4 ms·

> “I decided the risk was worth it” It’s funny though how you say this phrase for a vaccine and not for the hundreds of other riskier situations you face daily

> “I decided the risk was worth it” It’s funny though how you say this phrase for a vaccine and not for the hundreds of other riskier situations you face daily. “I drove a car…risk was worth it I decided”. It sounds a bit self-important. Vaccines are just something you do. For me it was not a decision. It’s an interesting exploration in psychology where people oppose something mostly because they are told to do it. Like a teenage rebellion attitude. I get this feeling when I feel like I am being taken advantage of or have been recently. I can imagine it’s tough being a Google employee in the SJW era. There are a thousands ways they tell you you need to change. New language, etc. Constant unrelenting bullshit that you cannot oppose. I think this is a way for people to take back control of something because they feel a loss of control in other areas. Just like brexit, people want to go against things because of the people telling them to do something. Google shouldn’t tell me. The government shouldn’t tell me. SJWs shouldn’t tell me. But sadly I don’t think there is a way around this. But I do think the SJWs and vaccine/mask crusaders make things much worse.

Fine-Cut4983 5y ago
Of course you made a decision, unless you are an automaton? (ignoring the question of free will here). If the vaccine killed 90% of those who took it, you would of course take it, because "vaccines are just something you do"? No, you evaluated the risk. And yes, driving a car absolutely is a risk, as is just about everything.
- fruityrudy 5y ago
  > If the vaccine killed 90% Yes I would take it. Because if there is a vaccine available and recommended to the general population that has 90% kill rate, the thing it’s protecting against would undoubtedly have a higher kill rate then this. End of days scenarios we would be talking about nonetheless.
  - Fine-Cut4983 5y ago
    So you are the type of person who will always do anything the authorities tell you to do. I suppose we are not likely to see eye to eye.
    - cloverich 5y ago
      No the implication is a vaccine mandate in itself implies a calculated risk assessment that is sufficiently obvious it doesn’t make sense to use it as a basis for discussion.
      - Fine-Cut4983 5y ago
        I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
      - fruityrudy 5y ago
        Precisely.
irthomasthomas 5y ago
"For me it was not a decision." To my eyes, this kind of mindlessness, being encouraged on a vast scale, is more dangerous than any virus. You really think its cool to take a new medical procedure without thinking? "How sweet to be an idiot."
FooBarBizBazz 5y ago
> people want to go against things because of the people telling them to do something. Yes, it's reverse psychology. The effect is to maximize death rates among the demographic group to which anti-vax has been successfully marketed. > SJWs shouldn’t tell me. SJWs aren't the ones campaigning for vaccines. Center-left technocrats are. Big difference.
- seriousquestion 5y ago
  That's true, but they are the foot soldiers for the technocrats. Like Mao's Red Guard, they are the ones enforcing it on the ground, ousting dissidents and running the struggle sessions. They humiliate, bully, ostracize, get people fired, destroy reputations. Without them the technocrats would have far less power.
  - FooBarBizBazz 5y ago
    No, I don't think so. The radical extremes give energy to each other. They're a problem for centrists. It's been interesting to watch the center attempt to embrace enough of the (further) left to address the legitimate concerns (and remove fuel from the fire), without swallowing the poison. It's also been interesting to watch Trump et al conflate the radicals with the center. They say nonsense like "Nancy Pelosi's far-left agenda", and people believe them. What absurdity.
muyuu 5y ago
> It’s funny though how you say this phrase for a vaccine and not for the hundreds of other riskier situations you face daily. “I drove a car…risk was worth it I decided”. epistemic risk is fundamentally different from empirical risk you started off strong with the max level condescendence and ignorance but I do agree with the rest of the message, roughly at least
- fruityrudy 5y ago
  Thanks, had a good read up on epistemology.

Fine-Cut4983 5y ago

Of course you made a decision, unless you are an automaton? (ignoring the question of free will here). If the vaccine killed 90% of those who took it, you would of course take it, because "vaccines are just something you do"? No, you evaluated the risk. And yes, driving a car absolutely is a risk, as is just about everything.

fruityrudy 5y ago
> If the vaccine killed 90% Yes I would take it. Because if there is a vaccine available and recommended to the general population that has 90% kill rate, the thing it’s protecting against would undoubtedly have a higher kill rate then this. End of days scenarios we would be talking about nonetheless.
- Fine-Cut4983 5y ago
  So you are the type of person who will always do anything the authorities tell you to do. I suppose we are not likely to see eye to eye.
  - cloverich 5y ago
    No the implication is a vaccine mandate in itself implies a calculated risk assessment that is sufficiently obvious it doesn’t make sense to use it as a basis for discussion.
    - Fine-Cut4983 5y ago
      I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
    - fruityrudy 5y ago
      Precisely.

irthomasthomas 5y ago

"For me it was not a decision." To my eyes, this kind of mindlessness, being encouraged on a vast scale, is more dangerous than any virus. You really think its cool to take a new medical procedure without thinking? "How sweet to be an idiot."

FooBarBizBazz 5y ago

> people want to go against things because of the people telling them to do something. Yes, it's reverse psychology. The effect is to maximize death rates among the demographic group to which anti-vax has been successfully marketed. > SJWs shouldn’t tell me. SJWs aren't the ones campaigning for vaccines. Center-left technocrats are. Big difference.

seriousquestion 5y ago
That's true, but they are the foot soldiers for the technocrats. Like Mao's Red Guard, they are the ones enforcing it on the ground, ousting dissidents and running the struggle sessions. They humiliate, bully, ostracize, get people fired, destroy reputations. Without them the technocrats would have far less power.
- FooBarBizBazz 5y ago
  No, I don't think so. The radical extremes give energy to each other. They're a problem for centrists. It's been interesting to watch the center attempt to embrace enough of the (further) left to address the legitimate concerns (and remove fuel from the fire), without swallowing the poison. It's also been interesting to watch Trump et al conflate the radicals with the center. They say nonsense like "Nancy Pelosi's far-left agenda", and people believe them. What absurdity.

muyuu 5y ago

> It’s funny though how you say this phrase for a vaccine and not for the hundreds of other riskier situations you face daily. “I drove a car…risk was worth it I decided”. epistemic risk is fundamentally different from empirical risk you started off strong with the max level condescendence and ignorance but I do agree with the rest of the message, roughly at least

fruityrudy 5y ago
Thanks, had a good read up on epistemology.