3 ms·

"Anti-Vaxxer" is a slur. It describes a group of people who believe that NO vaccines should be taken, under ANY circumstances, because they either aren't effect

"Anti-Vaxxer" is a slur. It describes a group of people who believe that NO vaccines should be taken, under ANY circumstances, because they either aren't effective or the risk isn't worth the reward. People who have skepticism over one particular vaccine, the one for Covid, are not the same as those who refuse ALL vaccines. There is overlap, for obvious reasons, but describing the former as the latter is overly broad, and seems to be an attempt, once again, to paint anyone who disagrees with the manufactured mainstream party line on Covid as a crank. Vaccines in general are good, and have done a lot of good for humanity. That doesn't mean that it's impossible to make a vaccine that's harmful, especially when said vaccine is rushed, under incredible political and economic pressure, and using completely new technology. Skepticism may or may not be warranted, but it's certainly reasonable. Furthermore, if a business chooses to turn down customers for a given reason, that policy is public information. It's not abusive to report this information on a service designed to report information about businesses. It's not abusive to share one's opinion of a business on a service designed specifically for that. Time and time again services are built out to solicit public opinion, and then panic ensues when the opinion isn't in keeping with what it's "supposed" to be. This is why Netflix no longer has a star rating system. Too many important people's egos got bruised. Do people abuse rating systems? Absolutely (just look at the hellish wasteland that is Amazon). But disagreement is not abuse. Having a different opinion is not abuse. And that seems to be the situation here. Edit: I also note some of the complaints were...overly enthusiastic. Threats of violence, although almost certainly hyperbole, are a bit much. At the same time, people don't like being told to show their papers. Anyone with a basic understanding of human psychology should be able to recognize this. Covid was unfortunate, but it wasn't devastating. We're not talking about the Black Plague here. Requiring Authoritarian State levels of paperwork to go about your daily life is going to piss people off, and rightly so. If things are really that bad, the restaurants shouldn't be open at all. If they aren't, there's no justification for "Papers please!"

faeriechangling 5y ago
I don't believe those avoiding the vaccine are for the most part cranks. I believe those avoiding the vaccine are freeriders and a game theoretical inevitability given the more other people take precautions against COVID the more appealing not taking precautions against COVID becomes. Every time I have stumbled across communities of "The vaccine hesitant" in my travels a piece of logic repeated over and over is that it's less risky to take a chance of getting COVID than to definitely expose yourself to spike proteins. The risks of both are unknown, and anybody intellectually honest will acknowledge that COVID has many long term risks including the factors that people point to as risky about the vaccine like spike proteins. They do the evaluation that you will definitely get exposed to risk if you get vaccinated, but you only MIGHT be exposed to COVID. In this context we're talking not about people masking up, isolating, avoiding browsing in grocery stores, and avoiding ANY exposure to spike proteins through vaccination or COVID. We're talking about people who want to go to bars but also don't want to get vaccinated. These are not cautious people, these are SELFISH people who are unconcerned with remote possibilities of long term risks if they have nothing more than a frivolous incentive to ignore those risks. Why is it that such people deserve to be held in higher esteem than cranks, who at least to me seem more genuine and consistent? Am I supposed to be naïve to the game the rationalist "Vaccine hesitant" are playing? Wanting to freeride and not face social stigma is attempting to have ones cake and eat it too.
cratermoon 5y ago
> Threats of violence, although almost certainly hyperbole Evidence from the last 4+ years suggests that no, threats of violence are not hyperbole and should absolutely be taken seriously. Especially in a country where there are more firearms than people.

faeriechangling 5y ago

I don't believe those avoiding the vaccine are for the most part cranks. I believe those avoiding the vaccine are freeriders and a game theoretical inevitability given the more other people take precautions against COVID the more appealing not taking precautions against COVID becomes. Every time I have stumbled across communities of "The vaccine hesitant" in my travels a piece of logic repeated over and over is that it's less risky to take a chance of getting COVID than to definitely expose yourself to spike proteins. The risks of both are unknown, and anybody intellectually honest will acknowledge that COVID has many long term risks including the factors that people point to as risky about the vaccine like spike proteins. They do the evaluation that you will definitely get exposed to risk if you get vaccinated, but you only MIGHT be exposed to COVID. In this context we're talking not about people masking up, isolating, avoiding browsing in grocery stores, and avoiding ANY exposure to spike proteins through vaccination or COVID. We're talking about people who want to go to bars but also don't want to get vaccinated. These are not cautious people, these are SELFISH people who are unconcerned with remote possibilities of long term risks if they have nothing more than a frivolous incentive to ignore those risks. Why is it that such people deserve to be held in higher esteem than cranks, who at least to me seem more genuine and consistent? Am I supposed to be naïve to the game the rationalist "Vaccine hesitant" are playing? Wanting to freeride and not face social stigma is attempting to have ones cake and eat it too.

cratermoon 5y ago

> Threats of violence, although almost certainly hyperbole Evidence from the last 4+ years suggests that no, threats of violence are not hyperbole and should absolutely be taken seriously. Especially in a country where there are more firearms than people.