I don't think this is the fundamental profile. I think the fundamental profile--and it underscores all three types, and even the fourth type, "just stupid as a sack of hammers" is "People enamored of death." The real message of the anti-vax movement is Thanatos.
The real message of the anti-vax movement is that Freud was right: There is a death drive. It is as powerful, in human affairs, as Eros, the life drive. We underestimate its potency to shape human events at our peril.
Freud wrote this watching the rise of the Nazis.
But we can see the same drive at work today. We really can. There's no adult, in the modern world, who's *genuinely* confused about the efficacy of masks and vaccines. Truly there isn't. It's all a pose. If you were that stupid, you'd be unable to tie your own shoes.
But people are deeply infatuated with death--and have a real will, a longing, to kill and to die. Rejecting masks and vaccines--and pretending you have a serious political or medical reason for doing so--is just a socially acceptable way to flirt with murder and suicide.
This is clearly, for many people, *deeply* gratifying. So much so that they'll incur vast opprobrium--and, indeed, die--for the satisfaction of it. I had never realize how right, how insightful, Freud really was about this.
But we can't take the anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers at face value. These are death movements--death cults--and death cults have always been with us. They flourish particularly at times of social change and stress. We've got one now.
We cannot take as serious what these people say about their own motivations. When you see people courting death--theirs and others--in such a methodical, dogged, insistent and stubborn way, assume they know what they're doing and they are doing it on purpose.
"The justification is honesty, the aim is ecstasy, the fantasy is death." Fascinating fascism. Some form of it will always be with us, alas. And we all, probably, possess enough of it that we need always be looking for it in ourselves, too.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Above all, it's terribly sad. The NYT is in the hands of people who are both stupid and vicious. The idea that they would even for a moment take seriously the complaints of these pampered, self-righteous little shits is depressing.
Pampered, ignorant, spoiled children, callow and ignorant of life, are now running the cultural show. The adults--who are supposed to teach them and set limits on behavior like this--are instead cowed by them, turning them into petty tyrants.
Obviously this is terrible for both the children and the adults. But it's terrible above all for our culture. These girls will be weak women, uneducated, incapable of thinking straight.
Are you serious? This is a wedding. She's 33. We're American: We don't have titles. We're all equal. Italian-Americans kiss people at weddings. He even asked, first! From the photo, it was a paternal, affectionate kiss--*completely* appropriate, at a wedding--not a sexual one.
Don't people see that the culture we're creating here is *horrible?* It's joyless, stripped of all affection, human contact, and spontaneity. Isn't it bad enough that the pandemic has robbed us of all of that?
What man wouldn't decide it's safest to avoid any flirtation, any gesture of affection, all mildly ribald or bawdy humor--even in a completely appropriate context, like a wedding? It's one thing to say, "Not at the workplace."
How does this sound like "sexual harassment?" nytimes.com/2021/03/01/nyr… Scene: a wedding. Not the workplace. Traditionally, a place where single men and women meet and flirt. The governor puts his hand *on the back* of a 33-year-old woman. Not a child.
He *asks* "Can I kiss you." Isn't that what men are supposed to do nowadays? Ask for permission before even going in for a kiss? (I think that's dumb in itself, but hell--he did it entirely by the new rules, right?)
How does this response make any sense? Why would any normal 33-year-old woman be "confused and shocked and embarrassed" because a guy who was "working the room and toasting the newlyweds" at a wedding asked, "Can I kiss you?"
I woke up this morning--I don't know why--with a burning question and I can't find the answer on Google.
Why is the price of salt inelastic?
We've been told all our lives, "The price of salt is inelastic." But if next time you went to the supermarket salt cost more than Beluga Caviar, you wouldn't buy it, would you?
I wouldn't. I'd start experimenting with low-sodium cooking that very day.
Maybe this whole thing about the price of salt being inelastic is actually bullshit?
Maybe all of modern economics is built on a house of sand?
Maybe it's all a heinous Deep State lie? Have we been brainwashed by the Salt Lobby?
The point I'm making--although you can't be blamed for having missed it because I didn't realize it until five minutes ago--is compatible with both arguments. No, we can't be expected to engineer for *highly* unlikely events. But quite a few disasters are more like this one:
Someone failed to engineer for a not-so-unlikely event.
"Very cold weather" in Texas isn't a wild outlier event. It's snowed 94 times in Houston since 1881. This should have been someone's clue that maybe it could happen again.
We--people--tend to be extremely incompetent and accident-prone, and we're running a ton of highly-complex systems that are, basically, beyond our competence. These systems massively improve our quality of life and life expectancy, but when they go wrong ... *disaster.*
I can't make sense of the reporting on the blackout in Texas. What's the problem, exactly? Frozen wind turbines? Frozen equipment for burning natural gas? A frozen nuclear power plant? All of the above? Why would a cold snap take down any of these facilities?
Cold and snow are commonplace in northern latitudes, but the power doesn’t go out every time the temperature drops. I’ve read that “gas can’t make it through the pipes,” but why? Nearly half of Europe is heated by gas from Russia. The gas makes it through the pipes fine.
Were these facilities built to hugely different specifications in the belief that it would never get cold in Texas? Why would all three power sources—wind, natural gas, and nuclear—be unable to withstand cold weather? (If indeed all three are implicated?)