4 ms·

A thing that modern, typically liberal people and journals don’t understand about people like Crumb is they come from a background of not trusting authority. An

A thing that modern, typically liberal people and journals don’t understand about people like Crumb is they come from a background of not trusting authority. And they conflate 1960s counter culture of not trusting Nixon and the mainstream conservative culture with trusting liberal authority. And for some, sure. But for many it’s about not trusting authority regardless of which side wields it. So his Covid paranoia is totally consistent with a worldview of not trusting authority ever and never assuming that there’s a group of “good guys”. It’s difficult for The NY Times editor to understand because they are in fact part of the authority and want a particular side of it to be it.

dale_glass 4y ago
I get it fine in the sense that it's a consistent and easy to understand viewpoint. I don't get it in the sense that I think it's a terribly stupid way to approach the world, with an excess of dogmatism to the point it cripples your own ability to function like a normal person. We live in a society, trust is absolutely a requirement. If you can't trust any authority, either something is wrong with you, or you live in a really badly broken place and should consider moving at the earliest opportunity. And sure, conspiracies exist, but you need to run some sort of analysis and try and figure out whether a conspiracy in the given situation would be at all viable. Eg, covid19 would be an absolutely terrible way of doing a world-wide conspiracy. Eg, if medical companies wanted to make lots of cash there are far easier and less noticeable ways of doing it.
- nemo44x 4y ago
  I don’t know why you’re suddenly suggesting that being skeptical of any and all power is to be a subscriber of conspiracy theories. I can totally agree with a point of view or policy of authority but that doesn’t mean I just trust everything or anything without sufficient evidence and criticism. We love to talk about “critical thinking” but when the critical eye puts its gaze upon what todays authority deems sacred, it’s dismissed as not trusting “the science” or some other such midwit platitude.
  - jrajav 4y ago
    With you up until the anti-intellectualism. Science is basically one and the same with critical thinking, a key feature of it is being assailable by itself. Casting doubt on "the science" speaks to me of unwillingness to accept scientific conclusions or to do the work necessary to question those conclusions with the same due diligence they were formed under.
    - nemo44x 4y ago
      “The Science” is hardly ever it though. It’s an appeal to authority much like appeals to “The Scripture” when most often what claims to be “science” is not actually. And as if Science itself is a guarantee of anything or that it’s even a thing but rather a process to discover truth, or at least what isn’t. No one in possession of actual truth and fact from the scientific process ever had to make a claim simply that their science was evidence enough. And I’ll add the entire field of science is eager to have anything that claims itself as knowledge and truth to be challenged and poked and prodded. For the truth knows no false kings!
    - jdkee 4y ago
      "Science is basically one and the same with critical thinking, a key feature of it is being assailable by itself." Why was the science behind investigating a possible lab-leak hypothesis of the origins of COVID suppressed? Why did the purportedly evidence-based medical community decide that mass public gatherings to protest racism was safe, while closing schools and beaches was not?
    - TurkishPoptart 4y ago
      The problem is the applied political interpretation of Science by appointed bureaucrats and Big Pharma. Like the idea of "social distance" which has no scientific grounds whatsoever, but was dicatated from above by Scott Gottlieb at the FDA. In truth he admitted "nobody knows where it came from". It just sounded nice, and they went with it.[1] But when I question the utility of plexiglass screens at check-out counters (which I would and _still_ just need to crane my neck around so I can actually hear what the clerk is saying), I'm treated like a heretic for not "trusting" science. What the hell is that? The problem is that I'm right, and most other people believe what's on TV and artificially "trending" on Twitter, and those media hijack good-natured peoples' sense of trust and deferral to credentialism. [1]: https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/572926-gottlieb-nobody-knows-where-six-foot-distancing-recommendation/ https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/572926-gottli...
- mattwilsonn888 4y ago
  There's a significant difference between believing Covid19 was cooked up by the producers of the vaccines/therapeutics for it and having a latent skepticism towards unaccountable power. You would make more friends not to blur the line between your perception of stupidity and the basic accounting arithmetic of trust.
  - nemo44x 4y ago
    Once again a conspiracy theory, as if that’s the only possible alternative to the rule of authority. Even if you trust that Covid-19 was dangerous (it wasn’t really but hindsight, etc) and that every action of the regime was justified and in good faith (lol), what’s inappropriate about distrusting the authority on the next step? Especially when said authority had 1000 different contradictions in their rule that everyone could see but only those not willingly engaged in a political game of power. If you’re honest with yourself you know it’s not about truth anywhere as much as power and that no side of anything is righteous or even anywhere near honest.
    - mattwilsonn888 4y ago
      Maybe we are misunderstanding each other - I don't starkly disagree with anything you've just said.
    - implements 4y ago
      > Even if you trust that Covid-19 was dangerous (it wasn’t really but hindsight, etc) … In the UK: Killed 200,000 - would have got 500,000 without extraordinary measures and vaccination development. Are you using a definition of dangerous that somehow discounts mass casualties provided, I assume, younger people aren’t significantly affected and economic activity isn’t seriously disrupted?
galaxyLogic 4y ago
When I was perusing Robert Crumb I assumed he was part of a movement called "Underground Comics". It was about breaking the norms of what Disney would publish. The "normal" in those days was Nixon and Vietnam war. Pot-smoking was a terrible unpatriotic crime. There wasn't really much other comics for adults. I don't mean sexually explicit but just something serious which wouldn't appeal to kids. But there was some sex which was refreshing. Still it was always (?) not about being pornographic but being thought-provoking, questioning the sexual mores of the post-war puritan America. Even questioning the misogynic world-view I would say. Crumb put a spotlight on it, not promote it.
- nemo44x 4y ago
  > Crumb put a spotlight on it, not promote it. It’s about sacred cows, not policy or w/e you or I may agree with. I should be able to and even feel obliged to question and criticize whatever is considered conventional or the company line regardless of which group or organization it’s coming from. Power is power and needs lights shines on it constantly.
mattwilsonn888 4y ago
Well put. It's a shame but also an appreciable motivator of careful thought that this explanation, one which many understand intuitively, seems on the edge of what many will tolerate to think.

dale_glass 4y ago

I get it fine in the sense that it's a consistent and easy to understand viewpoint. I don't get it in the sense that I think it's a terribly stupid way to approach the world, with an excess of dogmatism to the point it cripples your own ability to function like a normal person. We live in a society, trust is absolutely a requirement. If you can't trust any authority, either something is wrong with you, or you live in a really badly broken place and should consider moving at the earliest opportunity. And sure, conspiracies exist, but you need to run some sort of analysis and try and figure out whether a conspiracy in the given situation would be at all viable. Eg, covid19 would be an absolutely terrible way of doing a world-wide conspiracy. Eg, if medical companies wanted to make lots of cash there are far easier and less noticeable ways of doing it.

nemo44x 4y ago
I don’t know why you’re suddenly suggesting that being skeptical of any and all power is to be a subscriber of conspiracy theories. I can totally agree with a point of view or policy of authority but that doesn’t mean I just trust everything or anything without sufficient evidence and criticism. We love to talk about “critical thinking” but when the critical eye puts its gaze upon what todays authority deems sacred, it’s dismissed as not trusting “the science” or some other such midwit platitude.
- jrajav 4y ago
  With you up until the anti-intellectualism. Science is basically one and the same with critical thinking, a key feature of it is being assailable by itself. Casting doubt on "the science" speaks to me of unwillingness to accept scientific conclusions or to do the work necessary to question those conclusions with the same due diligence they were formed under.
  - nemo44x 4y ago
    “The Science” is hardly ever it though. It’s an appeal to authority much like appeals to “The Scripture” when most often what claims to be “science” is not actually. And as if Science itself is a guarantee of anything or that it’s even a thing but rather a process to discover truth, or at least what isn’t. No one in possession of actual truth and fact from the scientific process ever had to make a claim simply that their science was evidence enough. And I’ll add the entire field of science is eager to have anything that claims itself as knowledge and truth to be challenged and poked and prodded. For the truth knows no false kings!
  - jdkee 4y ago
    "Science is basically one and the same with critical thinking, a key feature of it is being assailable by itself." Why was the science behind investigating a possible lab-leak hypothesis of the origins of COVID suppressed? Why did the purportedly evidence-based medical community decide that mass public gatherings to protest racism was safe, while closing schools and beaches was not?
  - TurkishPoptart 4y ago
    The problem is the applied political interpretation of Science by appointed bureaucrats and Big Pharma. Like the idea of "social distance" which has no scientific grounds whatsoever, but was dicatated from above by Scott Gottlieb at the FDA. In truth he admitted "nobody knows where it came from". It just sounded nice, and they went with it.[1] But when I question the utility of plexiglass screens at check-out counters (which I would and _still_ just need to crane my neck around so I can actually hear what the clerk is saying), I'm treated like a heretic for not "trusting" science. What the hell is that? The problem is that I'm right, and most other people believe what's on TV and artificially "trending" on Twitter, and those media hijack good-natured peoples' sense of trust and deferral to credentialism. [1]: https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/572926-gottlieb-nobody-knows-where-six-foot-distancing-recommendation/ https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/572926-gottli...
mattwilsonn888 4y ago
There's a significant difference between believing Covid19 was cooked up by the producers of the vaccines/therapeutics for it and having a latent skepticism towards unaccountable power. You would make more friends not to blur the line between your perception of stupidity and the basic accounting arithmetic of trust.
- nemo44x 4y ago
  Once again a conspiracy theory, as if that’s the only possible alternative to the rule of authority. Even if you trust that Covid-19 was dangerous (it wasn’t really but hindsight, etc) and that every action of the regime was justified and in good faith (lol), what’s inappropriate about distrusting the authority on the next step? Especially when said authority had 1000 different contradictions in their rule that everyone could see but only those not willingly engaged in a political game of power. If you’re honest with yourself you know it’s not about truth anywhere as much as power and that no side of anything is righteous or even anywhere near honest.
  - mattwilsonn888 4y ago
    Maybe we are misunderstanding each other - I don't starkly disagree with anything you've just said.
  - implements 4y ago
    > Even if you trust that Covid-19 was dangerous (it wasn’t really but hindsight, etc) … In the UK: Killed 200,000 - would have got 500,000 without extraordinary measures and vaccination development. Are you using a definition of dangerous that somehow discounts mass casualties provided, I assume, younger people aren’t significantly affected and economic activity isn’t seriously disrupted?

galaxyLogic 4y ago

When I was perusing Robert Crumb I assumed he was part of a movement called "Underground Comics". It was about breaking the norms of what Disney would publish. The "normal" in those days was Nixon and Vietnam war. Pot-smoking was a terrible unpatriotic crime. There wasn't really much other comics for adults. I don't mean sexually explicit but just something serious which wouldn't appeal to kids. But there was some sex which was refreshing. Still it was always (?) not about being pornographic but being thought-provoking, questioning the sexual mores of the post-war puritan America. Even questioning the misogynic world-view I would say. Crumb put a spotlight on it, not promote it.

nemo44x 4y ago
> Crumb put a spotlight on it, not promote it. It’s about sacred cows, not policy or w/e you or I may agree with. I should be able to and even feel obliged to question and criticize whatever is considered conventional or the company line regardless of which group or organization it’s coming from. Power is power and needs lights shines on it constantly.

mattwilsonn888 4y ago

Well put. It's a shame but also an appreciable motivator of careful thought that this explanation, one which many understand intuitively, seems on the edge of what many will tolerate to think.