Writes Glenn Reynolds in "No, Karen, we’re not masking again: A winning GOP message for 2022 & beyond" (NY Post).
1. Please, I'm begging you, don't use the old "Karen" meme. Either it's pointlessly gendered or you actually mean to stir up antagonism toward women. I know it often seems as though the Democrats are the women and the Republicans are the men, but both parties need men and women and both parties should resist trading in gender stereotypes.
2. Not only is there a risk of looking — and being! — sexist if they deploy "Karen," Republicans have to be careful not to look like they are rejecting science and reason. I know: Trump wasn't careful, and look how successful he was. Yeah, look how successful he was . So successful, he himself told us we'd get tired of all the winning. We did get tired. You can't operate at that level, mocking everyone, doubting everything. We need to feel secure. We want to be free, but not reckless.
3. The high ground is open for either party to take. Science should not be political. There are experts, they should advise within the area of their expertise, and we should value what they give us for precisely what it is worth, as input to policy choices, and I want politicians who can sanely and intelligently analyze the policy, not taunt and aggravate.
Posts
18 comments:
David writes:
"Unfortunately, science is generally is very political. Always has been. It's because science is not a thing, it's a process, never truly settled."
I'll answer:
Science may be a process but the political process that uses science is not part of the process of science! I'm saying we should maintain a science/politics distinction and not get mixed up, massaged, or abused in the part of the process that is NOT science but politics! Science is not "very political." The part that is political is NOT SCIENCE.
Bob Boyd writes:
Scientists are subject to all the same temptations and human foibles as the rest of us. The more we try to put them on a plane above all that, the worse the moral hazard becomes.
"I want politicians who can sanely and intelligently analyze the policy, not taunt and aggravate."
They need to be able to do both.
Ultimately we have to trust someone; the scientist and his science (most of us can't make that judgement directly) or the politician who claims to have sanely and intelligently analyzed the science as it was explained to him or her.
So many lines have been recklessly crossed, many in response to outsider Trump's election, that trust in government has been all but destroyed and with it the ability to feel secure.
Walker house writes:
"Sometimes a gender stereotype is just another word for inconvenient statistical verities.
In my anecdotal but statistically reliable world, it is indeed the women who are making a fetish of safety, who are taking our expectation of public health to zero COVID. I have stories, oh do I have stories.
While there are exceptions, it tends to a woman’s nature to prize safety and security, man’s nature tending more toward risk and adventure.
Of course, these traits, when properly ordered and grounded in an abiding reverence for the natural law, tend toward human flourishing.
But substitute faith in human engineering, in SCIENCE, coupled with a cultural moment in which WOMEN may not be criticised, and voila, KAREN has nothing and no one to stop her from indulging her worst inclinations."
David writes:
"Oddly while there is a consensus that there is a masculine Karen, there doesn't seem to be much consensus on what name should be used for him.
"I ran a quick search. The first hit, from Fatherly, suggested Ken. Quora answers suggested Brad but also suggested using Karen as a non-gendered term. A reddit thread I found suggested Kevin or Todd. Urban Dictionary uses Ian or Male Karen, though Ian seems to have a narrower focus.
"The strangest suggestion I ran across was that the popularity of the name Terry mapped well to the popularity of Karen so we should use that. That seems to miss that Karen isn't (or isn't just) a generational phenomenon but an archetype. I don't think the name Terry resonates well with the concept, though to be fair, I don't know any Terrys, Karens, Kevins, Kens, Todds, Brads, or Ians who fit the role."
I'll say:
I think this use of names is bad. You're reminding me of the incels with their "Chad." This is bad rhetoric. Find better words.
Michael writes:
""The high ground is open for either party to take."
"No, it isn't. Not with the media we have. The most scientifically valid and carefully reasoned position put forward by conservatives/Republicans is ignored by the NYT, WaPo, cable and broadcast networks, PBS/NPR, the New Yorker, the Atlantic, etc., is ridiculed by appeal to some supposed authority, or is simply suppressed by the Tech Lords. At the same time, the flimsiest argument from the Progressive side is celebrated, widely trumpeted, and converted into headlines and clickbait to gain the attention of the urban white liberals who are the target audience for these businesses.
"The right/Right has to break through somehow, and that Trump was able to do. One of his many personas is "stand-up comic," and people should either be amused by that or roll their eyes and shrug it off. What people got tired of was all the drama, most of which was manufactured (Russia! Russia!) by the Democrats/media because they were losing on the merits. Trump was able to reach the common sense of the common people, which is what democracy is intended to empower."
Joe writes:
"'Karen' is lazy but it's shorthand...it's not meant to be an insult toward women any more than 'Poindexter' or a sarcastic 'Einstein' or 'Sherlock' is an insult to men.
"As for 'experts,' whose would those be? Like the highly-credentialed expert in England who predicted 500k dead unless they adopted draconian measures, yet still snuck out of his house during a lockdown there to schtup his married girlfriend?
"Politicians are good at being politicians. Most of them aren't very bright aside from having great people skills. Arguably the best politician is the one who holds the highest office. Do you think Joe is capable of taking in vast amounts of technical, medical information and making nuanced decisions that will affect 350 million people? Didn't think so."
TreeJoe writes:
"I'm a health researcher by training and have now spent 15+ years in pharmaceutical research and development at an intersection of science, facts, and spin. I'm bordering at competent at knowing all three.
"The CDC has been terrible as a scientific institute throughout this pandemic. They have constantly focused on sound bites to sum up unclear and evolving data so that quick public policy statements can be made and used as mandates. This has led to a constant change in stance that often doesn't make sense and, worse, there is often conflicting data that is easy to cite to contradict the CDC *and they don't address it.* Which makes them look like they first take a position and then find the data to back it up, which by nature is political. It didn't help that CDC and NIH folks liked to be seen as distant from Trump, rather than perhaps expanding on the times when he made non-literal statements based upon discussions they had privately that he didn't fully understand and then tried to discuss publicly (i.e. his comments on disinfectants and sunlight affect on covid and how to apply that to treatments).
"Moving into the public sphere, I am often surrounded by brilliant people who use the phrase "Science says masks work." to which I simply ask, "What exactly does "Science" say? Because science doesn't make absolute statements. Research finds things like "A 2 layer cloth mask unsealed reduced the volume of expelled virii by 70% in lab testing." and then seeks to translate that into real world settings. So what exactly does "science" say about which masks work, in what settings, and how well? To which they struggle to answer.
"And the reason for this is that our CDC, NIH, and Press has sought not to educate but to instill positions in the public mind. And what is most dissapointing to me is how a polarized population, the Left and Right, have reflexively embraced or rejected those positions. Make an informed decision for crying out loud.
"And on that front, I agree with Reynolds that the CDC and NIH - the public health "trust" - has damaged itself severely."
Mike of Snoqualmie writes:
"“Follow the money!” Science has been corrupted by politics. Among the corruptions is Jim Hanson’s Global Warming Hoax. He testified in 1988 that increasing CO2 levels would drive temperatures up into “crisis” levels. Since then, because of the oncoming crisis, climate modelers have gotten more money to refine their climate models. Climate models that don’t match the historical records and are only getting worse. If there was no “crisis”, there’d be much less money to fund climate models.
"The Lie-Stream Media and Democrats, but I repeat myself, politized the China Virus. First it was changing the very name of the virus from the traditional method of naming the virus from its place of origin to placate the Chinese. Then it was cries of “Racist!” after the travel bans. Another politicization was the demonization of HCQ after President Trump highlighted a preliminary study of its efficacy. The correct reply to his announcement should have been “We look forward to more complete tests and hope this initial trial pans out.” They denigrated the vaccine development and said they’d never trust any “Trump” vaccine. Our “esteemed” King of Washington, Jay Inslee I, told his health department to double check any vaccine data to make sure it was safe. They never said how the “double check” would improve on the FDA’s evaluation. Then Trump was defeated and a miracle occurred! The vaccines were now holy! Everyone must now trust that the vaccine was safe and must, must! get vaccinated. (My wife and I were vaccinated as soon as we could get appointments.)
"Need we mention the constantly changing mask mandates?"
Rose writes:
"'1. Please, I'm begging you, don't use the old "Karen" meme. Either it's pointlessly gendered or you actually mean to stir up antagonism toward women. I know it often seems as though the Democrats are the women and the Republicans are the men, but both parties need men and women and both parties should resist trading in gender stereotypes.'
"I agree that “Karen” should be retired but because it is stale, boring, and unfair to people actually named “Karen”. While its origin was definitely gendered, it has evolved to where I have seen it used for both men and women. As to “Democrats are the women…”, I think Democrats want to be thought of in that way, but is it true? Saying “but we are the pro-choice party”, says ‘we define you only by your reproductive biology’ not as a complete person. What else do they have? Reportedly Liz Cheney blew up at Jim Jordan when he said “we need to get the women out of the aisles” on January 6th. Jim Jordan may be everything Liz Cheney claimed but I am betting a lot of women appreciated the sentiment he expressed.
"'2. Not only is there a risk of looking — and being! — sexist if they deploy "Karen," Republicans have to be careful not to look like they are rejecting science and reason. I know: Trump wasn't careful, and look how successful he was. Yeah, look how successful he was . So successful, he himself told us we'd get tired of all the winning. We did get tired. You can't operate at that level, mocking everyone, doubting everything. We need to feel secure. We want to be free, but not reckless."
"I was fully signed on to the fight against this disease. Then the first Portland riot happened followed by riots across the country and the people in government in those areas said because racism is such a public health crisis “it’s OK”. The disease doesn’t care so why people were gathered so why weren’t the people in power concerned? If the new variant is so deadly, why were nearly 200,000 people from countries around the world allowed into the US across the southern border in June alone? I lived through a mini-typhoid uptick when I lived in Chile. Life experience, not anything Trump ever said, guides my response. I don’t doubt the science but I question our public officials inconsistency."
Terry writes:
"This interview from a week or so ago with Matt Ridley, an excellent science writer, is dead on (science as philosophy v science as institution). I work in science, btw, but I am not a scientist."
LINK.
K writes:
Perhaps "the Elect", John McWhorter's term, would be better than misogynistic "Karen." But I feel that "science" is being misused to put its prestige at the disposal of petty tyrants, whatever we call them. I feel we should get at this misuse of science even if there's no meme for it. I think we can see this misuse in the CDC advocating masks to prevent virus shedding because the CDC has a history of denying virus shedding as a false argument from anti-vaxxers. Yet now, suddenly - virus shedding is science and "the Elect" demand we mask. But maybe better unmask the unscience behind masking?
I looked for an article on viral shedding by the vaccinated as discussed before the covid-era. And I found this.
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-myth-of-vaccine-shedding/
The article makes two major points: First is the point that, in the case of measles, it has been proven that those who are vaccinated shed a weak virus, unable to infect or harm others.
"The measles vaccine is a live attenuated virus vaccine, meaning that it contains a live measles virus that has been treated to be weakened so that it is not capable of causing an infection, but will still reproduce enough to cause an immune reaction, and therefore build up immunity to measles. But this has also enabled antivaxxers to argue that the live virus in the vaccine can cause illness, and even cause measles infection, and perhaps is responsible for measles outbreaks. They have no evidence to support this claim, but they make the insinuation by cherry picking isolated cases."
So, this raises the question of whether the "virus shedding" in the case of Delta Covid is the weakened Delta or the real Delta.
Second, the article makes a very good point about the nature of a debate informed by intellectually honest science as opposed to a debate formed by propaganda politics or anti-vaxxer credulity (the same thing). A debate informed by an intellectually honest science responds to points raised by the other side. And, when a point has been answered that point is not afterward repeated as if it had never been refuted.
"A reliable way to tell that one side of a debate lacks intellectual honesty is that they continue to spread the same misinformation after they have been corrected. Scientists debate, but when one side presents evidence to support their position, the other side must account for it. If the information is valid and rigorous, then the only intellectually honest thing to do is to change your position. This does not necessarily mean completely flipping to the other school of thought, but at the very least the debate must evolve when legitimate points are made and new evidence is brought to bear.
However, debates with pseudoscientists or science deniers do not evolve that way. The deniers raise the same points over and over, regardless of how many times they are thoroughly debunked."
Notice that one is not required to flip to the other side and crawl about repenting when a new point one can't answer right away is raised. We are only required not to raise that same point again without acknowledging the new information, the new point brought forward. In the debate about opening schools in the big Dem cities in fall 2021, do not ignore the fact that schools have been open in mid-size cities without bad results. In the debate over lockdowns, do not ignore that fact that Florida did not lockdown and did somewhat better than New York in terms of deaths plus doing better in very other social and economic category. In terms of masking, do not ignore the statement that virus shedding is occurring. And now I say, do not ignore the statement that in the past virus shedding has been alleged - by anti-vaxxers - and has been refuted - by the CDC. Why is the CDC taking up anti-vaxxer arguments which it itself has refuted?
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-myth-of-vaccine-shedding/
Ed writes:
1) "Karen" was a state of mind, not a gender. Or even a sex. Maybe a sexual preference. It worked better than, say, "Cary" for a variety of historical and sociological reasons not generally - though in small ways - tied to misogyny. But it's gotten tired, and like all old tropes, carries boredom on its sagging shoulders.
2) But as a state of mind, its irritating quality was righteousness of the species "self". It assumed the mantel of science and reason, but wouldn't know either if they bit it in the butt.
3) Hence it betrayed science and reason to the most crass sort of politicization. It attempted as a matter of course to censor objections however reasonably framed, and, it seems to me, made it harder to resist the insane objections that also arose. It thereby fell out of the liberal traditions of openness to inquiry.
Mary Ann writes:
“Follow the Money” and “who benefits from this” are what we should be asking ourselves regarding the origin of the virus and the confused guidance that we are dealing with since the beginning of the pandemic. Karens play an important role in society when they ask “to see the Manager.” Translation: who the fuck is in charge and who is making the decisions here?"
JK writes:
First we should keep in mind:
“We have not overthrown the divine right of kings to fall down for the divine right of experts.“
Harold MacMillan
Experts have their place, but not as “appeals to authority”. Granted we have great experts…in the lab, but that doesn’t translate into them or other academics understanding leadership or even being a boss. The trope of the expert, doctor, chef, researcher, is not one of someone who leads by inspiration or convincing.
In my work, I was often confronted with expert opinion I needed to sort out. The experts, scientists and marine engineers, would often have their own agenda or just belief in their way was the only way. I did not presume to be the smarter party, but I did develop the ability to ask questions and evaluate how they answered. You can tell a lot from how someone expands on their “edict”. Most of those with agendas really aren’t prepared to offer convincing details and it shows. You can also tell a lot from how the “expert” reacts when you let differing opinions in, if they take offense, that’s a tell. Often they rapidly approach a tantrum as we often see with Dr. Fauci when he is questioned. Scientists relying on real science, don’t take offense, but rather give you more detail and seek to clarify.
Science is a not a thing, it is a process. Scientists are suppose to be people who are disciplined in the application of the scientific process. But first and foremost, they are people, so you can use your skills assessing people to assess whether you can trust their science. But you must be disciplined in your own application of the scientific process in evaluating them. Some scientists are bad communicators, but also not manipulators. But when the “expert” start setting off your junkie radar, they are trying more manipulation than offering expertise. (junkie radar is when someone’s sob story just gets to elaborate and pat and they get angry if you challenge)
I always keep in mind that the Industrial Revolution was born not from the “experts”, from the ‘elite’ technophobic universities of the kingdom, but rather from the those who were consigned to dissenting academies or the workshops due to their religions, etc. Newcommen, Watt, changed humanity’s future, those “experts” at Oxbridge, well I’m sure they are written up somewhere in an archive.
James in the drive-through district of the Flyover Region writes:
"Thank you Ann. No need to pick out a person’s name for a undeserved stereotype. Makes me think of wartime nicknames for the enemy: Jerry, Ivan, Tommy, Johnny, Billy, and Charlie.
After the Ashley Madison security breach, one publication interviewed a dozen women named Ashley Madison, and the ladies had no good will for the adultery link-up service which had commandeered their good name.
Rather than “Karen” how about "self-righteous political Gnostic" as an epithet?"
Temujin writes:
"I don't think there is a high ground anymore. It's become more of a mystical thing that gets thrown out from time to time. Can someone name a person in our political system who seems to take the high ground? I can come up with...one, possibly on the national level. Media? Those taking the high ground have left corporate media and moved over to Substack. So there is a slight movement there. Or here, at this blog. This is clearly a high-road place (until us commenters arrive). But aside from that the high road is a line from a play somewhere. Some people like to believe it's still there, but I think we're in an expert-less era of mud-fighting. While there are actual experts, they are typically not the ones on TV or writing op-eds in major publications. Because actual experts might not agree with The Narrative and, hence, are not invited to say or print anything anywhere that might be seen or heard. So that leaves us with a lot of people who claim to be experts, but there are no experts if everyone and anyone is considered an expert.
"When scientists become political players or worse- bureaucrats- they cease to be men and women of science and instead become just another cog in a machine churning out narrative. When was the last time Dr. Fauci did actual research? He's been a bureaucrat/administrator/press contact for longer than he was a scientist. For people telling us to 'Follow the Science' they should remember how actual science works. Hint: It's not by consensus or polling. I think the label of Republicans or Conservatives not following the science has been well marketed, though it's total bullshit. I'll simply say that we've been told that 97% of scientists believe in man-made climate change for multiple decades now. If this was real science, it would take only 1 scientist to disprove the theory holding this entire bag in place. Instead there have been hundreds of scientists with their own proofs or theories about it, not agreeing with that Narrative, and so, they are not published or not allowed to speak at conferences, or refused tenure, blackballed, erased, ignored. I wonder who came up with the 97% figure, because it's a longer lasting tagline than "It's the real thing".
"As for the Karens. Yes, I agree that that is a term that quickly ran past it's expiration date. It worked at first when we all immediately knew who it described, and it fit for both a certain kind of woman OR man (though it did seem to fit a progressive white woman best). But it's old news now. We know that it's not Karens, but instead, Jeffreys, Jacks, Marks, and Sundars, and Tims who control the narratives. And while our 'experts' continue to feed us the narrative that Democrats are women and Republicans are men, if you look at reality that's not even close. I would say conservative women have more balls than Democratic men for one thing. But that's just one man's empirical observation. It may not stand for an entire country."
Balfegor writes:
"Is "Karen" even the right term there? This may just be my own (inaccurate) gloss on what a "Karen" is, but I had thought the common threads were (1) the appeal to authority ("I want to speak to the manager"), (2) absolute confidence that the authorities will back her up, and (3) outrage that someone would dare contradict her. Thus, in some stories, the "Karen" is pro-mask. In others, the "Karen" is anti-mask. In some stories, the "Karen" is insisting on strict application of the rules. In other stories, the "Karen" is insisting that the rules shouldn't apply to her. It's not about being a martinet and it's not about safetyism. It's instead a criticism of a particular sort of privilege supposedly enjoyed by middle-aged White women in the US. I think Glenn (like many other people) is taking a concept that is popular online and trying to reinterpret it in a political way. And maybe so many people have done the same (on both sides) that any shared meaning has been lost -- it's become a term of general opprobrium with no other content, like "fascist." Or maybe my gloss was never right in the first place. But at any rate, his use of the term doesn't seem quite right to me."
JK writes:
First we should keep in mind:
“We have not overthrown the divine right of kings to fall down for the divine right of experts.“
Harold MacMillan
Experts have their place, but not as “appeals to authority”. Granted we have great experts…in the lab, but that doesn’t translate into them or other academics understanding leadership or even being a boss. The trope of the expert, doctor, chef, researcher, is not one of someone who leads by inspiration or convincing.
In my work, I was often confronted with expert opinion I needed to sort out. The experts, scientists and marine engineers, would often have their own agenda or just belief in their way was the only way. I did not presume to be the smarter party, but I did develop the ability to ask questions and evaluate how they answered. You can tell a lot from how someone expands on their “edict”. Most of those with agendas really aren’t prepared to offer convincing details and it shows. You can also tell a lot from how the “expert” reacts when you let differing opinions in, if they take offense, that’s a tell. Often they rapidly approach a tantrum as we often see with Dr. Fauci when he is questioned. Scientists relying on real science, don’t take offense, but rather give you more detail and seek to clarify.
Science is a not a thing, it is a process. Scientists are suppose to be people who are disciplined in the application of the scientific process. But first and foremost, they are people, so you can use your skills assessing people to assess whether you can trust their science. But you must be disciplined in your own application of the scientific process in evaluating them. Some scientists are bad communicators, but also not manipulators. But when the “expert” start setting off your junkie radar, they are trying more manipulation than offering expertise. (junkie radar is when someone’s sob story just gets to elaborate and pat and they get angry if you challenge)
I always keep in mind that the Industrial Revolution was born not from the “experts”, from the ‘elite’ technophobic universities of the kingdom, but rather from the those who were consigned to dissenting academies or the workshops due to their religions, etc. Newcommen, Watt, changed humanity’s future, those “experts” at Oxbridge, well I’m sure they are written up somewhere in an archive.
Post a Comment