From discussions online and articles from communist or “leftist” publications, I’ve seen an increase of anti-vax/mandate thinking, either being framed as
- Pro-vaccine means you’re pro-big pharma
- Pro-vaccine is inherently racist
- Pro-mandate is bourgeois authority meant to dissuade organizing
- Pro-COVID “hysteria” is a way to further oppress the working class
Other than a psyop meant to discredit the left, what about those that are genuine? I’ve seen online communists with seemingly good politics fall to this line of thinking, and even sources like Greyzone and MintPress have pushed out similar drivel. And of course I’ve only seen this from Western “leftists”, mostly from the US but not limited to them.
The pandemic has been a serious issue since the beginning, and now that rates of infection and hospitalizations are spiking well past the highs during the “peak” of the pandemic in the US, these voices have grown. The irresponsibility of these supposed comrades spouting out their hurtful rhetoric despite AES countries like China taking the necessary steps to continue to contain the pandemic speaks volumes to those privileged enough to be anti-health of the working class.
You said ‘trusting the science’, not ‘trusting the liberal science’. If you had said the latter, you would have been right on that occasion. You did not. You saying the former implies you do not trust science at all, and is generally too vague of a statement.
EDIT: I was also well aware you were quoting somebody. You quoted him in a manner which suggested you did not agree with science. That still is a contradiction because you went on to say that liberal science is the issue. Herein lies the issue: is it science that is the problem or is it liberal science?
‘I never said you did! You are the one strawmanning me! My point was that it follows from your way of thinking. If you believe in “trusting the science” uncritically, this is where that thinking would have led you in the early 20th century.’
How does anything of what you claimed I said ‘follow from my way of thinking’ when you clearly cannot understand my way of thinking? Not that my way of thinking is bad, but you can’t infer it properly somehow. How do you arrive at that point where you know me that much?
Because I used “trusting the science” in quotes, I am referring to what those people believe to be science, which is just liberal science in reality. Simple. Also, even if it is good science, “trust the science” is still an oxymoron. Because skepticism is a cornerstone of science.
I already explained this. “If you believe in “trusting the science” uncritically, this is where that thinking would have led you in the early 20th century.”
Why would you bother even quoting them then? If they supposedly don’t know anything about science, they are a waste of time so why bother? Also you seem to talk about trust like it is an inherently bad thing. If there was no trust in this world, we would never advance as a species.
Skepticism comes with the territory when you’re talking about science, so you’re complaining about an oxymoron that doesn’t really exist (and an oxymoron that no one actually entertained to begin with), because if there was no skepticism involved, it wouldn’t be science.
I already explained this. “If you believe in “trusting the science” uncritically, this is where that thinking would have led you in the early 20th century.”
But you still cannot understand me. Your conclusions on me being ‘uncritical’ and ‘anti-science’ are way off, seeing as how I have demonstrated that in many other threads before this, such as the climate change threads, so perhaps your process is flawed?