Corona Cult

[BadHippie]

Hello, I am new to this forum and I feel this is a topic that has to be addressed here. When I started reading to this forum I also noticed how the conversations relating to topics surrounding the Corona-Narrative are super polarized and vilifying of divergent opinions.

Why is it so hard for people to simply say, we don´t know yet? For example the topic vaccines. Most people on this forum are super un-critical, which can be a good thing sometimes. But most of the people here don´t actually have any personal experience with making these vaccines. Sure some people got it already, but even those people can´t really tell anything about it.

I feel like there is a cult-mentality going on here. Different perspectives get labelled as conspiracy theories, without actually checking those narratives for themselves. Then people tell other people to read some studies or something. Even though actualized watchers should know that studies aren´t necessarily truth. In todays time we can do studies for everything and design them so that they confirm what the study designers want. 

It just feels pretty surreal to me, that people on this forum are so willing to take a vaccine, which they most likely don´t even know the ingredients of. People are saying "no" to GMOs, but are suddenly OK with genetically modifying their own organism? 

Even the topic with masks is super biased and people just tell other people to wear masks, even when they are healthy. I personally feel sick, wearing a mask. I´m doing a lot of breathwork and I feel my breath being taken away, when wearing it. I get a headache wearing it longer than 15 minutes. So why should I wear one, when my personal experience tells me otherwise? Isn´t personal experience king? 

Some people even gave away their freedom to feel "healthy". Do we suddenly need a test telling us we are healthy?

All I want to say here, that it would be nice if the discussions on this forum could be a bit less vilifying to others with a different opinion. 

[Epikur]

@BadHippie

You can say it is for pragmatic reasons. It makes organizing the forum so much harder with opening gates for right wing people as a side effect plus it raises the chance to be cancelled.

[BadHippie]

@Epikur

Aren´t these labels "left" and "right" wing completely illusionary? I wouldn´t simply label people and use that label to not listen to them. 

For example, when there was the Hippie-Movement in the early 1960s, they were pretty radical with open speech. They were the "left" back then. 

And now the left is calling for censorship, gendering etc. While the right wing is for free-speech. So I am not really a fan of generalizing people using these labels. People are complex and they aren´t just "left" or "right". 

Another example: Not everyone questioning the official Climate-Change narrative is right-wing because of questioning it. It all depends on your reasoning behind your perspective. Same with immigration politics. 

Edited April 2, 2021 by BadHippie

[Epikur]

@BadHippie

The hippies lost and new ideologies compete for survival. If you want to survive you have to deal with the reality and power of these so called made up concepts. But you can try and live in Lala land.

[WonderSeeker]

15 minutes ago, BadHippie said:

Aren´t these labels "left" and "right" wing completely illusionary? I wouldn´t simply label people and use that label to not listen to them. 

You're right, technically the political spectrum is an unbroken continuum. Unfortunately nobody has the ability to speak in non dual terms. Knowing that, you can still use labels like 'right' and 'left,' but in a more conscious way. As long as you know how you're using language, then you're in good shape. 

 

16 minutes ago, BadHippie said:

And now the left is calling for censorship, gendering etc. While the right wing is for free-speech. So I am not really a fan of generalizing people using these labels. People are complex and they aren´t just "left" or "right". 

Another example: Not everyone questioning the official Climate-Change narrative is right-wing because of questioning it. It all depends on your reasoning behind your perspective. Same with immigration politics. 

Be careful not to generalize. A more accurate way to frame this is that the right is arguing for free speech only if it's about what they value. Their worldview is losing its collective hold, and that's threatening to most conservatives.

On the left, people are arguing for higher-conscious values to be fair. The problem is that they fail to recognize that forcing others into their value system doesn't work.

[BadHippie]

@Epikur

It depends on how you define "lost". In a sense their ideas lived on and evolved as we can see in our culture today, e.g. festival, communes, music and so on.

I am aware that the narrative that most people believe in will become "collective reality. I am also aware that we must adapt to a certain degree to our societies. That doesn´t mean someone lives in "Lala land", if he has a different narrative. Maybe he just uses language and/or concepts differently than you. We need to be more open-minded to other narratives in order to understand them, that´s all I am saying. Just because there is a collective narrative, doesn´t make it true. (e.g. most people believing the earth is flat, didn´t make the earth flat).

You can survive in any way if you are good enough explaining what you want to survive, that´s not what I am talking about here. We all interpret reality differently and survive differently. What is more important though is what reality do we want to actualize. 

 

[Preety_India]

If the labels right wing and left wing are illusory then the label "Corona cult" must also be an illusion? 

No?

 

Bwahahahahahahahaha

 

Edited April 2, 2021 by Preety_India

[BadHippie]

Quote

 

Be careful not to generalize. A more accurate way to frame this is that the right is arguing for free speech only if it's about what they value. Their worldview is losing its collective hold, and that's threatening to most conservatives.

On the left, people are arguing for higher-conscious values to be fair. The problem is that they fail to recognize that forcing others into their value system doesn't work.

 

Yeah, I didn´t mean it in a generalizing way. As you said language is tricky and dualistic. Sometimes we have to use it in a specific way to make a point. I didn´t want to say all of them. And not everyone arguing for free speech is right-wing, or arguing for it only for what their value. I know people arguing for it, because they believe it´s still a good idea to have free speech even with the massive reach certain narratives can have, with our technological development. 

 

[Jodistrict]

There is a left wing criticism of the public policies related to the coronavirus pandemic.  The most strong response in opposition has come from the postmodernist philosopher Giorgio Agamben.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/03/17/where-are-the-postmodernists-when-you-need-them/

 

[Epikur]

@BadHippie

I know what you mean. I am one of the guys who have to tone down my speech here. Still there are realities that have to be taken in account. If you don't do it it might hurt more than usual.

Anyway in general I agree but reality does not agree it seems.
 

 

[Epikur]

1 minute ago, Jodistrict said:

There is a left wing criticism of the public policies related to the coronavirus pandemic.  The most strong response in opposition has come from the postmodernist philosopher Giorgio Agamben.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/03/17/where-are-the-postmodernists-when-you-need-them/

 

nice one

[Frylock]

Following advice from medical experts and scientists is not cult like. In fact, doing the OPPOSITE (what you're doing) is most likely to lead to cult behavior. We don't need to be scientists to use cell phones and other technology. We don't know exactly how they're made or what all is involved. Likewise, we don't need to be scientists to get vaccines.

Edited April 2, 2021 by Frylock

[Epikur]

7 minutes ago, Frylock said:

Following advice from medical experts and scientists is not cult like. In fact, doing the OPPOSITE (what you're doing) is most likely to lead to cult behavior. We don't need to be scientists to use cell phones and other technology. We don't know exactly how they're made or what all is involved. Likewise, we don't need to be scientists to get vaccines.

who is we?

 

[Frylock]

People.

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, BadHippie said:

Why is it so hard for people to simply say, we don´t know yet? For example the topic vaccines. Most people on this forum are super un-critical, which can be a good thing sometimes. But most of the people here don´t actually have any personal experience with making these vaccines. Sure some people got it already, but even those people can´t really tell anything about it.

It depends on your criteria of what counts as "knowing". If your criteria is 100% certainty, it would be impossible to function in the world. One could spend 100% of their life studying a pencil and still barely scratching the surface of how it works.

To function in life, certain assumptions need to be made. For example, when I drive a car I assume that other cars will stop at red lights and stop signs. Without that assumption, I wouldn't be able to drive. At any given intersection, I don't have 100% certainty that other cars will stop for a red light: there is a small possibility a car doesn't stop, runs the red light and injures me. Yet if I let this small uncertainty rule me, I won't be able to drive a car and function. There is a certain degree of trust that goes into they system. 

One assumption you are making is that there is a significant risk of the vaccine. I'm not saying that's wrong, yet that is a HUGE assumption that will alter how you perceive reality. Imagine if I thought the tree outside my house can harm me. If I assume this to be true, it will alter how I perceive reality and interact with reality. You may think this silly.  . . yet what if I asked you "How do you know the tree won't harm me? Do you have any experience studying trees and tree demons? Have you studied botany?". You aren't 100% sure the tree won't attack you. So, what is your threshold level of certainty to not fear the tree?

2 hours ago, BadHippie said:

I feel like there is a cult-mentality going on here. Different perspectives get labelled as conspiracy theories, without actually checking those narratives for themselves. Then people tell other people to read some studies or something. Even though actualized watchers should know that studies aren´t necessarily truth. In todays time we can do studies for everything and design them so that they confirm what the study designers want. 

It seems like you have foundational distrust of R&D and clinical studies. You say that the forum lacks critical skills, yet here you are not showing any critical skills. There is evidence-based research and claims that lack evidence or misconstrue evidence. It takes critical thinking skills to differentiate between good evidence-based research and misconstrued evidence. This takes time and effort. It isn't easy. Yet you don't seem willing to engage in critical evaluations - you collectively blow off all studies as "we can do studies for everything and design them so that they confirm what the study designers want". That is very intellectually lazy. You are doing the same thing you criticize others as doing. 

2 hours ago, BadHippie said:

Even the topic with masks is super biased and people just tell other people to wear masks, even when they are healthy. I personally feel sick, wearing a mask. I´m doing a lot of breathwork and I feel my breath being taken away, when wearing it. I get a headache wearing it longer than 15 minutes. So why should I wear one, when my personal experience tells me otherwise? Isn´t personal experience king? 

This is a very simplistic view. It is much more complicated and nuanced. Masks most likely reduce the Ro (contagion) of coronavirus spread, yet clearly don't eliminate it. That brings up naunces like: what variables effect the effectiveness of masks? Which masks are most effective? How does crowding affect mask effectiveness?

Ideas like "I don't like wearing a mask, so I won't wear one". "People can make up any study about masks, I won't believe any of it" - is a very simplistic mindset. 

2 hours ago, BadHippie said:

Different perspectives get labelled as conspiracy theories, without actually checking those narratives for themselves.

You are acting as if all perspectives carry equal weight. Some perspectives are more reasonable than others. Plus, there isn't enough time to investigate every claim to 100% certainty. Someone could claim that Bill Gates designed the vaccine for mind control. This isn't just a "different perspective". It's a batshit crazy perspective and it's a waste of one's life to check out every batshit crazy perspective. 

2 hours ago, BadHippie said:

So why should I wear one, when my personal experience tells me otherwise? Isn´t personal experience king? 

There is a balance between personal desires and social welfare. Let's say that I love to drink a bottle of vodka while driving on highways. Why shouldn't I be allowed to do it? It feels so GOOD!! Isn't my personal experience king?

[Epikur]

8 minutes ago, Frylock said:

People.

People are mostly not so smart to figure out what is good for them, specially if powerful people have an interest to lie to them.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat

[BadHippie]

Quote

Following advice from medical experts and scientists is not cult like. In fact, doing the OPPOSITE (what you're doing) is most likely to lead to cult behavior. We don't need to be scientists to use cell phones and other technology. We don't know exactly how they're made or what all is involved. Likewise, we don't need to be scientists to get vaccines.

I also follow the advice from medical experts, probably just different ones. I don´t take them as an ideology though and still make my own sensemaking, by doing my research when hearing a new opinion - trying to understand why they say what they say.

You make it look like all medical experts agree in everything on the topic. That´s not the case. I think we can´t trust any experts at all, even though we can learn from different perspectives, we still should do our own sensemaking (reading studies, checking the methodology, what assumptions did they make, how do they validate the assumptions and so on).

[Epikur]

I wonder what job perspectives a political scientist would have if he would argue that the military should be reduced by 90 per cent. I guess not so good.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trial-sans-error-how-pharma-funded-research-cherry-picks-positive-results/

[Frylock]

1 minute ago, BadHippie said:

I think we can´t trust any experts at all,

This is naive and foolish. Experts are who should be listened to/considered most of all. Not the common, average joe who has no idea about any given field they're discussing in.

One reason why humans have advanced society to the point it is now is through cooperation and letting the experts do their thing. You don't need to understand and be a professional at everything and at the same time teach others about how every possible thing functions so that our acquired knowledged can be passed on and evolved. We need specialized crafts in areas of science, historians, medicine, engineers etc. in order to function as a large, modern society.

It's not ignorant to yield to and trust the experts. In fact, it's the smartest thing you can do. The experts are paid professionals and dedicate their lives to something specific. This allows you free time to do whatever else you want to do.

[Jodistrict]

Below is a good article on the "Replication crisis".   At least 50% of scientific studies cannot be reproduced.   Much of medical research doesn't even meet the criteria of the scientific method.  People just assume the system is responsible and not corrupt.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis