138
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2026
138 points (84.2% liked)
Showerthoughts
44224 readers
960 users here now
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.
Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:
- Both “200” and “160” are 2 minutes in microwave math
- When you’re a kid, you don’t realize you’re also watching your mom and dad grow up.
- More dreams have been destroyed by alarm clocks than anything else
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- No politics
- If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
- A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
- Posts must be original/unique
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS
If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.
Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
It's not the main driving factor, is what I'm saying. There's of course going to be some people who avoid vaccines because of a fear of needles, but those are generally ordinary people who are aware of the fear and may know it's irrational but still can't overcome it. The people who aren't just hesitant but full on antivax aren't generally driven by a fear of needles, they're driven by the same factors that drive other conspiracy theories.
Sure, that is trivially true.
I do think there is still merit to understanding those who are "not ordinary", who don't know they have a fear of needles and will just rationalise and rationalise until the world ends. While I'm sympathetic to your evocation of state sponsored misinfo, I don't think that's it either, at least not in a deep way since vaccine hesitancy has existed since the dawn of inoculations. In fact vaccine hesitancy might also be understood as a historical remnant from a time when vaccinations had much more common side effects. Variolation for example had a significant death rate. Seventy years ago, when the science of drug delivery wasn't really a thing, side effects were much more pronounced. Basically: medical procedures that everyone has to go through are an easy target to activate the "lizard brain" with, be it intentional or not.
If it was nothing but a holdover from a time when vaccines were not as safe, then we would expect to see antivax attitudes declining over time. The primary factor is the spread of misinformation, whether state sponsored or otherwise. This misinformation reaches more people because of the internet, and it clearly correlates with decreasing levels of trust in institutions.
I think the better question to ask is why it lends itself to misinformation. Misinforming cabals are one thing, but why antivax specifically and not flatearth musings? I generally find it questionable to seek primary causes outside of objects that have immanent properties that could explain so much more.
But... it's both? Both of those things exist. And there's overlap, people who believe in one conspiracy theory often believe in others. Someone might just happen to be exposed to one theory as opposed to the other, or they might find one plausible and the other absurd, or it could be that one more effectively appeals to something in one person than another.
My father worked in traffic safety in East Kentucky and something he encountered a lot was people refusing to wear seat belts because they saw it as "authoritarian" for the government to impose it on them. Plenty of antivaxxers frame it the same way, as it being an issue of personal choice and autonomy, against government or pharmaceutical companies. This combines with a natural desire to make sure they're making the right choice for their children, and when they're told that the science is clear and settled and that there's one choice that's objectively correct and another choice that's objectively incorrect, some people don't want to accept that, and they want to get both sides of the story, and as the only way to support antivax arguments is through lies, misinformation, substacks from people called "Dr. Wojak, M.D." they get exposed to that conspiracy theory rather than a different one.
If it was an immanent property of the object, again, you wouldn't see the kinds of variation across countries and over time. We can see a clear correlation that countries that more recently gained access to vaccines have much higher opinions of them. We can find other correlations and come up with reasonable explanations based on that, that for example complacency is a factor. If it wasn't, if it's just an immanent property of the object, then how do you explain the difference between perspectives on vaccines between different areas, like Somalia and France?
So is it your idea to limit the spread of misinformation after the fact, and then everything is fine? To say that vaccine denial is reproduced top to bottom, instead of being reproduced by the system of consumers and consumers of such content, abetted by the circumstance of vaccines themselves lending themselves well to paranoid narratives, is a bit shortsighed.
I get that this is a charged topic, but let's not let the subject or "victim" of misinfo off the hook, as well as all the other relevant factors that can be understood to make it easier to combat antivax.
For one, people in Somalia have much much bigger fish to fry and don't feel the need to appeal to a nationalistically tainted right to bodily sovereignty. Secondly, there are other health measured the masses of people are subjected to. For instance lock downs, masking, fluoridation of drinking water, the GMO scare, the roundup scare, the gene editing scare, even sodium intake recommendations are twisted into pro salt conspiracy theories (I fucking wish I was joking but I had a gigantic fight with someone over this and it seems to be an issue on JP social media.) I could come up with many more. Public health is the perfect incubator for conspiracy theories, and it just so happens that vaccines are the queen here. For reasons that are quite obvious I would add. The sting, liquid going into one, (to an uneducated public) murky mechanisms of action, compulsion, etc.
Also people in Somalia aren't as used to the internet and social media yet.
Not one of the things you listed regarding Somalia was "an imminent property of the object." Every one was a sociological factor. That's exactly what I'm saying. The differences across countries can only be explained through sociological factors, rather than some quality of the vaccine itself.
I didn't say any of that. I cited one case of state sponsored misinformation to demonstrate the effects that misinformation in general can have. I never painted it in terms of "top down" misinformation outside of that one example. Of course, once someone is an antivaxxer they're likely to spread misinformation organically.
The solution is a combination of banning the proliferation of antivax misinformation as far as possible, promoting a better understanding of science through funding education, and through any other methods that are shown to be effective. For example, some doctors have found it helpful to offer a choice between staggering the shots instead of doing them all at once, even though there's really no difference, just to let people feel like they're making a choice. As you mentioned, there's some limited success with addressing people who are hesitant because of a fear of needles. But these little tactics miss the core, underlying reasons why it's happening in the first place, which needs to be addressed on a larger scale.
I think you don't understand what I mean by immanent property, at no point did I say that the immanent properties link back perfectly to the phenomena. The word to watch out for was "abet". My argument hinges on the idea, or rather lived fact, that things are seldom monocausal. It is an interplay of immanent properties that find themselves fulfilled with regard to certain ends and methods, that have to come first, and then fuel as well as sparks. Nothing of this can be eliminated or shrunk down to misinfo. The really important idea here is that not everything can become the subject of conspiracy theories, chairs, friends, or plain money f.e., even when there is an effort.
It would also help to study the difference between immanent and imminent, as I was no way referring to the latter.
And no, my example didn't concern just Somalia, I exposed the general case for "freedoms" being perceived as being infracted through public health measures, I showed that all of these things have immanent properties similar to those of vaccines. Not every one of those is merely a sociological factor, that would be oversimplifying things dramatically. From the perspective of sociology everything looks like a nail with enough pondering.
Also I think you're taking my rather lighthearted and obvious thought experiment with the relationship between antivax and phobias too seriously.
I 100% disagree with that. Money especially has been the subject of countless conspiracy theories. There are plenty of people (for example, with schizophrenia) who form conspiracy theories about their friends. I'm not sure there's ever been a conspiracy theory about chairs, but that's only because there's never been a sociological reason for there to be.
You are treating ideas that exist only in particular times and cultures as inherent things that will naturally arise out of the existence of particular physical objects. That's nonsense. Those ideas come from culture and social relations. In a culture that has the memory of life before vaccines within living memory, conspiracies about them don't tend to emerge or gain traction, even though the physical object is the same. I feel like I'm repeating myself here, but that should just be the end of the discussion. It's clear proof that it's cultural and sociological.
Let me just put it this way: Is there any conceivable evidence that could exist that would falsify this idea that conspiracy theories come from the properties of particular physical objects rather than sociological factors?
I knew you were going to make this point. That doesn't count! Paranoid delusions stemming from organic factors, like SCZ, are not of interest.
Conspiracy theories can only be of interest when they affect people of sound mind, further it's clear that one can't talk of conspiracy theories when they only concern a minority of mentally ill individuals, who are ill in an o r g a n i c, hence materialistically comprehensible way that doesn't even begin to touch social phenomena in an interesting way.
It's called materialism/enactivism, look it up. It's not nonsense, it is hard science.
And where do those come from?!? Not out of thin air! I might as well believe in the power of God almighty! Preposterous.
Yes, fucking yes, and time and time again this is proven 100%. The mental world needs to, absolutely needs to, come out of material existence and it absolutely replenishes itself through material stimuli time and time again. Scientific inquiry can only come to this conclusion. Assuming systems are just disconnected, you might as well go back to the church and PRAY. Learn how to notice when you are thinking in abstract categories! Because you are not noticing it and cluelessly jumping up and down the ladder of abstraction.
Choosing to ignore sociology and social relations is not "hard science" or "materialism." That's like saying that if you recognize chemical compounds, you might as well "go back to the church and PRAY" because the only real material thing that exists are atoms (or subatomic particles, if you prefer). Just as chemistry is a field of science that studies the relation of atoms at the molecular level, just as biology is a field of science that studies the interaction of molecules at a cellular level, sociology is a scientific field that studies the interactions of individuals at a societal level. There is nothing "mystical" or "immaterial" about it.
When I say, for example, that cultures that have the memory of first getting vaccines in living memory tend to be more favorable towards vaccines and less prone to conspiracy theories about them, that is materialism! The material fact of whether the vaccine was available or not is what shaped the cultural ideas. Materialism doesn't end at the quality of an object itself. The historical availablity of an object, which is both a material fact and a social relation, also affect the way people think about it.
What you're doing is some bizarre, vulgarized form of materialism that disregards entirely material relations and the long term effects of material events on people's thought processes, and instead attributes everything a person thinks about a particular object to the object's innate qualities. This is nonsense, it's a misunderstanding of what materialism is.
There are countless examples that prove this. For example, Spain once found tons of platinum in America and dumped it because they considered it worthless. If the reasons we value platinum have to do with it's innate qualities, then the Spanish and everyone else at the time would have valued it as much as we do today.
First nowhere did I perform a complete rejection of sociology, in fact I even incorporated the idea of culture into one of my responses to your OBJECTIONS https://lemmy.ml/post/54374193/28498142
And nowhere do I flat out ignore social relations, which you vaguely throw into the discussion. I understand and respect those probably better than you do as evidenced by my not citing them willy nilly. And sociology is absolutely mystical, biologists laugh at most sociology, so do physicists and mathematicians. Durkheim's book on suicide is absurd shit! The protestant work ethic thesis is an utterly crazed idea, and some people still hold on to it! To appropriate a Marxist term, and in the eyes of a sociologist a sociological term, sociology is mostly a petty bourgeois jerk between professors with very little practical applicability.
The cultural memory stuff is mostly BS and contradicted by your appeals to the temporally changing rate of vaccine denialism in western countries. As if these societies couldn't be swayed by future social dynamics. This priming idea, that somehow having the right vaccine **first **is deeply meaningful, is charitably put a very rigid conception of the dynamics at hand.
It's not vulgar, it is very sophisticated in fact. You believe ideas have a special power, as evidenced in your previous message, I am saying they don't really. That is materialism. Matter over mind.
Also the false equivalence of chemical relations with social ones is nagging me.
Lmao Marx was all about social relationships! And sociology is simply the study of social relationships. You can critique particular ideas within sociology (I did not reference Durkheim or anybody like that in any way, so that's irrelevant) but if you claim to understand social relationships and see them as worth studying, then you're saying that you're doing sociology right there. What is a social relationship if not a sociological factor? It's like you heard the word "sociology" and completely lost the plot.
"As if?" Nothing I said could even remotely be construed as implying they couldn't! In fact, it's quite likely that they will follow the same trend, and that future generations that don't have the memory of getting vaccines may be more prone to conspiracy theories about them. Where on earth did you possibly get this idea from, that I think otherwise?
By what in my previous message? You believe lizard people control the world, "as evidenced by your previous message," see, I can make utterly baseless claims about your beliefs too.
More accurately, you've chosen to die on this hill of "cultures aren't real, sociology isn't real, history doesn't matter, all ideas come from the inherent properties of individual objects and they're only different across cultures because of social factors that are somehow totally different from sociological factors."
What the fuck does this even mean? It's mystical, but you don't reject it? What are you even trying to say?
Nope, That is very abstract conception of sociology I am sure most sociologists wouldn't share. And Marx wasn't all about social relationships, he was just as much a philosopher of science, and that includes biology and physics and so on, a determinist even! Due to his materialism. As he grew older and more refined he also became more materialist and determinist in his thinking.
Why the hell do you then say this?!
"that cultures that have the memory of first getting vaccines in living memory tend to be more favorable towards vaccines and less prone to conspiracy theories about them,"
"You are treating ideas that exist only in particular times and cultures as inherent things that will naturally arise out of the existence of particular physical objects. That's nonsense. Those ideas come from culture and social relations"
The last part, "That's nonsense. Those ideas come from culture and social relations" treats it as a closed loop and that is bullshit. In fact the mind and ideas are constantly regenerated by physical inputs, that is why false memories are so easy to condition. So yes, everything "naturally" (I hate that word) arises out of physical objects and these words here are ephemera if they're not being tested against concrete physical reality constantly. I can't purely logic myself into the right thoughts to come to correct views about the world, it has to be connected to the tangible and if anything ideas that exist primarily through the exchange between people are a weak shadows of that tangible reality.
Just because things are mystical, doesn't mean I have to reject them completely, just because something almost leaves a bad taste in my mouth doesn't mean I shouldn't engage with it. Economics is very crucial, I hate it! It is mystified and stupid! But I engage with it and take it seriously non the less because I am an antimoralist.
Also your approach to vaccine denialism just being regulating speech is in fact pure paternalism with a little education thrown in. Thought I might add that before nodding off.
"Sociology is the study of social life, social change, and the social causes and consequences of human behavior. Sociologists investigate the structure of groups, organizations, and societies and how people interact within these contexts. Since all human behavior is social, the subject matter of sociology ranges from the intimate family to global communities; from deviance to organized crime; from religious traditions to state institutions; and from the divisions of race, gender and social class to the shared beliefs of a common culture." -American Sociological Association
So, no, it's a very standard definition of sociology that's consistent with how sociologists define it. You just have weird brainworms about what sociology is and means.
Um. Because it's true? And once they no longer have the living memory of first getting vaccines, then they will no longer fit that criteria. How on earth does that, in any possible interpretation, lead to, "As if these societies couldn’t be swayed by future social dynamics?" Do you think the living memory of first getting the vaccine will last forever?
You're misunderstanding that completely. There is no "closed loop." Material conditions shape thought. That is what materialism is, by definition. When a group of people share the same material conditions, those same material conditions tend to shape their thought all together. When a bunch of people have similar thoughts arising out of shared experiences, that's called a "culture." This culture can then motivate them towards actions which will affect the material world, as well as influencing individual thoughts, together with constant influence from present material conditions.
The material condition of seeing vaccines eradicate disease shaped thought and culture. It makes people see the value in them and appreciate them more and be less conspiratorial about them. Over time, as the memory of that experience fades, the social conditions changes and people may become more complacent and more prone to distrusting them.
The difference between our views is just that I acknowledge material relations, including the availability of a material object, including events and experiences with the object, where you only look at physical characteristics of the object itself. Nothing I have said in any way implies that thoughts simple materialize from nothing or that ideas have some special power or that you arrive at ideas through pure logic or any of that. I'm just expressing actual materialism. Is the availability of an object not an aspect of the material world?
??? I'm not even gonna take a stab at detangling that. "I'm a materialist, but I don't reject things just because they're mystical." Uhh, ok, sure.
If there is ever a case where removing misinformation is justified, this is it. Vaccines are the single greatest accomplishment of human civilization.
The first responsibility of the state is to protect the people. The state is not only justified in intervening, but has a moral obligation to intervene to ensure that children are vaccinated. It's the same way that "freedom of speech" does not extend to shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. Antivax rhetoric results in physical harm to innocent people. You only disagree with my suggestion because you don't fully understand what's at stake.
This whole living memory thesis is complete horseshit. Half of Germans have the living memory of WW2, maybe not directly, but close enough. Many boomers remember the social unrest of the late 60's to mid 1970's. Yet they vote AfD! Germany is a country that prided itself with being open minded not even 12 years ago, where almost every country bumpkin held onto an antifascist belief of one kind or another. Yet despite having a (like all other memories flimsy) memory, they do a 180.
This is a pattern, or rather lack thereof, can be observed in revolutionary times as well. The Bolsheviks had to deal with an ultraconservative populace before there were big insurrectionary movements. This changed entirely within a few years.
You know why that is? Because humans are immediate beings more often than not that have a gigantic capacity of irrationality.
This is in direct contradiction with your OBJECTIONS to my materialism.
No, you talk about intelligence ops by Americans as if they have special power.
*untangling
Yes and this makes perfect sense. You equate mysticism to evil and therefore don't understand when people try to engage with mystical ideas. You are not considering the content of the engagement in any way. All you are doing is attempt at nullifying a fundamentally opposed reading of sociology as this one self contained field.
The greatest accomplishment? Are you serious? Do you even know your history of science? Haber process ring a bell? Semiconductors? Agriculture? Refrigeration? Mechanical calculators? Freaking writing? Steel? Concrete? Nuclear reactors? Printing? Cooking? Spacefaring? The internet? Anaesthesia? There is no such thing as a greatest accomplishment you fool!
Actually, you'd want to get to a point misinformation does not even need to be removed. Where it is seen like the statement 1*1 = 2. That doesn't happen through simple removal of the false content but engagement with it.
The state doesn't give a shit about you unless it can make a buck off of you. The state will exacerbate your poverty very intentionally so that you take even the shittiest of jobs. The state, as led by a class of bureaucrats, has an interest in exploiting its populace. This is immanently baked into the state. The concept of a people is also complete horseshit which ultimately serves to ideologically iron over the extreme differences people have internally. I have much more in common with a Brazilian who's renting their flat than with my landlord. The state owes you nothing and knows hardly any responsibilities except for its survival in state-state competition!
You view the state as a neutral object, that can either function to this or that interest's end. But this is simply not true. Antivax rhetoric doesn't harm people, it's the inherent impossibility of state led education to ensure that people don't fall for it in the first place, also the nature of work is one where people don't learn to a sufficient extend if work became more diverse and interconnected, also less demanding, people would be much more adept in their general cognitive approach. Professor Dave for example has done the job of thousands of teachers and then some in combating vaccine misinfo – the state could never. You wish to be led by a benevolent ruler, a Zohran, but you don't comprehend how choosing your rulers only affirms rulership over subjects instead of becoming self empowered. Yours is a completely faulty way of thinking if your interests are that of the working class. You are ignoring how people, at the mid to lower rungs, can empower themselves cognitively.
Lmao, what?? WWII ended 81 years ago. The only Germans who have living memory of it would be like 90. That's nowhere remotely close to "half of Germans."
"Irrationality?" So you think these ideas just magically sprung out of nothing? How on earth is this a "materialist" explanation?
No. Based on what you've said, there's exactly one explanation you can use here, which is that there's some property of some particular object that turns people fascist or communist. Some kind of orb, perhaps, that all the Germans touched and it suddenly turned them into fascists.
In reality, their ideas changed because of actual materialism, which accounts for material relations rather than the inherent properties of an object. Specifically, the fact that both populations had poor material conditions made both prone to radicalization.
Incorrect. My objections to your so-called "materialism" is that it's only looking at the properties of an object rather than the material conditions, which is what actual materialism looks at.
No, I equate mysticism with being wrong. Because I'm a materialist.
Lmao, I'm allowed to have an opinion on which accomplishment is the greatest and calling me a "fool" for doing so is just silly. Honestly, I think you're just going to attack me over anything and everything I say at this point, for no real reason. You wouldn't say this to someone if you weren't already in "attack mode."
Is that so? Do you have any actual evidence that removing misinformation doesn't work, or that engagement with it does? On the internet, engagement (even negative engagement) generally causes ideas to reach a wider audience, and also legitimizes the conspiracy theory as worth discussing.
When I talk about the first responsibity of the state, I am talking about what it ought to do, not how it acts in practice. So all of this is irrelevant.
Ok, so do it then. What's stopping you? Seems like under the current conditions, we still have antivaxxers and they're growing instead of shrinking.
So living memory is now a property of people who have direct experience of something? Living with the aftershocks of WWII doesn't count? What in the direct realism is this?
No I am saying irrationality is a type of noise, noise can about from material processes. For you everything has to have an explanation that makes sense. You work from phenomena to the relevant objects instead of considering the concrete objects for themselves and then see how the concrete interactions turn into something bigger.
Yes, the particular material objects here are brains, the tools humans use, the environment, etc. You don't understand my argument on a fundamental level and you think of objects as being cars or spoons, which is ridiculous. Idealism, and much of language, ideas, are downstream phenomena that don't mean that much outside of being shorthands for organisation and strategy. For example: try becoming a structured writer without the tools of notetaking, paper, pens, etc., it"s close to impossible. Or a good orator without ever facing a crowd.
You don't comprehend anything I'm saying, nor do you make an effort to.
I don't care + same is true for me then, I can have an opinion about your opinion. I can say it's shit. What are you going to do? I give feedback and you can't even be assed to consider what I'm saying. I attack you because you wrong and annoying.
Foolish and eliminativist, and not what Marx or any relevant thinker meant with mysticism.
Moralist. So what have states done in history? Has there ever been a state which wasn't atop major antagonisms? Your oughts don't mean anything, when historically no state ever did jack squat in regards to fulfilling needs of commoners. None. And most would send their citizens into !!!death!!!, i.e. going against the interest of the worker/commoner/what have you, if it meant securing the continued existence of the state apparatus. Let me guess, you are also part of the "real democracy has never been tried"-crowd.
I don't need to do much except for keep doing what I've always did. What a disingenuous way to appeal to constructive criticism.
Yes!! That's literally what "living memory" literally means! Wtf are you talking about "direct realism" it's literally just the definition!
You can argue that the aftermath of WWII is in living memory for some people (still nowhere close to half), and you can argue that WWII is still in the cultural memory of Germans (although the word "cultural" may trigger your unhinged brainworms about social sciences), but claiming that it's in the "living memory" for half of Germans is just factually wrong and shows that you have no idea what you're talking about.
What does "concrete interactions" mean, and how is it different from "material relations?"
Nothing. You are allowed to consider something else to be the greatest accomplishment or to say that there's no greatest accomplishment or whatever, and I'm allowed to think otherwise. It's a subjective question, one of values, and unless you can argue based on reason on evidence (which you haven't) why I'm wrong, then calling me a "fool" for valuing vaccines so highly is stupid and meaningless.
"Materialism is when you believe in mysticism" lmao where do you even get this shit? Like, I am genuinely fascinated by all these utterly bizarre ideas you have, that have nothing whatsoever to do with the labels you use to describe them. I really wonder where they come from at all.
Is it wrong for me to be?
Well, for one thing relevant to this discussion, they coordinated a global vaccination campaign that eradicated smallpox.
Complete and utter nonsense. The PRC literally doubled life expectancy within a generation.
What on earth are you talking about? Please stop "guessing" about my views, you've been doing an atrociously bad job of it so far. Maybe listen to the words I actually say instead.
You have no clue about Germany and you underestimate holocaust education.
It's not any different and I did not debate the thought of material relations.
I called you a fool because you said they are mankind's greatest achievement. That is objectively foolish
I did not say that, nor do I believe in mysticism. I believe in investigating that which appears mystical, that was my point. You idiot. Quit putting words in my mouth, you are proving more and more with every message how disingenuous your approach is.
Yes, science does not operate on morals. You claim to be interested in a social science of sorts.
So did other countries in (a similar way at least) that developed extremely quickly, like Japan and so on. China is not special and it was in the interest of China to maximise their population potential to get ahead in state-state competition.
I don't have to guess your views, they're atrocious enough.
I guess I do! They must be actually gassing Jews and invading Poland during that education! Because that is literally the only possible way for it to be in "living memory" by definition!
That's literally what the whole argument is about! Ok then, if you're doing a complete 180, then, let's return to the original point. The material relations determined that certain countries did not get vaccines until later than other countries. Those material relations have shaped the thoughts and cultures of those countries, to make them less prone to conspiracy theories.
That's what you had a problem with! That's what caused you to say, "You might as well go back to church and PRAY!" All I've been saying this whole time is that it was the material relations that shaped people's thoughts and ideas!
Let's add "objectively" to the long list of words you don't know the meaning of, along side "living memory" "materialism" and "sociology."
Are you claiming that Japan was a stateless society? Or did you just provide me with more evidence that states can improve people's quality of life?
What have I said that's "atrocious?" Wanting to remove misinformation? Acknowledging that material relations are a thing that exist?
You idiot really believe that the people who voted the nazis in, and celebrated them were like "Oh nooo we did a big bad~~" after they lost? People wanted hitler back after the war. Antifascist consciousness arose only in the late 70's. The whole living memory thesis remains to be horseshit.
This is not what I am saying and I do not agree with that. This is complete horseshit still as it hinges on the idea of living memory o algo.
You did not.
this doesn't follow and is bullshit. I said the state apparati did not lengthen life expectancy out of the goodness of their hearts. I said they did it so they have a workforce with which they can "win" in state-state competition. Your thought about the benevolent state is a fiction.
Your pro-state top down approach and speech policing is quite horrible, yes. A genuinely unsympathetic and cynical approach to politics that can aptly be described as nannying. Cynical because of the distrust of the organic action of the subjects – workers. You are a real counterpoint to staffordshire beer, in the worst way. I will quit talking to you. No surprise that your moderation history is full of bans.
You mean that the people who were shaped by the conditions that caused people to become Nazis, remained being Nazis, even after conditions changed? And you think this proves that events being in living memory don't influence people's views?
So then you don't agree that material relations shape people's thoughts and ideas, and you are not a materialist.
When the fuck did I ever claim they did it "out of the goodness of their hearts?" There you go, assuming my views and getting it wrong again, instead of listening to my actual words.
Moralist.