5 ms·

I'm completely sure the anti-vaxxers will find a way to scaremonger against this too. Alas, that movement is the result of ideological and sociological forces t

by yyyk 7y ago

I'm completely sure the anti-vaxxers will find a way to scaremonger against this too. Alas, that movement is the result of ideological and sociological forces that are not going away. The only possibility is to suppress them lawfully and even that won't finish them off.

dev_dull 7y ago
> The only possibility is to suppress them lawfully and even that won't finish them off. Government censorship always works to suppress only bad ideas and is never used to preserve power /s
- yyyk 7y ago
  Actually, government censorship was not one of the means I was thinking of. Too crude. I was merely thinking of kicking them off platforms, (justified) demonization of the movement, 'us'-'them' polarization to make even person wanting to fit in know what not to do, and other legal means. All of this is still crude - just less crude then outright censhorship - because the deep roots of the movement are too difficult to root out. Ultimately, this movement is suited to the West in our age. First, we demonize Big Everything (sometimes even with reason). Second, most of the people who reject vaccines ultimately prefer a dead child (even someone else's) over an autistic child. This is also pushed hard in our culture. Third, we have this worship of natural everything, even though nature is full of poisons.
  - Mountain_Skies 7y ago
    Deplatforming will only work in the short term. Eventually you deplatfom large enough populations that they either create their own platforms or someone sees a business opportunity in providing one for them. Except now on the platforms designed to cater just to them, your voice will be censored just as you gleefully censored their voice. Unless you want to go full authoritarian the trend of deplatforming anything you disapprove of will eventually lead to worse outcomes.
    - yyyk 7y ago
      I do not even dream of 'deplatforming anything [I] disapprove of'. But your reply made me think again why I consider going to all these lengths with regards to anti-vax. Well, it seems like child abuse to me, and it's not even containable - the effects are not limited to their family, but can effect mine as well* . Second, I don't see a way for political resolution here. On political matters there are votes and if my side loses, that's the way it is. Here, the very fact such a movement exists (even if the vast majority is against it and votes against it) puts some immunocompromised people at risk. * There are religious sects that agree to basically live apart of society - so it wouldn't matter that much to us what they do - but I don't think that's a possible resolution to this issue, not for most anti-vaxxers.
      - BurningFrog 7y ago
        > Second, I don't see a way for political resolution here Typically, the resolution is some form of mandating that kids get vaccinated.
        yyyk 7y ago
        That could happen too, at least in some states (in others it may be illegal). However, given that these parents believe that puts their child and themselves at risk, they'd go far to stop it, up to faking vaccinations - at which point any outbreak would "prove" the vaccines are ineffective. So I don't think there's a way of avoiding a confrontation with the movement itself.
    - PhasmaFelis 7y ago
      That's only true if they continue growing reliably after being deplatformed. There's no reason why that should necessarily be true. I feel like there a tendency to believe that, since censorship is bad, censorship must also be completely ineffective, and we tell stories like "deplatforming is useless" to reinforce that. But I don't think that's a realistic approach. Censorship can and does work, in the right circumstances. Chinese millennials may know that something happened at Tiananmen Square in 1989, but they're fuzzy on the details and inclined to downplay it and keep quiet about it. That's censorship working as intended. Assuming your enemies are incompetent doesn't accomplish anything but a false sense of security.
- vkou 7y ago
  You can make that same absolutist argument against, say, the use of police. After all, if we let the government hire people with guns to shoot and kill citizens, where will this slippery slope lead us to? I am quite capable of telling the difference between tyranny, and basic public safety, and I think you are too. Vaccination in 2019 is about as clear-cut a line as I can think of.
  - dev_dull 7y ago
    There's nothing about vaccine-deniers that meets the "clear and present danger" doctrine as established by our courts, especially not enough to nullify the very first sentence in our bill of rights. At least that's my opinion, which maybe makes me an "absolutist" in your terms. Besides, government censorship is not some esoteric political theory, indeed it's the natural inclination of those in power, and there's a long history of states using it to the detriment of their citizens -- but maybe they just haven't tried "real" censorship?
    - vkou 7y ago
      The bill of rights was written long before germ theory, and the courts have so far proven incapable of understanding the problem of probabilistic risks with the standard of "clear and present danger". And just because something is legal, doesn't make it right. For your second point: there's a long history of states using police to the detriment of their citizens (And, in my opinion, they continue to do so, even to this day), so we should abolish the institution tomorrow. How's that for an esoteric theory? For some reason, though, the courts aren't super keen on that line of reasoning...
      - whatshisface 7y ago
        I think that people who invent and promulgate exceptions to freedom of speech are contributing to a very dangerous problem and should be forcefully stopped by the police. I've tried arguing, but they remain unconvinced - leaving force as the only option.
    - bsder 7y ago
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
zer00eyz 7y ago
You realize that you also might be taking up a portion based on sociological and ideological forces that are driven by corporate profits. The primary question that I like to ask people who make statements like this is as follows: "What is your mental model of how vaccines get approved and pushed to market?" Even money says that you have a model that looks like "drugs" where vaccines are biologics, and treated completely differently. Then I like to ask "If you did get sick from a vaccine what could you do". In the US you can't sue, you end up in a special vaccine court. HN in general opposes things that have extra-judicial processes attached to them (secret warrant courts, binding arbitration). For me extra judicial has become a "smell" ala code smells that make me look deeper at an issue. This is the same industry that gave us Martin Shkreli, Aids tainted medicine knowing sold in 3rd world countries, and $600 epipens. The suppression of science that is going to upset the apple cart is a thing. See John Yudkin and pure white and deadly, see suppression of tobacco research, see Barry Marshall and the fact that even after getting a Nobel prize some Dr doubt his results. There are plenty of people out there that are mindlessly "pro vaxx" who have zero understanding. The debate has made me educate myself on the topic. Vaccines are an effective but flawed product, one that needs educated consumers and a hell of a lot of reform.
- yyyk 7y ago
  * Having a special court isn't "extra-judicial". Special courts can very useful, if you get judges which are versed in the subject matter. * None of your examples even relate to the FDA approval process which seems robust. Or vaccines in particular. * That was a good example of the ideological forces I was talking about though. Big Corporates are bad, supported by Arrogant Science that can sometimes be flawed, therefore something related to them must be Bad too. To fix the unspecific Bad, the area needs some unspecified Reform (reform is always Good of course, and can never be Bad).
  - zer00eyz 7y ago
    > Having a special court isn't "extra-judicial" One that has no president or case law is. One without the ability to contest (your award) is. The moment that you leave special masters rather than experts before a judge you end up with a very different set of outcomes. > None of your examples even relate to the FDA approval process which seems robust. I didn't question the FDA approval process for drugs, or biologics. I just said it is different and you need to approach the situation with a very different mental model. There is good and bad in the process and consumers should be aware of what they are putting into their bodies. If you want to question the FDA, and on the topic of biologics, then look no further than Chiron corporation. The UK government had to shut down their plant, and the FDA knew what was up. Peoples lives are on the line and a "miscommunication" by the FDA is an unacceptable excuse. The examples I listed had NOTHING to do with the FDA, and everything to do with the players involved, Doctors and large corporations. History is a good indicator that we have problematic interactions between these groups and science that harms profits or changes long held (and sometimes wrong) beliefs. > That was a good example of the ideological forces I was talking about though.. I didn't say "big corporations are bad", I didn't say "science was arrogant". Sciences has its problems - reproduction, trusted elders, corporate interests and the ego of humans. I think science is aware of its issues and is the tides are shifting on punishing and replication, money and ego's are harder to solve but the former will do much to address the problem. Again history is a great indicator of how we treat change when money and long held ideology are on the line, it is a place where we should be MORE cautious not less.

by yyyk 7y ago

dev_dull 7y ago

> The only possibility is to suppress them lawfully and even that won't finish them off. Government censorship always works to suppress only bad ideas and is never used to preserve power /s

yyyk 7y ago
Actually, government censorship was not one of the means I was thinking of. Too crude. I was merely thinking of kicking them off platforms, (justified) demonization of the movement, 'us'-'them' polarization to make even person wanting to fit in know what not to do, and other legal means. All of this is still crude - just less crude then outright censhorship - because the deep roots of the movement are too difficult to root out. Ultimately, this movement is suited to the West in our age. First, we demonize Big Everything (sometimes even with reason). Second, most of the people who reject vaccines ultimately prefer a dead child (even someone else's) over an autistic child. This is also pushed hard in our culture. Third, we have this worship of natural everything, even though nature is full of poisons.
- Mountain_Skies 7y ago
  Deplatforming will only work in the short term. Eventually you deplatfom large enough populations that they either create their own platforms or someone sees a business opportunity in providing one for them. Except now on the platforms designed to cater just to them, your voice will be censored just as you gleefully censored their voice. Unless you want to go full authoritarian the trend of deplatforming anything you disapprove of will eventually lead to worse outcomes.
  - yyyk 7y ago
    I do not even dream of 'deplatforming anything [I] disapprove of'. But your reply made me think again why I consider going to all these lengths with regards to anti-vax. Well, it seems like child abuse to me, and it's not even containable - the effects are not limited to their family, but can effect mine as well* . Second, I don't see a way for political resolution here. On political matters there are votes and if my side loses, that's the way it is. Here, the very fact such a movement exists (even if the vast majority is against it and votes against it) puts some immunocompromised people at risk. * There are religious sects that agree to basically live apart of society - so it wouldn't matter that much to us what they do - but I don't think that's a possible resolution to this issue, not for most anti-vaxxers.
    - BurningFrog 7y ago
      > Second, I don't see a way for political resolution here Typically, the resolution is some form of mandating that kids get vaccinated.
      - yyyk 7y ago
        That could happen too, at least in some states (in others it may be illegal). However, given that these parents believe that puts their child and themselves at risk, they'd go far to stop it, up to faking vaccinations - at which point any outbreak would "prove" the vaccines are ineffective. So I don't think there's a way of avoiding a confrontation with the movement itself.
  - PhasmaFelis 7y ago
    That's only true if they continue growing reliably after being deplatformed. There's no reason why that should necessarily be true. I feel like there a tendency to believe that, since censorship is bad, censorship must also be completely ineffective, and we tell stories like "deplatforming is useless" to reinforce that. But I don't think that's a realistic approach. Censorship can and does work, in the right circumstances. Chinese millennials may know that something happened at Tiananmen Square in 1989, but they're fuzzy on the details and inclined to downplay it and keep quiet about it. That's censorship working as intended. Assuming your enemies are incompetent doesn't accomplish anything but a false sense of security.
vkou 7y ago
You can make that same absolutist argument against, say, the use of police. After all, if we let the government hire people with guns to shoot and kill citizens, where will this slippery slope lead us to? I am quite capable of telling the difference between tyranny, and basic public safety, and I think you are too. Vaccination in 2019 is about as clear-cut a line as I can think of.
- dev_dull 7y ago
  There's nothing about vaccine-deniers that meets the "clear and present danger" doctrine as established by our courts, especially not enough to nullify the very first sentence in our bill of rights. At least that's my opinion, which maybe makes me an "absolutist" in your terms. Besides, government censorship is not some esoteric political theory, indeed it's the natural inclination of those in power, and there's a long history of states using it to the detriment of their citizens -- but maybe they just haven't tried "real" censorship?
  - vkou 7y ago
    The bill of rights was written long before germ theory, and the courts have so far proven incapable of understanding the problem of probabilistic risks with the standard of "clear and present danger". And just because something is legal, doesn't make it right. For your second point: there's a long history of states using police to the detriment of their citizens (And, in my opinion, they continue to do so, even to this day), so we should abolish the institution tomorrow. How's that for an esoteric theory? For some reason, though, the courts aren't super keen on that line of reasoning...
    - whatshisface 7y ago
      I think that people who invent and promulgate exceptions to freedom of speech are contributing to a very dangerous problem and should be forcefully stopped by the police. I've tried arguing, but they remain unconvinced - leaving force as the only option.
  - bsder 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

zer00eyz 7y ago

You realize that you also might be taking up a portion based on sociological and ideological forces that are driven by corporate profits. The primary question that I like to ask people who make statements like this is as follows: "What is your mental model of how vaccines get approved and pushed to market?" Even money says that you have a model that looks like "drugs" where vaccines are biologics, and treated completely differently. Then I like to ask "If you did get sick from a vaccine what could you do". In the US you can't sue, you end up in a special vaccine court. HN in general opposes things that have extra-judicial processes attached to them (secret warrant courts, binding arbitration). For me extra judicial has become a "smell" ala code smells that make me look deeper at an issue. This is the same industry that gave us Martin Shkreli, Aids tainted medicine knowing sold in 3rd world countries, and $600 epipens. The suppression of science that is going to upset the apple cart is a thing. See John Yudkin and pure white and deadly, see suppression of tobacco research, see Barry Marshall and the fact that even after getting a Nobel prize some Dr doubt his results. There are plenty of people out there that are mindlessly "pro vaxx" who have zero understanding. The debate has made me educate myself on the topic. Vaccines are an effective but flawed product, one that needs educated consumers and a hell of a lot of reform.

yyyk 7y ago
* Having a special court isn't "extra-judicial". Special courts can very useful, if you get judges which are versed in the subject matter. * None of your examples even relate to the FDA approval process which seems robust. Or vaccines in particular. * That was a good example of the ideological forces I was talking about though. Big Corporates are bad, supported by Arrogant Science that can sometimes be flawed, therefore something related to them must be Bad too. To fix the unspecific Bad, the area needs some unspecified Reform (reform is always Good of course, and can never be Bad).
- zer00eyz 7y ago
  > Having a special court isn't "extra-judicial" One that has no president or case law is. One without the ability to contest (your award) is. The moment that you leave special masters rather than experts before a judge you end up with a very different set of outcomes. > None of your examples even relate to the FDA approval process which seems robust. I didn't question the FDA approval process for drugs, or biologics. I just said it is different and you need to approach the situation with a very different mental model. There is good and bad in the process and consumers should be aware of what they are putting into their bodies. If you want to question the FDA, and on the topic of biologics, then look no further than Chiron corporation. The UK government had to shut down their plant, and the FDA knew what was up. Peoples lives are on the line and a "miscommunication" by the FDA is an unacceptable excuse. The examples I listed had NOTHING to do with the FDA, and everything to do with the players involved, Doctors and large corporations. History is a good indicator that we have problematic interactions between these groups and science that harms profits or changes long held (and sometimes wrong) beliefs. > That was a good example of the ideological forces I was talking about though.. I didn't say "big corporations are bad", I didn't say "science was arrogant". Sciences has its problems - reproduction, trusted elders, corporate interests and the ego of humans. I think science is aware of its issues and is the tides are shifting on punishing and replication, money and ego's are harder to solve but the former will do much to address the problem. Again history is a great indicator of how we treat change when money and long held ideology are on the line, it is a place where we should be MORE cautious not less.