10 ms·

I’ve typed out 3 comments to 3 separate people before deleting them. I didn’t see the point. Folks, it’s a good idea to heed dang’s warning at the top of the t

I’ve typed out 3 comments to 3 separate people before deleting them. I didn’t see the point. Folks, it’s a good idea to heed dang’s warning at the top of the thread. I’ve read all the comments and can confidently say there’s nothing worth reading here. Just people absolutely convinced of their ideas and principles, shouting past each other. Nothing we haven’t seen on this topic 50 times before. You’re better off going outside for a walk.

simondotau 5y ago
As someone who also started reading the comments in this thread, I can wholeheartedly second this. Remember, nobody is going to change their mind on this issue because of a perfectly worded response in an internet discussion. If you want to change anyone's mind, focus on the people you can speak to in the real world—and have a conversation filled with love and respect. Fear of vaccination is a powerful meme which cannot be countered by deriding the people who are sincerely captured by it. Instead, I suggest you walk them through the statistics and place them into human terms and human context. Show them how to calculate risk of death. Show them how to calculate risk of long term injury.
- TulliusCicero 5y ago
  > Remember, nobody is going to change their mind on this issue because of a perfectly worded response in an internet discussion. People have absolutely changed their minds because of internet discussions. Usually it's not one of the participants, though.
  - kiliancs 5y ago
    Also, change takes time. There's a digestion process. Of course some people are not interested in finding truth and simply cling to their own opinion.
  - simondotau 5y ago
    My advice was meant to be interpreted in a more holistic sense. It is true that occasionally, people have had their minds changed by reading an internet discussion. But most people are more likely to change someone's mind by speaking to people they know in the real world, than they are by contributing to the noise on the Internet.
- RubberMullet 5y ago
  I believe this goes way beyond the fear of vaccination. There is rampant distrust in many of our institutions and I would argue this isn't unfounded. We are witnessing profound and fundamental issues that go beyond what some perceive as antiscience and/or racist sentiments. All this is being compounded by technology in many different ways. Everyone has the ability to create their own version of Malleus Maleficarum and publish it to the world in an instant. Social media, especially with the lockdowns, has demonstrated the limits of our evolutionary biology. Twitter often reminds me of a very crude form of the Babel fish from THHGTG[0]. It's going to take more than love and respect to overcome the effects of the virus and the response to it. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuumnjJWFO4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuumnjJWFO4
- native_samples 5y ago
  No, really, better not. The people who are "captured" by this meme, as you rather condescendingly put it, generally don't trust the vaccine safety statistics, have many valid reasons not to do so, and are also well aware of the statistics around how dangerous COVID is or isn't for themselves. It would take great faith to believe that the institutions are providing reliable data right now in an atmosphere of mass hysteria. How about, rather than assuming people you disagree with are "captured" by "memes", you sit down, treat them like intelligent adults, listen to them and only then consider what to do?
  - seriousquestion 5y ago
    Well said. It's projection. Many of those complaining about others being captured by memes are they themselves captured by groupthink. That the institutions are failing so badly is, understandably, causing great distress and cognitive dissonance for people who desperately want to trust an authority. It's easy to forget, but all of this and more came from public health professionals and the media: Two weeks to flatten the curve. The flu is the real pandemic. Get out there for Chinese New Year! Wuhan Lab Leak is for crazy racists. Masks don’t work. No Lockdowns Anymore! So is it any wonder that people are confused and angry?
  - xyzzy21 5y ago
    There is NO SAFETY data because no COVID vaccines have finished clinical trails yet. That's what "Emergency Authorization" means - we give it to people even though it hasn't gone through the human clinical trials that every other drug normally does! Everyone vaccinated is legally and procedurally part of those clinical trials - it says so on the FDA web site. And those trials are not scheduled to be completed until 2023 - also stated on the same FDA web page. So "safety" absolutely has NOT been proven or validated yet. Even minimal standard FDA processes have not been completed.
    - TulliusCicero 5y ago
      The hell are you talking about, we have data from the clinical trials that ran last year. Those phases have completed.
- blub 5y ago
  I had discussions about vaccines with relatives and there I've tried to make a case where I think it would be beneficial for them. I've dropped the topic for those that don't want it, perhaps only jokingly bringing it up every now and then, but they do have to test before if they come by. What I don't understand is this obsession about the vaccination status of strangers. The only time that I felt upset about somebody else's vaccination status was with (our) teachers that said they won't get it. Because kids can't be protected by the vaccine, I think it's justified that the teachers are asked to vaccinate and the manufacturer/gov must compensate them for any side-effects. Other than that everyone has a right to decide what they put in their body. The state of the pandemic does not justify violating this right.
  - simondotau 5y ago
    > What I don't understand is this obsession about the vaccination status of strangers. Herd immunity. It's an important part of the efficacy of the vaccination of highly contagious pathogens. It's why smallpox is now just a page on Wikipedia, rather than an existential risk to your life.
TulliusCicero 5y ago
It's a war that has to be fought. It's like...hmm, it's like "racism is great" vs "racism is awful". These two opinions can't really exist in society in large numbers simultaneously without explosive results. Eventually, one side has to win. That's the only way you get peace. That's the way I see it, anyway. edit: an example, and a counter-example. Gay marriage is the example: there was never going to be a steady equilibrium reached of roughly half the US opposed and half the US in favor. One side had to win the fight and settle the issue. On the other hand, abortion seems kind of similar and has in fact been in a fairly steady equilibrium in terms of public support. I think that may be because it's less one issue than two: the right to life of a fetus + bodily autonomy.
- RubberMullet 5y ago
  > it's like "racism is great" vs "racism is awful" Or like "racism is great" vs "racism is awful" vs "this isn't racism".
  - TulliusCicero 5y ago
    Maybe? Anyway, the main point is that there has to be a resolution, and that will only come about through conflict of some kind, which is what we're seeing playing out. People don't want to hear this, but does anyone have a plausible alternative that might actually happen? Where a debate like this was resolved sans conflict?
    - thaumasiotes 5y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_divorce https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_divorce
  - esyir 5y ago
    That last one is generally a subset of the second last too.
acituan 5y ago
> I’ve read all the comments and can confidently say there’s nothing worth reading here I particularly dislike this type of comments, which tell people what to feel and think about a thread, however well meaning it might be. You're in a performative contradiction when you shallowly dismiss the entire thread with an overgeneralization and with that make it definitely less useful. Yes, this thread is more divided than your usual one, but I personally found useful nuggets of information in the comments, so it is definitely not "nothing worth reading".
- loopz 5y ago
  The interesting discussions are not one-dimensional back-and-forth such as this one. It is when participants weigh multiple arguments against eachother and try to reach new insights. Discussion of value-systems are just hopeless, as there's no common ground.
  - MichaelZuo 5y ago
    That’s a really solid rule for productive discussions. The great difficulty would lie in actually enforcing it on HN. Maybe some sort of cool-down timer for posters, who are otherwise polite, getting too agitated? Some kind of rate limiting for new comments on a controversial submission?
    - newbamboo 5y ago
      Much better: bots insert fake responses that are calming and neutral. If you want to tailor/manage discussions (manipulate might be a better word), it seems like adding to the discussion is far better than censorship (or rate limiting as you call it). People being shadowbaned or rate limited or whatever just aggravates the problem because it makes people more hostile in general. Don’t censor bad speech, promote what you believe to be better speech.
    - cbozeman 5y ago
      Who defines "polite"? Who defines "agitated"? One person's "asshole" is another person's "passionate".
Layke1123 5y ago
Get vaccinated you idiot.
me_me_me 5y ago
You are right, people who has contrarian views are only more entranced upon hearing counter arguments. Though the delta variant clearly shows vaccine works but if you get infected you don't die. Even with infection spikes in France or Spain for example you don't see deaths spike. In the low vaccination countries you see spike in the infections and in deaths.
- newbamboo 5y ago
  Your information is not current as of yesterday evening. Of course the most current information is less reliable as is always the case with emerging information. The vaccines efficacy may be waning for protection from severe covid. Of course all of this is down to definitions and denominators. Are we testing all newly identified cases for variants?
  - newbamboo 5y ago
    I was downvoted but it’s still true. Here’s a layman’s source from this morning (this info is a day or so old at least): https://www.wsj.com/articles/israel-to-offer-pfizer-booster-shots-to-elderly-as-delta-cases-rise https://www.wsj.com/articles/israel-to-offer-pfizer-booster-...
floodyberry- 5y ago
"dang" should be the one going for a walk. If you're going to let anti-vax nutjobs run rampant on your platform, why get upset when this causes problems? Of course the bigger issue it that HN's target audience is the libertarian/alt-right (who are nutjobs on multiple issues), so he has to "both sides" it so it doesn't appear they're being catered to
- throwaway_12_12 5y ago
  What do you propose to do with `anti-vax nutjobs`? They won't listen to you after reading the comment, which you try to completely dismiss and dehumanize them.
  - CyberDildonics 5y ago
    It isn't "dehumanizing" someone when they ignore substantial and overwhelming evidence and others point that out.
    - throwaway_12_12 5y ago
      This is exactly what these people can tell to you too, that you `ignore substantial and overwhelming evidence` - making statements like this does not help to solve the issue.
      - CyberDildonics 5y ago
        And what is "the issue"? Is it people saying they are being "dehumanized" because the propaganda they watch makes them feel uncomfortable with something that has already had four billion doses given out? https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations?country=OWID_WRL https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations?country=OWID_W...
        throwaway_12_12 5y ago
        I believe the real issue is the state of mind, where two sides of dispute cannot find a consensus and tension keeps growing over time. Situation like this is leading to physical extermination of one of the sides. We have seen this in the history of humanity.
skocznymroczny 5y ago
It's typical. Entire pro-vax threads are allowed, but as soon as someone presents a different point of view the thread is locked and 'problematic' posts removed.
- throwaway_12_12 5y ago
  I think this is result of tribalism. People chose to divide into two groups on important matter, you can chose to belong to the group by sharing their belief system or not. Why belief system? We read leaflets listing what are painkillers made from and what side effects might come out from taking them and yet we don't read leaflets when we take vaccinations. I personally don't know a single person who would read the documentation before taking vaccination. Acting like this is basically committing statement of faith.
  - FooBarBizBazz 5y ago
    Yes it's tribalism, and yes everyone is acting on faith, but only one side has been tricked by the Pied Piper into avoiding a vaccine that could save their lives. I wonder why that is. (You know Trump himself got vaccinated, right?) Pied Piper to one side. Rodeo clown to the other. Protect yourself. Don't walk into the trap.
    - throwaway_12_12 5y ago
      What would you propose to those who don't want to belong to tribe or act on faith? I stand on the ground where people who chose not to take the risk, no matter how "the tribe" will see it, should not be forced to follow the tribe's ways. If we don't start treating each others with respect our future looks very dark, we have seen it almost century ago where certain group of people was accused of spreading plague. End everyone was waving scientific proofs. Those people ended up in camps and gas chambers, I hope this is not what's going to happen again.
cactus2093 5y ago
I get what you and dang are saying, but I'm not so sure it's that simple. If I follow this idea to its logical conclusion, I'm left with simply nihilism. You can use this same reasoning about anything. Why go out and march or protest or do anything for ____ (insert any cause here)? Any single action you do is unlikely to solve a big problem. But everyone can't just give up on everything and go for a walk when things seem hopeless or unlikely to change. Social pressure is an important phenomenon and public opinion can really end up changing a lot over time, and I'm not so sure it's useless to add numbers to your side of an issue and contribute to a sense of societal consensus. It seems very difficult to pick out exactly what kinds of actions move societal opinion over time. E.g. what were the singular actions between the years 2000 and 2015 that were able to shift opinions on gay marriage so dramatically and make it so widely accepted now in America? If everyone that was fighting for this cause over that time had assumed it was hopeless and just given up and gone for a walk instead, it's possible this shift would not have happened.
- TulliusCicero 5y ago
  This comment, 100%. It's true that if you zoom in, it's hard to believe that some comment arguing on the internet will have any impact. But in aggregate, probably it does make a difference. Hell, a lot of the conspiracy stuff spread over the internet in the first place.
cbozeman 5y ago
People should absolutely get vaccinated. After Eric Topol's appearance on Sam Harris' Making Sense podcast, the argument has been made and it's airtight... for you, yourself going and getting vaccinated of your own volition. What should not happen - what cannot happen - is the government or private entities forcing you to be vaccinated, or you lose your means of supporting yourself. It's as un-American as it gets. Part of being a free society - a truly free society - is that people must be free to make their own choices, even if they're poor choices.
- simondotau 5y ago
  Nobody lives in a "truly free society". This is one of these stupid American inventions that I wish would die because it's so obviously wrong—and so obviously incomplete as an intellectual concept. Everyone's fate is ultimately and inextricably intertwined with the actions of their neighbours. You can either be "truly free," or you can be a member of society. You can't be both. Here in my home country of Australia, a society which arguably has more freedom than in America[0][1][2][3] we require children to be vaccinated in order for them to attend childcare and primary education. This is because most of us recognise that sending our children into an environment which has strong herd immunity to serious disease like measles is itself a form of freedom. We've traded one freedom (which we didn't want anyway) for a much better freedom. In America, you have the freedom to have your access to quality healthcare determined by your bank balance. And you have the freedom to live in a community where everyone around you has their access to healthcare determined by their bank balance. If that's freedom, I don't want it. [0] No civil asset forfeiture. No gerrymandering. No capital punishment. Fewer citizens incarcerated. Less student debt. Near-zero medical debt. No PATRIOT Act. Freedom from gun violence. Paid parental leave. Elections held on weekends. [1] "Conservative" economic freedom? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom [2] "Liberal" personal freedom? https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/freest-countries https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/freest-co... [3] However you want to slice it, we're freer than you. https://www.prosperity.com/rankings https://www.prosperity.com/rankings
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

simondotau 5y ago

As someone who also started reading the comments in this thread, I can wholeheartedly second this. Remember, nobody is going to change their mind on this issue because of a perfectly worded response in an internet discussion. If you want to change anyone's mind, focus on the people you can speak to in the real world—and have a conversation filled with love and respect. Fear of vaccination is a powerful meme which cannot be countered by deriding the people who are sincerely captured by it. Instead, I suggest you walk them through the statistics and place them into human terms and human context. Show them how to calculate risk of death. Show them how to calculate risk of long term injury.

TulliusCicero 5y ago
> Remember, nobody is going to change their mind on this issue because of a perfectly worded response in an internet discussion. People have absolutely changed their minds because of internet discussions. Usually it's not one of the participants, though.
- kiliancs 5y ago
  Also, change takes time. There's a digestion process. Of course some people are not interested in finding truth and simply cling to their own opinion.
- simondotau 5y ago
  My advice was meant to be interpreted in a more holistic sense. It is true that occasionally, people have had their minds changed by reading an internet discussion. But most people are more likely to change someone's mind by speaking to people they know in the real world, than they are by contributing to the noise on the Internet.
RubberMullet 5y ago
I believe this goes way beyond the fear of vaccination. There is rampant distrust in many of our institutions and I would argue this isn't unfounded. We are witnessing profound and fundamental issues that go beyond what some perceive as antiscience and/or racist sentiments. All this is being compounded by technology in many different ways. Everyone has the ability to create their own version of Malleus Maleficarum and publish it to the world in an instant. Social media, especially with the lockdowns, has demonstrated the limits of our evolutionary biology. Twitter often reminds me of a very crude form of the Babel fish from THHGTG[0]. It's going to take more than love and respect to overcome the effects of the virus and the response to it. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuumnjJWFO4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuumnjJWFO4
native_samples 5y ago
No, really, better not. The people who are "captured" by this meme, as you rather condescendingly put it, generally don't trust the vaccine safety statistics, have many valid reasons not to do so, and are also well aware of the statistics around how dangerous COVID is or isn't for themselves. It would take great faith to believe that the institutions are providing reliable data right now in an atmosphere of mass hysteria. How about, rather than assuming people you disagree with are "captured" by "memes", you sit down, treat them like intelligent adults, listen to them and only then consider what to do?
- seriousquestion 5y ago
  Well said. It's projection. Many of those complaining about others being captured by memes are they themselves captured by groupthink. That the institutions are failing so badly is, understandably, causing great distress and cognitive dissonance for people who desperately want to trust an authority. It's easy to forget, but all of this and more came from public health professionals and the media: Two weeks to flatten the curve. The flu is the real pandemic. Get out there for Chinese New Year! Wuhan Lab Leak is for crazy racists. Masks don’t work. No Lockdowns Anymore! So is it any wonder that people are confused and angry?
- xyzzy21 5y ago
  There is NO SAFETY data because no COVID vaccines have finished clinical trails yet. That's what "Emergency Authorization" means - we give it to people even though it hasn't gone through the human clinical trials that every other drug normally does! Everyone vaccinated is legally and procedurally part of those clinical trials - it says so on the FDA web site. And those trials are not scheduled to be completed until 2023 - also stated on the same FDA web page. So "safety" absolutely has NOT been proven or validated yet. Even minimal standard FDA processes have not been completed.
  - TulliusCicero 5y ago
    The hell are you talking about, we have data from the clinical trials that ran last year. Those phases have completed.
blub 5y ago
I had discussions about vaccines with relatives and there I've tried to make a case where I think it would be beneficial for them. I've dropped the topic for those that don't want it, perhaps only jokingly bringing it up every now and then, but they do have to test before if they come by. What I don't understand is this obsession about the vaccination status of strangers. The only time that I felt upset about somebody else's vaccination status was with (our) teachers that said they won't get it. Because kids can't be protected by the vaccine, I think it's justified that the teachers are asked to vaccinate and the manufacturer/gov must compensate them for any side-effects. Other than that everyone has a right to decide what they put in their body. The state of the pandemic does not justify violating this right.
- simondotau 5y ago
  > What I don't understand is this obsession about the vaccination status of strangers. Herd immunity. It's an important part of the efficacy of the vaccination of highly contagious pathogens. It's why smallpox is now just a page on Wikipedia, rather than an existential risk to your life.

TulliusCicero 5y ago

It's a war that has to be fought. It's like...hmm, it's like "racism is great" vs "racism is awful". These two opinions can't really exist in society in large numbers simultaneously without explosive results. Eventually, one side has to win. That's the only way you get peace. That's the way I see it, anyway. edit: an example, and a counter-example. Gay marriage is the example: there was never going to be a steady equilibrium reached of roughly half the US opposed and half the US in favor. One side had to win the fight and settle the issue. On the other hand, abortion seems kind of similar and has in fact been in a fairly steady equilibrium in terms of public support. I think that may be because it's less one issue than two: the right to life of a fetus + bodily autonomy.

RubberMullet 5y ago
> it's like "racism is great" vs "racism is awful" Or like "racism is great" vs "racism is awful" vs "this isn't racism".
- TulliusCicero 5y ago
  Maybe? Anyway, the main point is that there has to be a resolution, and that will only come about through conflict of some kind, which is what we're seeing playing out. People don't want to hear this, but does anyone have a plausible alternative that might actually happen? Where a debate like this was resolved sans conflict?
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_divorce https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_divorce
- esyir 5y ago
  That last one is generally a subset of the second last too.

acituan 5y ago

> I’ve read all the comments and can confidently say there’s nothing worth reading here I particularly dislike this type of comments, which tell people what to feel and think about a thread, however well meaning it might be. You're in a performative contradiction when you shallowly dismiss the entire thread with an overgeneralization and with that make it definitely less useful. Yes, this thread is more divided than your usual one, but I personally found useful nuggets of information in the comments, so it is definitely not "nothing worth reading".

loopz 5y ago
The interesting discussions are not one-dimensional back-and-forth such as this one. It is when participants weigh multiple arguments against eachother and try to reach new insights. Discussion of value-systems are just hopeless, as there's no common ground.
- MichaelZuo 5y ago
  That’s a really solid rule for productive discussions. The great difficulty would lie in actually enforcing it on HN. Maybe some sort of cool-down timer for posters, who are otherwise polite, getting too agitated? Some kind of rate limiting for new comments on a controversial submission?
  - newbamboo 5y ago
    Much better: bots insert fake responses that are calming and neutral. If you want to tailor/manage discussions (manipulate might be a better word), it seems like adding to the discussion is far better than censorship (or rate limiting as you call it). People being shadowbaned or rate limited or whatever just aggravates the problem because it makes people more hostile in general. Don’t censor bad speech, promote what you believe to be better speech.
  - cbozeman 5y ago
    Who defines "polite"? Who defines "agitated"? One person's "asshole" is another person's "passionate".

Layke1123 5y ago

Get vaccinated you idiot.

me_me_me 5y ago

You are right, people who has contrarian views are only more entranced upon hearing counter arguments. Though the delta variant clearly shows vaccine works but if you get infected you don't die. Even with infection spikes in France or Spain for example you don't see deaths spike. In the low vaccination countries you see spike in the infections and in deaths.

newbamboo 5y ago
Your information is not current as of yesterday evening. Of course the most current information is less reliable as is always the case with emerging information. The vaccines efficacy may be waning for protection from severe covid. Of course all of this is down to definitions and denominators. Are we testing all newly identified cases for variants?
- newbamboo 5y ago
  I was downvoted but it’s still true. Here’s a layman’s source from this morning (this info is a day or so old at least): https://www.wsj.com/articles/israel-to-offer-pfizer-booster-shots-to-elderly-as-delta-cases-rise https://www.wsj.com/articles/israel-to-offer-pfizer-booster-...

floodyberry- 5y ago

"dang" should be the one going for a walk. If you're going to let anti-vax nutjobs run rampant on your platform, why get upset when this causes problems? Of course the bigger issue it that HN's target audience is the libertarian/alt-right (who are nutjobs on multiple issues), so he has to "both sides" it so it doesn't appear they're being catered to

throwaway_12_12 5y ago
What do you propose to do with `anti-vax nutjobs`? They won't listen to you after reading the comment, which you try to completely dismiss and dehumanize them.
- CyberDildonics 5y ago
  It isn't "dehumanizing" someone when they ignore substantial and overwhelming evidence and others point that out.
  - throwaway_12_12 5y ago
    This is exactly what these people can tell to you too, that you `ignore substantial and overwhelming evidence` - making statements like this does not help to solve the issue.
    - CyberDildonics 5y ago
      And what is "the issue"? Is it people saying they are being "dehumanized" because the propaganda they watch makes them feel uncomfortable with something that has already had four billion doses given out? https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations?country=OWID_WRL https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations?country=OWID_W...
      - throwaway_12_12 5y ago
        I believe the real issue is the state of mind, where two sides of dispute cannot find a consensus and tension keeps growing over time. Situation like this is leading to physical extermination of one of the sides. We have seen this in the history of humanity.

skocznymroczny 5y ago

It's typical. Entire pro-vax threads are allowed, but as soon as someone presents a different point of view the thread is locked and 'problematic' posts removed.

throwaway_12_12 5y ago
I think this is result of tribalism. People chose to divide into two groups on important matter, you can chose to belong to the group by sharing their belief system or not. Why belief system? We read leaflets listing what are painkillers made from and what side effects might come out from taking them and yet we don't read leaflets when we take vaccinations. I personally don't know a single person who would read the documentation before taking vaccination. Acting like this is basically committing statement of faith.
- FooBarBizBazz 5y ago
  Yes it's tribalism, and yes everyone is acting on faith, but only one side has been tricked by the Pied Piper into avoiding a vaccine that could save their lives. I wonder why that is. (You know Trump himself got vaccinated, right?) Pied Piper to one side. Rodeo clown to the other. Protect yourself. Don't walk into the trap.
  - throwaway_12_12 5y ago
    What would you propose to those who don't want to belong to tribe or act on faith? I stand on the ground where people who chose not to take the risk, no matter how "the tribe" will see it, should not be forced to follow the tribe's ways. If we don't start treating each others with respect our future looks very dark, we have seen it almost century ago where certain group of people was accused of spreading plague. End everyone was waving scientific proofs. Those people ended up in camps and gas chambers, I hope this is not what's going to happen again.

cactus2093 5y ago

I get what you and dang are saying, but I'm not so sure it's that simple. If I follow this idea to its logical conclusion, I'm left with simply nihilism. You can use this same reasoning about anything. Why go out and march or protest or do anything for ____ (insert any cause here)? Any single action you do is unlikely to solve a big problem. But everyone can't just give up on everything and go for a walk when things seem hopeless or unlikely to change. Social pressure is an important phenomenon and public opinion can really end up changing a lot over time, and I'm not so sure it's useless to add numbers to your side of an issue and contribute to a sense of societal consensus. It seems very difficult to pick out exactly what kinds of actions move societal opinion over time. E.g. what were the singular actions between the years 2000 and 2015 that were able to shift opinions on gay marriage so dramatically and make it so widely accepted now in America? If everyone that was fighting for this cause over that time had assumed it was hopeless and just given up and gone for a walk instead, it's possible this shift would not have happened.

TulliusCicero 5y ago
This comment, 100%. It's true that if you zoom in, it's hard to believe that some comment arguing on the internet will have any impact. But in aggregate, probably it does make a difference. Hell, a lot of the conspiracy stuff spread over the internet in the first place.

cbozeman 5y ago

People should absolutely get vaccinated. After Eric Topol's appearance on Sam Harris' Making Sense podcast, the argument has been made and it's airtight... for you, yourself going and getting vaccinated of your own volition. What should not happen - what cannot happen - is the government or private entities forcing you to be vaccinated, or you lose your means of supporting yourself. It's as un-American as it gets. Part of being a free society - a truly free society - is that people must be free to make their own choices, even if they're poor choices.

simondotau 5y ago
Nobody lives in a "truly free society". This is one of these stupid American inventions that I wish would die because it's so obviously wrong—and so obviously incomplete as an intellectual concept. Everyone's fate is ultimately and inextricably intertwined with the actions of their neighbours. You can either be "truly free," or you can be a member of society. You can't be both. Here in my home country of Australia, a society which arguably has more freedom than in America[0][1][2][3] we require children to be vaccinated in order for them to attend childcare and primary education. This is because most of us recognise that sending our children into an environment which has strong herd immunity to serious disease like measles is itself a form of freedom. We've traded one freedom (which we didn't want anyway) for a much better freedom. In America, you have the freedom to have your access to quality healthcare determined by your bank balance. And you have the freedom to live in a community where everyone around you has their access to healthcare determined by their bank balance. If that's freedom, I don't want it. [0] No civil asset forfeiture. No gerrymandering. No capital punishment. Fewer citizens incarcerated. Less student debt. Near-zero medical debt. No PATRIOT Act. Freedom from gun violence. Paid parental leave. Elections held on weekends. [1] "Conservative" economic freedom? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom [2] "Liberal" personal freedom? https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/freest-countries https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/freest-co... [3] However you want to slice it, we're freer than you. https://www.prosperity.com/rankings https://www.prosperity.com/rankings
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]