3 ms·

> This is why the idea of labeling anyone who's not 100% on board with 100% of vaccines, 100% of the time, as "anti-vaxxers," Nobody is doing this, including G

> This is why the idea of labeling anyone who's not 100% on board with 100% of vaccines, 100% of the time, as "anti-vaxxers," Nobody is doing this, including GoFundMe. In fact there is quite a lot of active research into vaccines, both how to make them more effective and how to make them more safe. No one calls those people "anti-vaxxers." No one is piling into this thread to call tntn an "anti-vaxxer." Informed, rigorous consideration and investigation of vaccines is well-accepted by society and always will be. What gets labeled as anti-vaxxer is the uninformed, or deliberately misinformed, content that is created to attract attention, for the purposes of monetizing said attention. Crowdfunding platforms like GoFundMe, Patreon, etc. are some of the ways people make that business work. Snake-oil salesman is an old scam: you create or feed public fear, then you sell a (fake) solution to that fear. Anti-vaxxers have adapted an advocacy model to this pursuit--they use vaccines to feed paranoia about society, then they ask for money to "continue the fight" or whatever. The entire operation is done in bad faith: a scam.

adamrezich 8y ago
Are you saying that everyone uses the term "anti-vaxxer" as absolutely conservatively as possible and always thinks critically before labelling someone with it? This has not been my experience whatsoever, and not only with this person-label but with literally every person-label that achieves mainstream adoption. Given my above hypothetical situation—all current "anti-vaxxer" talking points are objectively false, but at some point in the future something happens that warrants objectively legitimate criticism of vaccines—do you really think many people who have been taught that "anti-vaxxers" are 100% wrong about 100% of what they say, 100% of the time, to the point where criticism is generally silenced or forced into the fringe, wouldn't say, "ah, looks like the anti-vaxxers are at it again!" People in this very thread are literally equating "anti-vaxxers" with literal terrorists. Do you think these people will ever be open to criticizing vaccines, given that they allow themselves to think in these terms?
- snowwrestler 8y ago
  tntn already pointed out that there are legitimate scientific concerns about vaccines, and no one is calling the scientists who work on those concerns "anti-vaxxers." I understand your concern, but context matters. A trained scientist conducting rigorous research is treated differently from a random person with a blog and a GoFundMe, even if the latter tries to hang their anti-vaccine hat on something the scientist says.

adamrezich 8y ago

Are you saying that everyone uses the term "anti-vaxxer" as absolutely conservatively as possible and always thinks critically before labelling someone with it? This has not been my experience whatsoever, and not only with this person-label but with literally every person-label that achieves mainstream adoption. Given my above hypothetical situation—all current "anti-vaxxer" talking points are objectively false, but at some point in the future something happens that warrants objectively legitimate criticism of vaccines—do you really think many people who have been taught that "anti-vaxxers" are 100% wrong about 100% of what they say, 100% of the time, to the point where criticism is generally silenced or forced into the fringe, wouldn't say, "ah, looks like the anti-vaxxers are at it again!" People in this very thread are literally equating "anti-vaxxers" with literal terrorists. Do you think these people will ever be open to criticizing vaccines, given that they allow themselves to think in these terms?

snowwrestler 8y ago
tntn already pointed out that there are legitimate scientific concerns about vaccines, and no one is calling the scientists who work on those concerns "anti-vaxxers." I understand your concern, but context matters. A trained scientist conducting rigorous research is treated differently from a random person with a blog and a GoFundMe, even if the latter tries to hang their anti-vaccine hat on something the scientist says.