.
I see something similar in the dynamic at play with climate change and the environment. It would be one thing if a lot of the climate-deniers also had a sense of this issue something along the lines of: "While I am skeptical of the climate science/climate change, etc. I also think we have a real need to treat this planet a lot better than we currently are . . ." I imagine there are some out there who have this concept, but it has to be a rarity--I can't recall anyone who does either in public or my personal life. Instead having an attitude towards the earth that is more or less homicidal seems to also be part of the total package.
It's painfully obvious greenwald isn't aware of the audience he's pandering too on faux news.....
Hmm. I think he is, and I think that it actually greatly helps us all that there are leftists like him speaking to otherwise highly propagandized people. Angela Nagle has also been on Fox news programs, and having seen clips of both of their appearances, I think they're doing good there.
In fact, Fox gets a lot of mileage out of the 'all leftists are whiny woke people,' but then when Glenn and Angela appear, viewers see that there are those on the left who stand for something else entirely.
Also worth noting: none of the other networks (including Democracy Now) will even invite Greenwald. He's pretty much blacklisted as a traitor to the DNC.