5 ms·

Don't be vague, what about his comments on Covid vaccines was statist? As far as I know, he only called for social shunning of the unvaccinated, not state acti

Don't be vague, what about his comments on Covid vaccines was statist? As far as I know, he only called for social shunning of the unvaccinated, not state action. In fact, in this interview, he declares opposition to a vaccine mandate, and doesn't even call for social shunning - he instead suggests that the unvaccinated should take it upon themselves to self-isolate. https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/noam-chomsky-calls-for-unvaccinated-to-be-isolated-from-society-b2182947.html https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/noam-chomsky-calls-for...

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
Is there much of a difference? If all stores ban the unvaccinated for example? Is that “shunning” in line with the underlying principles? Even though I am vaccinated, I personally reject calls for medical discrimination and violations of bodily autonomy. I think it is one thing for individuals to make choices and decide who they want to invite to their house. But I think it is another thing entirely for public or private employers or other places to ban people on such traits. Whether it is forced by the government or not, doesn’t make a difference to me. But I will also note that the line can be very blurry to begin with. For example, many cities have public transportation that is operated by private entities.
- beepbooptheory 2y ago
  Surely whether its forced by the government or not does make the difference here? Isn't that like the whole problem? Otherwise wouldnt this all essentially be complaining about a "No Shirt No Service" policy at a McDonald's?
  - zdragnar 2y ago
    From an anarchist perspective, there isn't a practical difference; both are hierarchical power structures that coerce behavior.
    - mercutio2 2y ago
      Uh, what? If you are an anarchist, and you truly feel that McDonald's hierarchy is just as problematic as governments coercing behavior, OK, you do you. But if you're not an anarchist, and you're arguing anarchists think this way... that is not the way any of my anarchist friends think about the problems of corporate hegemony vs. government coercion. They are against both, but consider them vastly different problems, in scope as well as kind. Juxtaposing them and saying there's no difference... is not what any anarchists I know would do.
      - zdragnar 2y ago
        It's an argument I've heard from anarchists. Not that they are identical in scope (because that's blatantly wrong) but that they are both to be overthrown. This came up in a conversation where we were talking about various charities we might do something for, and since there was a Ronald McDonald House charity office nearby, I had suggested it. The mere association with McDonald's corporate made it entirely unacceptable.
zdragnar 2y ago
You missed the end of the clip, where he said that if people don't self isolate, "then you have to do something about it". Basically, he wants everyone to be ideal, and if they don't fit his ideal, they should be compelled. This view is no different than any other tyrannical regime, in that regard; what dictator or oppressive group wouldn't want the entire populace to be completely compliant with their demands?

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

Is there much of a difference? If all stores ban the unvaccinated for example? Is that “shunning” in line with the underlying principles? Even though I am vaccinated, I personally reject calls for medical discrimination and violations of bodily autonomy. I think it is one thing for individuals to make choices and decide who they want to invite to their house. But I think it is another thing entirely for public or private employers or other places to ban people on such traits. Whether it is forced by the government or not, doesn’t make a difference to me. But I will also note that the line can be very blurry to begin with. For example, many cities have public transportation that is operated by private entities.

beepbooptheory 2y ago
Surely whether its forced by the government or not does make the difference here? Isn't that like the whole problem? Otherwise wouldnt this all essentially be complaining about a "No Shirt No Service" policy at a McDonald's?
- zdragnar 2y ago
  From an anarchist perspective, there isn't a practical difference; both are hierarchical power structures that coerce behavior.
  - mercutio2 2y ago
    Uh, what? If you are an anarchist, and you truly feel that McDonald's hierarchy is just as problematic as governments coercing behavior, OK, you do you. But if you're not an anarchist, and you're arguing anarchists think this way... that is not the way any of my anarchist friends think about the problems of corporate hegemony vs. government coercion. They are against both, but consider them vastly different problems, in scope as well as kind. Juxtaposing them and saying there's no difference... is not what any anarchists I know would do.
    - zdragnar 2y ago
      It's an argument I've heard from anarchists. Not that they are identical in scope (because that's blatantly wrong) but that they are both to be overthrown. This came up in a conversation where we were talking about various charities we might do something for, and since there was a Ronald McDonald House charity office nearby, I had suggested it. The mere association with McDonald's corporate made it entirely unacceptable.

zdragnar 2y ago

You missed the end of the clip, where he said that if people don't self isolate, "then you have to do something about it". Basically, he wants everyone to be ideal, and if they don't fit his ideal, they should be compelled. This view is no different than any other tyrannical regime, in that regard; what dictator or oppressive group wouldn't want the entire populace to be completely compliant with their demands?