Comments

1

You mean lefties, like the ones who voted for Jill Stein, can be completely fucking gullible if not dumber than rocks? Hmm.

2

Jill Stein is the only vaguely anti-vaxx leftist I can think of. Anyone care to name any who don’t have any ties to Putin? Are the anti vaxx Vashon parents definitely leftists? Trump did get comparable share of the vote there.

I don’t think a Bernie bro who ended up supporting Trunp ever was any kind of leftist. Something else entirely going on there.

4

The school has one of the state's highest rates of religious exemption

Katie, youre unpopular because you MAKE SHIT UP.

6

@5 - Dude, it’s a Waldorf School in a hippie town. You do the math. Not sure why there is a connection, but I’ve seen it as well at the Eugene school, which my kids went to and I genuinely love. The same folks will support the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change, no problem. So this is something beyond skepticism of science. I’d guess there’s a Steiner root cause in there somewhere. But beyond that - the Waldorf approach to education really works - especially in these overly tech-obsessed times. YMMV.

8

@5 you're anti-science. doesn't that alone prove that the left can be anti-science? We ain't gotta do a political poll of Waldorf parents to confirm the thesis.

9

@5, @7

I give you the Early Childhood Faculty group photo:

http://azaleamountain.org/us/faculty-circle/early-childhood-faculty/

That is not a group of people feeling even the slightest hint of social pressure from conservatives at parent/teacher meetings.

12

Pretty safe to say that anyone who thinks Ashville, NC is some sort of hotbed of regressive right wingers hasn't been within fifty miles of the place.

13

@11

And you're not reading anything in a comment that comes after a link, either, apparently.

15

@14

Crack powers of deduction you've got there, Sausage. Well done.

16

@10 You clearly aren't familiar with Sporty's Golden Rule of Projection.

18

@10 here's some science: Bundcombe County (Asheville) went 55-41 for Hillary over Trump in 2016 - that's bluer than Olympia, Snohomish County, or Thurston County.

Suck that science cock, you piece of shit loser.

19

I guess the assumption is that everyone at a Waldorf school is a typical liberal.

Most people think of Waldorf and Montessori as the same hippie dippy lib mush. They're not. They're both ostensibly "play based", but in Waldorf play is what Herr Professor tells you play is. If the kid wants to play in an unauthorized way, it ain't happening at Waldorf. It's extremely structured, with a lot to appeal to conservatives. It's based on the Four Temperaments, you know, from before the middle ages? Sanguine, choleric, all that bullshit? Shouldn't come as a surprise that there's a lot of pseudo science there. Is it liberal? Conservative? Mostly what it is is extremist and can attract all kinds of paranoids, left and right.

There's updated (and watered down) Waldorf out there of course, just like there's watered down Christian Science or Pentecostalism that is pretty mainstream. It's totally possible the anti-vaxxers at this or that Waldorf school are recognizable liberhttps://post.thestranger.com/report-abuse?comment=35930973als, but they might well be far right or libertarians or just kooks who phone banked for Bernie Sanders until he endorses Hillary then rushed over to the Trump rallies after that.

Maybe a reporter could look into it. Find some facts to go with the assumptions.

20

I'm not an anti vaxer, and definitely pro science (I'm a data scientist so, I'd better be pro science) but if I had kids I prob wouldn't get the chicken pox vaccine either. Measles, mumps, rubella, polio... The killers? Yeah, def get those. But chicken pox? Not a killer (for kids anyways). Don't parents just do pox parties these days or am I totally dating myself?

21

At this point Katie Herzog might as well be one of those trolls who reads about a crime committed by a black person and then say that it proves black people are more violent than anyone else.

22

Forka - someone makes the same Pox Party point in the article. Problem is that the potential exposure to others with compromised immune systems can be deadly. Free riding on herd immunity is selfish and not necessary.

23

@19 - you’re right in that it is not at all like Montessori and it is very structured. It is however highly populated with hippies, but the really involved and lovely kind. And there is definitely some link between the founder Steiner and the anti-Vax crowd. Just google it reporters! Here’s one story - took one minute: https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/risky-hippie-hotbeds-of-antijab-agitation-steiner-schools-promote-choice-of-parents-to-vaccinate-children/news-story/025a07b06fb7bcb30cef7c48a46f299b

24

@22,
point taken.

Though I've also always raised this point as well when it seems relevant...

Americans always warn against drinking the water in Mexico when they visit because it's not safe and you'll get sick. Yet Mexicans drink their water and they're fine. So are US citizens just over-isolated and therefore susceptible to illnesses that others have already developed natural immunities against?

It's kind of my devil's advocate question since I already know that US citizens are naturally more healthy than Mexican citizens, but still... on it's face it's such a dumb proposition

25

Okay, I know everyone in the world is younger than me now, but you know what we got as kids in the 60's and 70's instead of endless shots? Chickenpox. And you know what happened? We took a few days off of school, rubbed some calamine lotion here and there, and went on to live productive (possibly) lives. It was a right of passage, not a bloody genocidal plague. Yes, I'm guessing a tiny fraction of a percentage of us developed complications and didn't make it, but let's compare to pogo sticks and hula hoop incidents, shall we? Or any of the other things that occasionally happen to a tiny percentage of kids. There are plenty of vaccines that are critical because catching the disease is way worst than the crap they pump into these vaccines. Chicken pox? Whatever, dude. It's itchy.

26

Although the foundation of the hippy movement is liberal/progressive (antiwar youth), its many expressions, often defined by establishment media, aren't necessarily so.

More importantly, untrained individuals are more prone to unscientific reasoning regardless of political leaning, but the difference resides in the necessity for the left to stick to facts relevant to most people, rather than right-wingers needing fantasies and outright lies to maintain a world that is past.

28

Conservative tend to reject science that suggests the need for lifestyle or social changes. Things such as the theory of evolution, and climate change.

Liberals tend to reject science when it seems "unnatural," or is coming from "the man." Such things include GMOs and vaccinations.

They both get very butthurt and emotional when you point this out, as this comment thread demonstrates.

30

@24 Vaccines do stimulate an immune response, and the immunity they confer is essentially the same as that which comes from am infection. The worries about our coddled immune systems stems more from our over use of antimicrobial soap and our increased preference for dirt free indoor activities.

31

@20 and the rest of you - please go do your research. No, chickenpox is rarely fatal as a disease...to children. The problem comes when you are an adult and you come in contact with a child with chicken pox (maybe your own). Chickenpox in adults can be very dangerous.

There are people across the spectrum who don't believe in vaccines. Know what? They don't need to be in public schools. I'll bet many of the parents in the story picked the school because they don't have to vaccinate.

These mega-vaccinations should be broken up and that's what I recommend. But vaccinations save lives. Vaccinations make it so fewer kids get ill (and if you are said parent of such a child, you're welcome that now your kid doesn't take up your vacation days).

From the CDC:

"But chickenpox can be serious, even deadly, especially for babies, adolescents, adults, pregnant women, and people with a weakened immune system."

"FACT: Adults are more likely than children to die or have serious complications if they get chickenpox."

"FACT: If a pregnant woman gets chickenpox during the first 20 weeks of pregnancy, her baby has a one in a 100 risk of having serious birth defects such as shortening and scarring of limbs, cataracts, small head size, abnormal development of the brain, and mental retardation."

32

waves to the comments section

Hello everyone. I am an adult who grew up with a Rudolf Steiner-obsessed, Waldorf school advocate mom. She did not get me vaccinated as a child (something about the teachings of Steiner and ethereal forces being "hardened" too early or something; I generally tuned out at the explanation). Since I did not go to school in a liberal enclave, I benefited from herd immunity like crazy.

"See?" my mom would say, "people don't even get these diseases anymore."

I love my mom dearly but I know her actions were irresponsible and anti-science. Every year, I'd ask to be vaccinated and every year, she'd say no. That is, until I entered high school, she relented, and my dad took me to the county health office to get a series of shots from some very confused nurses.

These days, when I hear my mom railing about the "dangers" of new vaccines, like the vaccine against HPV, I feel like she's the liberal version of the racist grandma who forwards you emails about Obama being a secret Muslim from Africa: you can't change her mind, but you can make sure you don't perpetuate the same mistakes.

We definitely don't talk about vaccines at Thanksgiving.

33

The enormity of PCC's supplements section is really all the evidence you need to support this headline (bring it on, weirdos).

@32 thank you for sharing that, it put a familiar face on an
abstruse situation.

34

You know, it took me all of 5 seconds to find some polling on vaccines and political affiliation. Here's what I found:

"Thirty-four percent of Republicans and 33 percent of independents told pollsters that parents should be able to decide about vaccinations, versus just 22 percent of Democrats who said the same.

And, within the past five years or so, Republicans have become LESS likely to say vaccinations should be required, while Democrats are now MORE likely to advocate for the mandatory shots.

In 2009, 71 percent of both Democrats and Republicans said vaccinations should be required. By last August, that number decreased to 65 percent for Republicans, but it’s increased to 76 percent for Democrats."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/numbers-republicans-democrats-vaccination-debate-n298606

Now, this is from 2015 so it isn't exactly representative of a post Trump world but I'm willing to hypothesize that having a conservative, anti-vaxx president has most likely continued to increase the Republican anti-vaxx crowd and decreased the Democrat anti-vaxx crowd.

So, as an individual in the field of science, I must state clearly that Herzogs evidence is poor and that my own is more representative. Now, does this mean there can't be liberal nutcases? No, of course not. But one shouldn't behave as if they're more representative of the anti-vaxx crowd than the insane, faith-based healing Christians.

35

It should also be noted that chicken pox opens you up to other infections as well. Add to that, the poor living conditions of many school children, some of them homeless, makes them more susceptible to complications arising from this kind of disease.

So just pay for the fucking shots, for Christ's sake.

36

This Quora post is also very informative as it also mentions the issue of the HPV vaccine being a catalyst for conservatives becoming more anti-vaxx over time. Nothing gets conservatives more virulent than punishing children for having sex!

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-topic-of-vaccines-a-political-or-non-political-subject-Are-there-Democrats-Liberal-who-are-anti-vaxxers-and-Republicans-Conservatives-who-support-vaccines

37

@29 it's controversial because liberals have been self-mythologizing for years that we're the party of "science and reason", without acknowledging that it really came down to saying what you needed to say in order to support or reject industrial policies aimed at reducing global warming. The later additional of evangelicals to the GOP side of the ledger sealed the deal. And of course, today we see liberals abandoning science and reason as ideologies in droves and huge portions of the community are descending into emotional ideological camps; however, the left has retained their "Pro-Science" identity despite rejecting it wholeheartedly in practice.

So, IMO, yes "You aren't as immune to psuedo-science, [and groupthink, or mccarthyism, or anything else] as you think" is a valid journalistic tack. Count me in with those that think the ascendant left needs a course correction (The Atlantic article today on Pelosi and Priyapal makes that argument a bit more persuasively than I ever could).

38

@37 It's almost like you ignored the last three posts because they contradicted your moronic and baseless opinions.

"today we see liberals abandoning science and reason as ideologies in droves"

The fact that I provided evidence that liberals are becoming more pre-vaxx, not anti, disproves this assertion. If liberals were abandoning science, you could back that up with numbers. Which, seeing as you haven't thus far, you can't. So what conclusion should we come to?

My conclusion is that you're a halfwit who has no real understanding of science and wants to make it seem like the people you argue with are on the same level of ignorance. You know, in order to pretend that you are on the same intellectual wavelength instead of grossly out of your league.

39

@37 Here's another conclusion: this dumbass won't respond to the substance of any of my posts.

40

@6 German Sausage: I was wondering about that, too. Katie?

41

@31 westello: Thank you.
@37: I warned you about going flaccid, Sporty. Now your brain has turned to mush. See what happens when you don't get your shots?
@38: I know, right?

42

I think the motive for exaggerating the declining fraction of anti-science leftists is the canard that the “science” of economics has proven that rent control or the minimum wage or universal healthcare are bad. They think they can neg liberals into believing In Austrian economic theory. Sad.

43

@39 what's wrong with you? Literally?

Grizelda eat shit please

44

If you think an increase in the number of liberals who think vaccines should be mandatory means that liberals are definitively pro-science, you're critically fucked. Your logic fails basic critical processes and you're gonna try to say your pro science? Get the fuck outta here you lackwit.

45

Katie, biological sex IS a social construct. It's a social construct based on biology, but your reference to chromosomes itself illustrates the social construction. We almost never actually determine sex based on chromosomes; in fact, despite the availability of services like 23andMe and Ancestry DNA testing, very few people have ever had their DNA sequenced to determine what their sex chromosome configuration is, we just assume it based on genital presentation at birth. If you know anything about intersex conditions, then you know that there isn't a 1:1 mapping between chromosomes and genital appearance at birth; what we have done is socially constructed a binary concept called "biological sex" that does a pretty good job categorizing most people most of the time but is NOT an essential fact of reality.

Day-to-day, when interacting with people, we mostly determine "biological" sex based on our own interpretations of the outward appearance of secondary sex characteristics and social gender markers. In a more limited number of circumstances, we determine it based on our interpretation of genital configuration. We also use hormone levels, brain organization, gamete production, and, yes, chromosomes to make a determination in various other contexts. None of those is always perfectly aligned in a binary arrangement with all of those other factors - you can have people with "male" chromosomes and "female" genital appearance and secondary sex characteristics, for example - and all of them except chromosomes (barring exposure to mutagenic chemicals or radiation, and even then not all of one's DNA will mutate) can be altered by environment and/or intentional medical intervention, through processes that are socially mediated or produced. Not only is the CATEGORIZATION SCHEMA a social construct (which is true of all categorization schemata, even those that perfectly describe material phenomena in every case), but the actual material biological factors we're measuring are at least socially mediated and in some cases themselves mostly the result of social processes.


Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.