9 ms·

If you love measles and live in the US, don't worry... its not going anywhere [0]. Thanks to all the anti-vaxxer "do your own research" garbage people. [0]http

by splawn 10y ago

If you love measles and live in the US, don't worry... its not going anywhere [0]. Thanks to all the anti-vaxxer "do your own research" garbage people. [0]http://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html http://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html

j197 10y ago
When internal CDC employees are admitting to fraud and systemic corruption[1], it makes sense to do your own research. Conducting research is a welcome activity in most civilized groups. [1]"Dr. Thompson has admitted in taped phone conversations and in a statement through his lawyer, that he and other authors of the study, which include senior officials at CDC, manipulated the data and violated study protocol to conceal their findings linking the MMR vaccine to autism." http://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2016/05/03/836249/0/en/CDC-Whistleblower-to-Extend-MMR-Vaccine-Fraud.html http://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2016/05/03/836249/...
- Nursie 10y ago
  I hope this gets downmodded to oblivion. Googling your way through false information, conspiracy theories and outright lies does not constitute research. The mmr-autism link is so thoroughly debunked that to keep repeating it is the dishonest in the extreme. The man that invented it has been shown to be an outright fraud, his research unethical and his ability to practice medicine taken from him.
- slashink 10y ago
  Account age 19 minutes... Hopefully trolling.
- sodpaw 10y ago
  That article should not be considered reliable. Even though that sentence was structured as a statement, all the sources are cited as "multiple reliable sources." There is no record of those "taped phone conversations" and the whole thrust of the article is that there is a rumor that the CDC will recant its study showing no link between the MMR vaccine and autism. Where does that rumor come from? Those multiple unnamed reliable sources. Also, this article was written in May, so if they were truly on the cusp of releasing new information it's weird that we're at the end of September and none of these predictions have come to pass. Though the article is a great example of how this type of misinformation can propagate and sound scary and true if you're already predisposed to believe its stance, so is still interesting to read from that perspective.
- matthewmacleod 10y ago
  Let's be clear: there is no evidence linking MMR vaccines with ASD. There are literally hundreds of examples of research into this, and there is ample evidence that there is no link. Here are my favourites; I'm sure you'll agree that they carry substantially more weight than a press release from an anti-vaccination group. http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2275444 http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2275444 http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452 http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01425.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01425.x http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X01000974 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X01... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15259839 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15259839 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10803-006-0157-3 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10803-006-0157-3 http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(99)00160-9/abstract http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67...
- DanBC 10y ago
  Why not look at the multiple sources of corruption with Wakefield? A man who had a patent for a measles vaccine had to discredit that vaccine in order to be able to sell his own. Andrew Wakefield was hired by a lawyer -paid hundreds of thousands of dollars- to discredit MMR. He forged the data. He took samples without consent. He performed unnecessary tests and didn't get ethics panel approval. http://tallguywrites.livejournal.com/148012.html http://tallguywrites.livejournal.com/148012.html
- DannyBee 10y ago
  http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/cdcwhistleblower.asp http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/cdcwhistleblower.asp
- nommm-nommm 10y ago
  http://howdovaccinescauseautism.com http://howdovaccinescauseautism.com
thornygreb 10y ago
So tell me this, polio and smallpox were eradicated, but I am 45 years old and never had a smallpox or polio vaccine, so that makes me an anti-vaxxer regarding those two, yet here we are and I don't see those diseases making big comebacks?
- chimeracoder 10y ago
  > polio and smallpox were eradicated FYI, polio has not been eradicated. It's been eliminated from all but eight countries, and is endemic on only two of those. But it has not yet been eradicated. > I am 45 years old and never had a smallpox or polio vaccine, so that makes me an anti-vaxxer regarding those two, yet here we are and I don't see those diseases making big comebacks? Well, don't travel to Afghanistan or Pakistan. More seriously: you can't contract polio without being exposed to it[1]. There is no poliovirus in the US (outside laboratory settings), so you wouldn't have had the chance to contract it. That state (the situation in which there is no poliovirus in the US) would not have been achieved without the vaccine, though, so you are still benefiting from the vaccine's use. [1] whether in the wild or in vaccine-derived cases
- splawn 10y ago
  comebacks from what? Oh yeah thats right... eradication thanks to vaccines. Back in the heyday of the polio and smallpox vaccine programs the anti-vax movement was a tiny fringe group of religious nuts... it then exploded in the late 90's because of a combination of science fraud, and celebrity endorsement.
- manarth 10y ago
  that makes me an anti-vaxxer regarding those two An anti-vaxxer is someone refusing appropriate vaccinations (as defined by the medical authorities for that country). Conforming to the recommended vaccination regime for your area, whilst avoiding unnecessary vaccinations that are not recommended by medical authorities, sounds quite the opposite of an anti-vaxxer.
  - chimeracoder 10y ago
    > Conforming to the recommended vaccination regime for your area, whilst avoiding unnecessary vaccinations that are not recommended by medical authorities In the US, the CDC recommends 4 lifetime doses of IPV (usually administered as three doses between the ages of 2 and 18 months, with a booster shot when the child begins preschool or kindergarten (4-6 years old)). The schedule in other countries in which polio has been eliminated is similar. Some countries will even require evidence of the vaccination schedule in order to grant entry to travelers. The only countries in which this is not the recommendation are countries in which polio is either endemic or circulating through vaccine-derived cases, in which case OPV is used instead of IPV.
fwn 10y ago
Didn't get any measles vaccination, though I'm in Germany. I guess that makes me one of those garbage people.
- splawn 10y ago
  If you ever visit the US, I recommend Disneyland.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- SEJeff 10y ago
  Are you familar with the concept of herd immunity? Were you not vaccinated by choice, or it just isn't a big deal in Germany / Europe?
  - maxlybbert 10y ago
    > Were you not vaccinated by choice, or it just isn't a big deal in Germany / Europe? I have no idea how it works in Europe. But it could be a question of age. Measles was once so common that people over a certain age in the US are simply assumed to have had it at some point. That is, vaccinations aren't recommended for them because they are unnecessary.
  - fwn 10y ago
    Yes I am familar with this concept. I'm also vaccined, just apparently not against measles. My parents certainly don't hold any strong feelings about it, so I guess it wasn't recommended at this point in time? I don't know.
    - tjl 10y ago
      So you didn't get the MMR vaccine? If you didn't, it's not just measles that you didn't get vaccinated for.
artursapek 10y ago
I have a toddler in NYC and our pediatrician is strongly opposed to vaccines. I've met other intelligent, well-off parents who are in the same camp. It's not a black and white issue; there's a plethora of cases of children having bad reactions to vaccines. And what I find particularly interesting is that the people arguing against vaccines tend have calm, reasoned arguments while people who argue for them (like you) often resort to ad hominem and passionate anger. http://vaccinechoicecanada.com/vaccine-ingredients/when-vaccine-ingredients-cross-the-blood-brain-barrier-a-formula-for-disaster/ http://vaccinechoicecanada.com/vaccine-ingredients/when-vacc... https://www.mercola.com/article/vaccines/neurological_damage.htm https://www.mercola.com/article/vaccines/neurological_damage...
- aduitsis 10y ago
  If one was to ask you to cite a peer reviewed paper regarding any of this, would it come across as ad hominem and passionate anger?
- grhino 10y ago
  Antivaxxers are calm because they believe they are making the healthiest choice for their kids. Vaxxers are upset because they feel antivaxxers are just relying on the success of vaccinations to diminish disease prevalence and don't really have to worry about their kids running into the disease. If I knew everyone else in the world was vaccinated, I might choose not to vaccinate my kid. It's a mostly unnecessary risk for my kid since they would be unlikely to encounter it in a completely vaccinated world. But that sort of thinking is horrible for public health.
- Nursie 10y ago
  It is a black and white issue, the potential harms from vaccines are utterly dwarfed by the harms of not vaccinating your child. Those intelligent an well off parents are not as intelligent as they think, and are probably suffering from the illusion that their comparative expertise in one field maps easily to their biases in others. The pediatrician is simply irresponsible. The problem with judging arguments by the tone you perceive to come across is that you are likely to assign negative tone to arguments you are already biased against. And if you use mercola.com as a source, you are already lost to sense.
owlscouncil 10y ago
Hey, I was vaccinated, and still managed to contract the disease. Doesn't mean you shouldn't vaccinate your kids, kids. Only positive thing about measles - you theoretically only get it once.
- coldpie 10y ago
  > Hey, I was vaccinated, and still managed to contract the disease. This is why near-universal vaccinations are so important, and why anti-vaxxers are responsible for allowing these diseases to continue to spread.
pavanred 10y ago
Can any one explain how this anti-vaccination thing started in the US, and how is it continuing? I do not know much but I know that anti-vaccination and climate change are heavily politicized in US, if I am not wrong. How did this don't trust the experts in the field, I know better thing start? No matter which side you lean politically, I would like to believe most people would want the best for the kids, and essentially if its health related most people would take their doctor/pediatrician's advice. So, why are there so many people not vaccinating their kids? Is there a portion of doctors who believe in this and advice against vaccinations to the parents? Or are the parents just ignoring doctors advice and choosing to not vaccinate by themselves? Or anything else?
- jameskilton 10y ago
  http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/05/autism.vaccines/ http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/05/autism.vaccines/ It was a paper written written that tried to claim that vaccines were behind the rise in Autism. The paper was later redacted and the author admitted it was completely fake. But the seed of fear was planted, and no amount of discussion, truth, or facts can change what many Americans "feel" is the truth. There's also an ever growing "anti-science" and "anti-intellectual" wave in this country that this paper did not help with.
  - ant512 10y ago
    > There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” Isaac Asimov, 1980. http://aphelis.net/cult-ignorance-isaac-asimov-1980/ http://aphelis.net/cult-ignorance-isaac-asimov-1980/
    - colanderman 10y ago
      I think this is part of it, though I feel there's a healthy dose of egoism in there. Americans don't really live in communities like Europeans tend to, and when they do, it tends to be within an socioeconomic bubble. So I think we tend to easily dismiss the worth or even existence of others, the recognition of whom I think would put a damper on anti-intellectualism.
kragen 10y ago
It makes me really unhappy to see comments on HN that liken human beings to garbage, even if they are ignorant human beings making dangerous choices. It makes me even more unhappy to see that such a comment is the #1 voted comment on a front-page story. If this situation is not corrected today, I will take a one-year break from commenting on HN. I encourage anyone else who values basic decency to other human beings to join me.
- bostonpete 10y ago
  I share your distaste but I'm not sure bowing out of the conversation for a year is the best way to bring about change.
  - kragen 10y ago
    Let me explain a little further. As of 2016-08-28, we have reached a point where the most upvoted comment on a popular post is vilifying ignorant people as "garbage". That means the problem is not one person or a small group of people; the majority of the active users on the site endorse such dehumanizing tactics. Of course, like everyone else, without listening to you, they won't be able to tell when they're actually the mistaken ones. But they won't be able to listen to you if they begin the process by deciding that you are subhuman scum. Consequently, dialogue is impossible. The best way to bring about change, barring immediate decisive action by moderators here, does not involve trying to bring it about on this website. It has become part of the problem. Maybe it always was by its very nature.
    - splawn 10y ago
      You shouldn't leave. The comments you posted here are waay more effective than leaving. I made the offending comment and even though I do think anti-vaxxers are garbage people... I do agree with your point that saying so is bad for discussion. Because of that, I would edit the word out now if I could... Thanks for speaking up. Edit: for clarity
- gojomo 10y ago
  You may be mis-parsing the parent comment. The phrase… Thanks to all the anti-vaxxer "do your own research" garbage people. …can also be interpreted as… Thanks to all the anti-vaxxer people and their "do your own research" garbage. That is, the garbage is the "do your own research" rejection of expertise, not the people themselves. Participating in group discussions requires charitable reading, so if a 1st way of reading the comment makes you so disgusted you must storm out in protest, but a 2nd way of reading the comment lets you continue to participate, you should consider adopting the 2nd interpretation. But perhaps, given the existence of 'garbage people' as a separately-occurring slur, you've read it as the writer intended. [And indeed I now see a confirmation from the original author, that labeling anti-vaxxers as 'garbage people' was their intent.] Still, it's a throwaway bit of word-choice to indicate the speaker's anger and disgust at the situation. They (and their up-voters) likely believe, and with some justification, that the choices of these anti-vax people have put their own health at risk. A bit of anger is natural in that situation, and language only has so many ways to express anger against others' practices. Every way of expressing that anger will in some way be seen as a slur against those people, lowering their relative-status, rejecting their choices, and rallying others to take corrective actions. As long as those corrective actions don't include actually treating people like 'garbage' – destroying/disposing them – such adjectival choices should usually be forgiven as concise rhetorical flourishes. Most of the world communicates in such sloppy, emotional ways. Enforcing a standard of clinical precision and coolness, and careful word-choice against any ugly implications against any humans, would in fact exile many people, with valid perspectives, from your conversations.

by splawn 10y ago

j197 10y ago

When internal CDC employees are admitting to fraud and systemic corruption[1], it makes sense to do your own research. Conducting research is a welcome activity in most civilized groups. [1]"Dr. Thompson has admitted in taped phone conversations and in a statement through his lawyer, that he and other authors of the study, which include senior officials at CDC, manipulated the data and violated study protocol to conceal their findings linking the MMR vaccine to autism." http://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2016/05/03/836249/0/en/CDC-Whistleblower-to-Extend-MMR-Vaccine-Fraud.html http://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2016/05/03/836249/...

Nursie 10y ago
I hope this gets downmodded to oblivion. Googling your way through false information, conspiracy theories and outright lies does not constitute research. The mmr-autism link is so thoroughly debunked that to keep repeating it is the dishonest in the extreme. The man that invented it has been shown to be an outright fraud, his research unethical and his ability to practice medicine taken from him.
slashink 10y ago
Account age 19 minutes... Hopefully trolling.
sodpaw 10y ago
That article should not be considered reliable. Even though that sentence was structured as a statement, all the sources are cited as "multiple reliable sources." There is no record of those "taped phone conversations" and the whole thrust of the article is that there is a rumor that the CDC will recant its study showing no link between the MMR vaccine and autism. Where does that rumor come from? Those multiple unnamed reliable sources. Also, this article was written in May, so if they were truly on the cusp of releasing new information it's weird that we're at the end of September and none of these predictions have come to pass. Though the article is a great example of how this type of misinformation can propagate and sound scary and true if you're already predisposed to believe its stance, so is still interesting to read from that perspective.
matthewmacleod 10y ago
Let's be clear: there is no evidence linking MMR vaccines with ASD. There are literally hundreds of examples of research into this, and there is ample evidence that there is no link. Here are my favourites; I'm sure you'll agree that they carry substantially more weight than a press release from an anti-vaccination group. http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2275444 http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2275444 http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452 http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01425.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01425.x http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X01000974 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X01... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15259839 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15259839 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10803-006-0157-3 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10803-006-0157-3 http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(99)00160-9/abstract http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67...
DanBC 10y ago
Why not look at the multiple sources of corruption with Wakefield? A man who had a patent for a measles vaccine had to discredit that vaccine in order to be able to sell his own. Andrew Wakefield was hired by a lawyer -paid hundreds of thousands of dollars- to discredit MMR. He forged the data. He took samples without consent. He performed unnecessary tests and didn't get ethics panel approval. http://tallguywrites.livejournal.com/148012.html http://tallguywrites.livejournal.com/148012.html
DannyBee 10y ago
http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/cdcwhistleblower.asp http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/cdcwhistleblower.asp
nommm-nommm 10y ago
http://howdovaccinescauseautism.com http://howdovaccinescauseautism.com

thornygreb 10y ago

So tell me this, polio and smallpox were eradicated, but I am 45 years old and never had a smallpox or polio vaccine, so that makes me an anti-vaxxer regarding those two, yet here we are and I don't see those diseases making big comebacks?

chimeracoder 10y ago
> polio and smallpox were eradicated FYI, polio has not been eradicated. It's been eliminated from all but eight countries, and is endemic on only two of those. But it has not yet been eradicated. > I am 45 years old and never had a smallpox or polio vaccine, so that makes me an anti-vaxxer regarding those two, yet here we are and I don't see those diseases making big comebacks? Well, don't travel to Afghanistan or Pakistan. More seriously: you can't contract polio without being exposed to it[1]. There is no poliovirus in the US (outside laboratory settings), so you wouldn't have had the chance to contract it. That state (the situation in which there is no poliovirus in the US) would not have been achieved without the vaccine, though, so you are still benefiting from the vaccine's use. [1] whether in the wild or in vaccine-derived cases
splawn 10y ago
comebacks from what? Oh yeah thats right... eradication thanks to vaccines. Back in the heyday of the polio and smallpox vaccine programs the anti-vax movement was a tiny fringe group of religious nuts... it then exploded in the late 90's because of a combination of science fraud, and celebrity endorsement.
manarth 10y ago
that makes me an anti-vaxxer regarding those two An anti-vaxxer is someone refusing appropriate vaccinations (as defined by the medical authorities for that country). Conforming to the recommended vaccination regime for your area, whilst avoiding unnecessary vaccinations that are not recommended by medical authorities, sounds quite the opposite of an anti-vaxxer.
- chimeracoder 10y ago
  > Conforming to the recommended vaccination regime for your area, whilst avoiding unnecessary vaccinations that are not recommended by medical authorities In the US, the CDC recommends 4 lifetime doses of IPV (usually administered as three doses between the ages of 2 and 18 months, with a booster shot when the child begins preschool or kindergarten (4-6 years old)). The schedule in other countries in which polio has been eliminated is similar. Some countries will even require evidence of the vaccination schedule in order to grant entry to travelers. The only countries in which this is not the recommendation are countries in which polio is either endemic or circulating through vaccine-derived cases, in which case OPV is used instead of IPV.

fwn 10y ago

Didn't get any measles vaccination, though I'm in Germany. I guess that makes me one of those garbage people.

splawn 10y ago
If you ever visit the US, I recommend Disneyland.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
SEJeff 10y ago
Are you familar with the concept of herd immunity? Were you not vaccinated by choice, or it just isn't a big deal in Germany / Europe?
- maxlybbert 10y ago
  > Were you not vaccinated by choice, or it just isn't a big deal in Germany / Europe? I have no idea how it works in Europe. But it could be a question of age. Measles was once so common that people over a certain age in the US are simply assumed to have had it at some point. That is, vaccinations aren't recommended for them because they are unnecessary.
- fwn 10y ago
  Yes I am familar with this concept. I'm also vaccined, just apparently not against measles. My parents certainly don't hold any strong feelings about it, so I guess it wasn't recommended at this point in time? I don't know.
  - tjl 10y ago
    So you didn't get the MMR vaccine? If you didn't, it's not just measles that you didn't get vaccinated for.

artursapek 10y ago

I have a toddler in NYC and our pediatrician is strongly opposed to vaccines. I've met other intelligent, well-off parents who are in the same camp. It's not a black and white issue; there's a plethora of cases of children having bad reactions to vaccines. And what I find particularly interesting is that the people arguing against vaccines tend have calm, reasoned arguments while people who argue for them (like you) often resort to ad hominem and passionate anger. http://vaccinechoicecanada.com/vaccine-ingredients/when-vaccine-ingredients-cross-the-blood-brain-barrier-a-formula-for-disaster/ http://vaccinechoicecanada.com/vaccine-ingredients/when-vacc... https://www.mercola.com/article/vaccines/neurological_damage.htm https://www.mercola.com/article/vaccines/neurological_damage...

aduitsis 10y ago
If one was to ask you to cite a peer reviewed paper regarding any of this, would it come across as ad hominem and passionate anger?
grhino 10y ago
Antivaxxers are calm because they believe they are making the healthiest choice for their kids. Vaxxers are upset because they feel antivaxxers are just relying on the success of vaccinations to diminish disease prevalence and don't really have to worry about their kids running into the disease. If I knew everyone else in the world was vaccinated, I might choose not to vaccinate my kid. It's a mostly unnecessary risk for my kid since they would be unlikely to encounter it in a completely vaccinated world. But that sort of thinking is horrible for public health.
Nursie 10y ago
It is a black and white issue, the potential harms from vaccines are utterly dwarfed by the harms of not vaccinating your child. Those intelligent an well off parents are not as intelligent as they think, and are probably suffering from the illusion that their comparative expertise in one field maps easily to their biases in others. The pediatrician is simply irresponsible. The problem with judging arguments by the tone you perceive to come across is that you are likely to assign negative tone to arguments you are already biased against. And if you use mercola.com as a source, you are already lost to sense.

owlscouncil 10y ago

Hey, I was vaccinated, and still managed to contract the disease. Doesn't mean you shouldn't vaccinate your kids, kids. Only positive thing about measles - you theoretically only get it once.

coldpie 10y ago
> Hey, I was vaccinated, and still managed to contract the disease. This is why near-universal vaccinations are so important, and why anti-vaxxers are responsible for allowing these diseases to continue to spread.

pavanred 10y ago

Can any one explain how this anti-vaccination thing started in the US, and how is it continuing? I do not know much but I know that anti-vaccination and climate change are heavily politicized in US, if I am not wrong. How did this don't trust the experts in the field, I know better thing start? No matter which side you lean politically, I would like to believe most people would want the best for the kids, and essentially if its health related most people would take their doctor/pediatrician's advice. So, why are there so many people not vaccinating their kids? Is there a portion of doctors who believe in this and advice against vaccinations to the parents? Or are the parents just ignoring doctors advice and choosing to not vaccinate by themselves? Or anything else?

jameskilton 10y ago
http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/05/autism.vaccines/ http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/05/autism.vaccines/ It was a paper written written that tried to claim that vaccines were behind the rise in Autism. The paper was later redacted and the author admitted it was completely fake. But the seed of fear was planted, and no amount of discussion, truth, or facts can change what many Americans "feel" is the truth. There's also an ever growing "anti-science" and "anti-intellectual" wave in this country that this paper did not help with.
- ant512 10y ago
  > There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” Isaac Asimov, 1980. http://aphelis.net/cult-ignorance-isaac-asimov-1980/ http://aphelis.net/cult-ignorance-isaac-asimov-1980/
  - colanderman 10y ago
    I think this is part of it, though I feel there's a healthy dose of egoism in there. Americans don't really live in communities like Europeans tend to, and when they do, it tends to be within an socioeconomic bubble. So I think we tend to easily dismiss the worth or even existence of others, the recognition of whom I think would put a damper on anti-intellectualism.

kragen 10y ago

It makes me really unhappy to see comments on HN that liken human beings to garbage, even if they are ignorant human beings making dangerous choices. It makes me even more unhappy to see that such a comment is the #1 voted comment on a front-page story. If this situation is not corrected today, I will take a one-year break from commenting on HN. I encourage anyone else who values basic decency to other human beings to join me.

bostonpete 10y ago
I share your distaste but I'm not sure bowing out of the conversation for a year is the best way to bring about change.
- kragen 10y ago
  Let me explain a little further. As of 2016-08-28, we have reached a point where the most upvoted comment on a popular post is vilifying ignorant people as "garbage". That means the problem is not one person or a small group of people; the majority of the active users on the site endorse such dehumanizing tactics. Of course, like everyone else, without listening to you, they won't be able to tell when they're actually the mistaken ones. But they won't be able to listen to you if they begin the process by deciding that you are subhuman scum. Consequently, dialogue is impossible. The best way to bring about change, barring immediate decisive action by moderators here, does not involve trying to bring it about on this website. It has become part of the problem. Maybe it always was by its very nature.
  - splawn 10y ago
    You shouldn't leave. The comments you posted here are waay more effective than leaving. I made the offending comment and even though I do think anti-vaxxers are garbage people... I do agree with your point that saying so is bad for discussion. Because of that, I would edit the word out now if I could... Thanks for speaking up. Edit: for clarity
gojomo 10y ago
You may be mis-parsing the parent comment. The phrase… Thanks to all the anti-vaxxer "do your own research" garbage people. …can also be interpreted as… Thanks to all the anti-vaxxer people and their "do your own research" garbage. That is, the garbage is the "do your own research" rejection of expertise, not the people themselves. Participating in group discussions requires charitable reading, so if a 1st way of reading the comment makes you so disgusted you must storm out in protest, but a 2nd way of reading the comment lets you continue to participate, you should consider adopting the 2nd interpretation. But perhaps, given the existence of 'garbage people' as a separately-occurring slur, you've read it as the writer intended. [And indeed I now see a confirmation from the original author, that labeling anti-vaxxers as 'garbage people' was their intent.] Still, it's a throwaway bit of word-choice to indicate the speaker's anger and disgust at the situation. They (and their up-voters) likely believe, and with some justification, that the choices of these anti-vax people have put their own health at risk. A bit of anger is natural in that situation, and language only has so many ways to express anger against others' practices. Every way of expressing that anger will in some way be seen as a slur against those people, lowering their relative-status, rejecting their choices, and rallying others to take corrective actions. As long as those corrective actions don't include actually treating people like 'garbage' – destroying/disposing them – such adjectival choices should usually be forgiven as concise rhetorical flourishes. Most of the world communicates in such sloppy, emotional ways. Enforcing a standard of clinical precision and coolness, and careful word-choice against any ugly implications against any humans, would in fact exile many people, with valid perspectives, from your conversations.