10 ms·

The issue is an increasing infantilization world-wide where some group thinks it needs to "protect the others", assuming they are the single source of truth and

by bitL 5y ago

The issue is an increasing infantilization world-wide where some group thinks it needs to "protect the others", assuming they are the single source of truth and that it's obvious they are. It's a well known bias which for some reason aligns with the current zeitgeist. As everything before, it shall too pass at some point.

cmurf 5y ago
It's not a new problem. 20 years ago at a national park with signs "don't feed the wildlife" with a parent teaching her 3 year old to feed the wild life within 3 feet of such a sign. I said "do you see the sign? why are you doing this?" She scoffed, pouted, and ran with her child to her car and drove away. We treat her like a child because so many adults act like children. They seek what their parents never gave them, and unfortunately keep barking up the wrong tree, but you can't just refrain from sugggesting they not feed wildlife or it leads to mayhem. Today we have so many humans defecating in the lakes near Maroon Bells that the park might close. For at least a decade that park has a "pack it out" policy, including your own poop. There are that many people pooping in the woods, and it's not good enough to dig holes. People so infantilized they lack the emotional coping skill to poop in a sack and pack it out, so they swim out in a lake with numerous "do not swim" signs and take a dump. People are fucking stupid. If you don't tell them this, they think it isn't true, and the rules for for someone else.
- morpheos137 5y ago
  You lost me at pack it out. Do other animals pack it out?
  - majewsky 5y ago
    The purpose of a nature preserve, unsurprisingly, is to preserve nature as it exists within this space. Any human interference with nature inside the preserve runs the risk of tipping the scales of the natural lifecycle's balance. If someone were to bring their dog into the preserve and hunt and kill some rabbits, it would probably be quite obvious that they would be disturbing the natural balance that the nature preserve is supposed to protect. Leaving your excrements is prohibited for the same reason, although on a subtler level. Your excrement can contain germs not native to the area which could start an epidemic if stuff goes really bad. Just today, there was news that the National Forest Service estimates half of all deer to already have been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Now thankfully, Covid-19 does not seem to be a dangerous disease in deer. Just imagine if it weren't that benign and a significant amount of deer had been wiped out by it nationwide (or even worldwide). That's the kind of low-probability-but-high-danger scenario that packing it out is supposed to prevent.
    - morpheos137 5y ago
      Are humans not part of nature? What evidence do we have that nature is ever at any time "in balance?" This is a common trope that is deeply rooted in the western mind. Perhaps it is connected to old ideas like geocentrism. Here is another way of looking at things: the world is constantly changing. Do I advocate pooping on a crowded beach? No. Is the ocassional defacation of a back country backpacker a problem? No. It is not like humans are some toxic alien not native to planet earth.
      - majewsky 5y ago
        Humans are part of 99% of nature. Nature reserves are the control group that helps us understand which effects are caused by us specifically, and which are not.
      - cmurf 5y ago
        >Are humans not part of nature? No. Humans are supranatural when it comes to our influence on the planet. While this power is not absolute, it's significant enough to make humans an edge case in nature. >Is the ocassional defacation of a back country backpacker a problem? No. In the example given, it's not occasional, but occurs a significant minority of the time that nature can't cope with the volume of human feces.
        morpheos137 5y ago
        So plants are supranatural then too? Their influence far exceeds ours. Humans are part of nature. Nature is never in balance. Change is the only constant. As pre-Socratic Heralcitus said you "never step in the same river twice." If humans exceed the carrying capacity of their ecosystem, the system will reduce the number of humans.
    - kortilla 5y ago
      Deer are oversized rats that have frequent overpopulation problems. Not really the best example.
- lobocinza 5y ago
  Nobody likes to be told what to do. Maybe if those signs where less imperative and more explanatory. Some would care.
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    So "Stop" signs should say "Stop because there might be another car coming from another direction and you'll be able to avoid it if you stop and see it coming". I'm not sure that type of explanatory thing would work with most signs. Instead, we need: 1) people we trust to determine what the signs should say so that we are willing to listen to the signs. 2) Easy access to more details explanations of why/what the sign means. 3) An easy method of questioning the sign makers and and getting them changed or removed when they when either the sign maker was wrong or it's simply no longer needed. #1 is probably the hardest.
    - lobocinza 5y ago
      I'm not saying there's an perfect answer for this. But signs that don't take basics of human psychology into account are flawed by design. 1) The lawmakers problem. People in positions of power tend do be a mix of corrupt, biased and stupid. I'm afraid there's no solution to that either. But people can be: - educated about the importance of some things; - involved in the decision-making process.
      - ineedasername 5y ago
        educated about the importance of some things; Information is pretty easily available, especially as it pertains to things like the "don't feed the animals" sign in the GGP post, and it's not unreasonable to expect people to seek out an explanation (e.g. park staff) rather than just ignore the rule. The problem often comes down to people-- at all stations of society-- believing they shouldn't have to follow certain rules all of the time. People know that going 20mph/30kmh over the speed limit is more dangerous for themselves and others, but lots of people still do it. On more complex topics, explanation are available. But most people want simple answers, and complex issues don't have them. So when they disagree with something but don't have the full explanation to understand and determine things for themselves, they will listen a person who gives easy answers. And they'll tend to listen to whichever person gives an easy answer they already agree with. 99% of political rhetoric is about giving easy answers to complex problems, most of which would have been solved long ago if there was an obvious easy answer instead of countless details and edge cases and other factors to consider. I don't know how you solve this problem. Human nature means most people don't spend a ton of time trying to understand all aspects of a problem that may only vaguely impact them personally. I don't expect anyone but a very small minority will study geopolitical history & current circumstance enough to have a well-informed opinion on something like whether the US should stay in, or withdraw, from a missile treaty. There's countless other examples of that sort too. involved in the decision-make process I'm not sure how you get around the lawmakers problem. Everyone can't weigh in individually on decisions made in a massively complex society. Being involved in the decision-making process means voting for people to handle those things. Are there other models of citizen involvement that better limit the impact of corrupt/biases/stupid lawmakers?
- armchairhacker 5y ago
  100% agree, people can be very, very stupid. But people can also be very smart. I'm sure the people blatantly ignoring signs are the minority. There's so many people in the world that even a minority can cause issues (e.g. defecating in the woods), but it's still a minority. It's different people, and moreover, different situations involving the same person. There are so many things considered "common sense" that basically everyone will miss at least one thing considered common sense. So yes, you have to accommodate and prepare for the stupid people. You have to patrol the national parks to yell at people for doing things the signs right in front of them say not to. But you also have to accommodate and prepare for the smart people, and realize that you'll sometimes be stupid. In Facebook's case, they think they're smarter than everyone else by choosing what content everyone can see. Flagging "vaccines are 5G microchips" was fine. But flagging official CDC guidelines implies Facebook is smarter than the CDC, which is probably not true.
- exporectomy 5y ago
  Are you sure those people are stupid (ie. they care about the environment and want to do the right thing but mistakenly do the wrong thing instead) or simply putting their personal convenience above the convenience of others? To be stupid, I think it would have to be an action that goes against their own interests. Tragedy of the commons isn't caused by stupidity but by selfishness. It's different.
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    It does go against their own interests when feeding animals is more likely to attract dangerous animals that attack tourists. People don't always make the decision they know to be in their best interest. If they don't actually know what's in their best interest, then I'd say it's less an issue of stupidity and more about ignorance.
    - exporectomy 5y ago
      Attack other tourists. If you feed a duck then leave, you're not attracting a bear to attack you personally. You won't step in your own poo either. Somebody else will.
  - cmurf 5y ago
    https://denver.cbslocal.com/2011/07/01/police-do-not-feed-bears-burgers/ https://denver.cbslocal.com/2011/07/01/police-do-not-feed-be... Pretty stupid.
    - exporectomy 5y ago
      How is it stupid? Stupid != nonconformist and stupid != harming others.
SquishyPanda23 5y ago
Please tell us more about the increasing worldwide infantilization. How do you measure and track it? What trends in the measurement have you noticed over time that makes you says it's increasing? Also, can you say more about which groups think they are the single source of truth?
- gunapologist99 5y ago
  Can't respond to the first, but it's pretty clear that those groups that think they are the single source of truth would probably include any self-proclaimed "fact checkers", which seems to now also include Facebook itself -- and would normally also include the CDC (excepting the ironic title of this thread, of course!)
  - SquishyPanda23 5y ago
    Are you saying that people who check facts believe they are the single source of truth? Why would you need to check facts if you were the source of truth? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the fact checkers believe that there is an external source of truth (i.e. facts) which they are checking?
    - gunapologist99 5y ago
      > the fact checkers believe that there is an external source of truth (i.e. facts) which they are checking? Ah, yes. I believe you are referring to the CDC.
      - SquishyPanda23 5y ago
        I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, but the CDC doesn't see themselves as a single source of truth. They defer to the scientific consensus of people who specialize in understanding how viruses work, how pandemics work, and who have a process for learning facts by interrogating reality.
        5y ago
lern_too_spel 5y ago
There have always been rules like this. Turn off your lights when the air raid siren is running, for example. What you're noticing now is a significant portion of the population simply throwing away common sense because obeying common sense somehow infringes on their rights.
- logicchains 5y ago
  >What you're noticing now is a significant portion of the population simply throwing away common sense because obeying common sense somehow infringes on their rights. It's not common sense, it's mass brainwashing. If you'd asked people two years ago what they thought about the idea of locking the whole country down indefinitely for a virus with a 99% survival rate (and over 99.9% for people under 50), the vast majority would have said it's a crazy idea.
  - lern_too_spel 5y ago
    Calling getting vaccines and wearing masks indoors "locking the whole country down indefinitely" is definitely hyperbolic. Is the germ theory of disease really not common sense anymore?
    - blindmute 5y ago
      I'll be sure to tell all the thousands of small business owners who were forced to permanently shutter their business that it was just a simple mask mandate after all.
      - lern_too_spel 5y ago
        You're attacking a strawman here. Nothing that was marked as misinformation was about the economic effects of lockdowns. If those effects concern you, you should be concerned with vaccine misinformation prolonging lockdowns, whether those lockdowns are government-enforced or due to individuals concerned about risk.
IG_Semmelweiss 5y ago
Institutions of ordered information (papers, publishers, tv) have been disrupted by a New tech - the internet What we see now is a knee-jerk reaction to reestablish order by the establishment. This happened too with the creation of the gutenberg printing press. New tech disrupted established information sources. Approx 60 years after the printing press creation, a relatively minor religious squabble ended up in a huge conflict that engulfed most major powers in europe. Truth is power. The institutions that that control the truth will fight to maintain their power.
- markdown 5y ago
  > Truth is power. The institutions that that control the truth will fight to maintain their power. We can only hope they win, else the Alex Jones', Tucker Carlsons', and Robert F Kennedys of the world will take us straight to climate destruction.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - glennvtx 5y ago
    It is sad to think there are people out there that actually want tyrants to win against a distributed system for information and justice.
  - exporectomy 5y ago
    Have you personally destroyed the climate because of what one of those people said? Or are you immune to it through some kind of superiority of intellect or luck of living in the one final correct culture of true information in all of history?
- Overton-Window 5y ago
  The internet will kill most every institution that predated it. Citizen journalism killed media. Netflix/YouTube killed Hollywood. Blockchains will replace 51% democracy with 100% democracy. Dying inherited institutions are grasping to stay relevant with appeals to authoritarianism. Free speech is now a hinderance and a liability to their existence. As their relevance dwindles, tyranny becomes their only tool.
landemva 5y ago
Yes. 'some group thinks it needs to "protect the others"'. Virtual signaling and safetyism. Hilarious how the virtue signaling elite regularly close their conference calls with "everyone stay safe". Oh, I know you (don't) care about me.
- emodendroket 5y ago
  If I never hear the term "virtue signaling" again it will be too soon. Adds about as much to the conversation as calling someone a sissy (or other ruder names I'm sure you can think of) for caring about something and the intent is hardly any different.
  - kortilla 5y ago
    Caring about something and announcing that you care about something are two very different things.
    - emodendroket 5y ago
      It seems unreasonable to expect people to never talk about something they care about.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 5y ago
  If asking people to take a specific step that has a good chance of protecting them from disease or even death is “virtue signaling” and therefore evil, the concept has lost any meaning it may or may not have had. Labeling something “virtue signaling” implies acceptance that the action in question is beneficial. So you agree that getting vaccinated is a good idea, but somehow manage to still take issue with people saying as much in a slightly more direct manner? Yes, the group of unvaccinated people, making up 99.5% of recent US deaths even though they only represent about 40% of the population is, almost tautologically, in need of protection. Considering the US has, once again, managed to neatly divide into the same ideological camps as on any other issue, there is no obvious selfish motive for people of the one group to care for the other. This leaves the latter group stumped, because they can’t think of any non-selfish motives, forcing them come up with I’ll-defined terms such as “safetyism”. The term you’re grasping for is “altruism”, by the way. Although I’ll freely admit, limited to me, personally, that it’s supply is running low and I mostly want people to get vaccinated to finally get this over with.

by bitL 5y ago

cmurf 5y ago

It's not a new problem. 20 years ago at a national park with signs "don't feed the wildlife" with a parent teaching her 3 year old to feed the wild life within 3 feet of such a sign. I said "do you see the sign? why are you doing this?" She scoffed, pouted, and ran with her child to her car and drove away. We treat her like a child because so many adults act like children. They seek what their parents never gave them, and unfortunately keep barking up the wrong tree, but you can't just refrain from sugggesting they not feed wildlife or it leads to mayhem. Today we have so many humans defecating in the lakes near Maroon Bells that the park might close. For at least a decade that park has a "pack it out" policy, including your own poop. There are that many people pooping in the woods, and it's not good enough to dig holes. People so infantilized they lack the emotional coping skill to poop in a sack and pack it out, so they swim out in a lake with numerous "do not swim" signs and take a dump. People are fucking stupid. If you don't tell them this, they think it isn't true, and the rules for for someone else.

morpheos137 5y ago
You lost me at pack it out. Do other animals pack it out?
- majewsky 5y ago
  The purpose of a nature preserve, unsurprisingly, is to preserve nature as it exists within this space. Any human interference with nature inside the preserve runs the risk of tipping the scales of the natural lifecycle's balance. If someone were to bring their dog into the preserve and hunt and kill some rabbits, it would probably be quite obvious that they would be disturbing the natural balance that the nature preserve is supposed to protect. Leaving your excrements is prohibited for the same reason, although on a subtler level. Your excrement can contain germs not native to the area which could start an epidemic if stuff goes really bad. Just today, there was news that the National Forest Service estimates half of all deer to already have been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Now thankfully, Covid-19 does not seem to be a dangerous disease in deer. Just imagine if it weren't that benign and a significant amount of deer had been wiped out by it nationwide (or even worldwide). That's the kind of low-probability-but-high-danger scenario that packing it out is supposed to prevent.
  - morpheos137 5y ago
    Are humans not part of nature? What evidence do we have that nature is ever at any time "in balance?" This is a common trope that is deeply rooted in the western mind. Perhaps it is connected to old ideas like geocentrism. Here is another way of looking at things: the world is constantly changing. Do I advocate pooping on a crowded beach? No. Is the ocassional defacation of a back country backpacker a problem? No. It is not like humans are some toxic alien not native to planet earth.
    - majewsky 5y ago
      Humans are part of 99% of nature. Nature reserves are the control group that helps us understand which effects are caused by us specifically, and which are not.
    - cmurf 5y ago
      >Are humans not part of nature? No. Humans are supranatural when it comes to our influence on the planet. While this power is not absolute, it's significant enough to make humans an edge case in nature. >Is the ocassional defacation of a back country backpacker a problem? No. In the example given, it's not occasional, but occurs a significant minority of the time that nature can't cope with the volume of human feces.
      - morpheos137 5y ago
        So plants are supranatural then too? Their influence far exceeds ours. Humans are part of nature. Nature is never in balance. Change is the only constant. As pre-Socratic Heralcitus said you "never step in the same river twice." If humans exceed the carrying capacity of their ecosystem, the system will reduce the number of humans.
  - kortilla 5y ago
    Deer are oversized rats that have frequent overpopulation problems. Not really the best example.
lobocinza 5y ago
Nobody likes to be told what to do. Maybe if those signs where less imperative and more explanatory. Some would care.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  So "Stop" signs should say "Stop because there might be another car coming from another direction and you'll be able to avoid it if you stop and see it coming". I'm not sure that type of explanatory thing would work with most signs. Instead, we need: 1) people we trust to determine what the signs should say so that we are willing to listen to the signs. 2) Easy access to more details explanations of why/what the sign means. 3) An easy method of questioning the sign makers and and getting them changed or removed when they when either the sign maker was wrong or it's simply no longer needed. #1 is probably the hardest.
  - lobocinza 5y ago
    I'm not saying there's an perfect answer for this. But signs that don't take basics of human psychology into account are flawed by design. 1) The lawmakers problem. People in positions of power tend do be a mix of corrupt, biased and stupid. I'm afraid there's no solution to that either. But people can be: - educated about the importance of some things; - involved in the decision-making process.
    - ineedasername 5y ago
      educated about the importance of some things; Information is pretty easily available, especially as it pertains to things like the "don't feed the animals" sign in the GGP post, and it's not unreasonable to expect people to seek out an explanation (e.g. park staff) rather than just ignore the rule. The problem often comes down to people-- at all stations of society-- believing they shouldn't have to follow certain rules all of the time. People know that going 20mph/30kmh over the speed limit is more dangerous for themselves and others, but lots of people still do it. On more complex topics, explanation are available. But most people want simple answers, and complex issues don't have them. So when they disagree with something but don't have the full explanation to understand and determine things for themselves, they will listen a person who gives easy answers. And they'll tend to listen to whichever person gives an easy answer they already agree with. 99% of political rhetoric is about giving easy answers to complex problems, most of which would have been solved long ago if there was an obvious easy answer instead of countless details and edge cases and other factors to consider. I don't know how you solve this problem. Human nature means most people don't spend a ton of time trying to understand all aspects of a problem that may only vaguely impact them personally. I don't expect anyone but a very small minority will study geopolitical history & current circumstance enough to have a well-informed opinion on something like whether the US should stay in, or withdraw, from a missile treaty. There's countless other examples of that sort too. involved in the decision-make process I'm not sure how you get around the lawmakers problem. Everyone can't weigh in individually on decisions made in a massively complex society. Being involved in the decision-making process means voting for people to handle those things. Are there other models of citizen involvement that better limit the impact of corrupt/biases/stupid lawmakers?
armchairhacker 5y ago
100% agree, people can be very, very stupid. But people can also be very smart. I'm sure the people blatantly ignoring signs are the minority. There's so many people in the world that even a minority can cause issues (e.g. defecating in the woods), but it's still a minority. It's different people, and moreover, different situations involving the same person. There are so many things considered "common sense" that basically everyone will miss at least one thing considered common sense. So yes, you have to accommodate and prepare for the stupid people. You have to patrol the national parks to yell at people for doing things the signs right in front of them say not to. But you also have to accommodate and prepare for the smart people, and realize that you'll sometimes be stupid. In Facebook's case, they think they're smarter than everyone else by choosing what content everyone can see. Flagging "vaccines are 5G microchips" was fine. But flagging official CDC guidelines implies Facebook is smarter than the CDC, which is probably not true.
exporectomy 5y ago
Are you sure those people are stupid (ie. they care about the environment and want to do the right thing but mistakenly do the wrong thing instead) or simply putting their personal convenience above the convenience of others? To be stupid, I think it would have to be an action that goes against their own interests. Tragedy of the commons isn't caused by stupidity but by selfishness. It's different.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  It does go against their own interests when feeding animals is more likely to attract dangerous animals that attack tourists. People don't always make the decision they know to be in their best interest. If they don't actually know what's in their best interest, then I'd say it's less an issue of stupidity and more about ignorance.
  - exporectomy 5y ago
    Attack other tourists. If you feed a duck then leave, you're not attracting a bear to attack you personally. You won't step in your own poo either. Somebody else will.
- cmurf 5y ago
  https://denver.cbslocal.com/2011/07/01/police-do-not-feed-bears-burgers/ https://denver.cbslocal.com/2011/07/01/police-do-not-feed-be... Pretty stupid.
  - exporectomy 5y ago
    How is it stupid? Stupid != nonconformist and stupid != harming others.

SquishyPanda23 5y ago

Please tell us more about the increasing worldwide infantilization. How do you measure and track it? What trends in the measurement have you noticed over time that makes you says it's increasing? Also, can you say more about which groups think they are the single source of truth?

gunapologist99 5y ago
Can't respond to the first, but it's pretty clear that those groups that think they are the single source of truth would probably include any self-proclaimed "fact checkers", which seems to now also include Facebook itself -- and would normally also include the CDC (excepting the ironic title of this thread, of course!)
- SquishyPanda23 5y ago
  Are you saying that people who check facts believe they are the single source of truth? Why would you need to check facts if you were the source of truth? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the fact checkers believe that there is an external source of truth (i.e. facts) which they are checking?
  - gunapologist99 5y ago
    > the fact checkers believe that there is an external source of truth (i.e. facts) which they are checking? Ah, yes. I believe you are referring to the CDC.
    - SquishyPanda23 5y ago
      I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, but the CDC doesn't see themselves as a single source of truth. They defer to the scientific consensus of people who specialize in understanding how viruses work, how pandemics work, and who have a process for learning facts by interrogating reality.
      - 5y ago

lern_too_spel 5y ago

There have always been rules like this. Turn off your lights when the air raid siren is running, for example. What you're noticing now is a significant portion of the population simply throwing away common sense because obeying common sense somehow infringes on their rights.

logicchains 5y ago
>What you're noticing now is a significant portion of the population simply throwing away common sense because obeying common sense somehow infringes on their rights. It's not common sense, it's mass brainwashing. If you'd asked people two years ago what they thought about the idea of locking the whole country down indefinitely for a virus with a 99% survival rate (and over 99.9% for people under 50), the vast majority would have said it's a crazy idea.
- lern_too_spel 5y ago
  Calling getting vaccines and wearing masks indoors "locking the whole country down indefinitely" is definitely hyperbolic. Is the germ theory of disease really not common sense anymore?
  - blindmute 5y ago
    I'll be sure to tell all the thousands of small business owners who were forced to permanently shutter their business that it was just a simple mask mandate after all.
    - lern_too_spel 5y ago
      You're attacking a strawman here. Nothing that was marked as misinformation was about the economic effects of lockdowns. If those effects concern you, you should be concerned with vaccine misinformation prolonging lockdowns, whether those lockdowns are government-enforced or due to individuals concerned about risk.

IG_Semmelweiss 5y ago

Institutions of ordered information (papers, publishers, tv) have been disrupted by a New tech - the internet What we see now is a knee-jerk reaction to reestablish order by the establishment. This happened too with the creation of the gutenberg printing press. New tech disrupted established information sources. Approx 60 years after the printing press creation, a relatively minor religious squabble ended up in a huge conflict that engulfed most major powers in europe. Truth is power. The institutions that that control the truth will fight to maintain their power.

markdown 5y ago
> Truth is power. The institutions that that control the truth will fight to maintain their power. We can only hope they win, else the Alex Jones', Tucker Carlsons', and Robert F Kennedys of the world will take us straight to climate destruction.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- glennvtx 5y ago
  It is sad to think there are people out there that actually want tyrants to win against a distributed system for information and justice.
- exporectomy 5y ago
  Have you personally destroyed the climate because of what one of those people said? Or are you immune to it through some kind of superiority of intellect or luck of living in the one final correct culture of true information in all of history?
Overton-Window 5y ago
The internet will kill most every institution that predated it. Citizen journalism killed media. Netflix/YouTube killed Hollywood. Blockchains will replace 51% democracy with 100% democracy. Dying inherited institutions are grasping to stay relevant with appeals to authoritarianism. Free speech is now a hinderance and a liability to their existence. As their relevance dwindles, tyranny becomes their only tool.

landemva 5y ago

Yes. 'some group thinks it needs to "protect the others"'. Virtual signaling and safetyism. Hilarious how the virtue signaling elite regularly close their conference calls with "everyone stay safe". Oh, I know you (don't) care about me.

emodendroket 5y ago
If I never hear the term "virtue signaling" again it will be too soon. Adds about as much to the conversation as calling someone a sissy (or other ruder names I'm sure you can think of) for caring about something and the intent is hardly any different.
- kortilla 5y ago
  Caring about something and announcing that you care about something are two very different things.
  - emodendroket 5y ago
    It seems unreasonable to expect people to never talk about something they care about.
IfOnlyYouKnew 5y ago
If asking people to take a specific step that has a good chance of protecting them from disease or even death is “virtue signaling” and therefore evil, the concept has lost any meaning it may or may not have had. Labeling something “virtue signaling” implies acceptance that the action in question is beneficial. So you agree that getting vaccinated is a good idea, but somehow manage to still take issue with people saying as much in a slightly more direct manner? Yes, the group of unvaccinated people, making up 99.5% of recent US deaths even though they only represent about 40% of the population is, almost tautologically, in need of protection. Considering the US has, once again, managed to neatly divide into the same ideological camps as on any other issue, there is no obvious selfish motive for people of the one group to care for the other. This leaves the latter group stumped, because they can’t think of any non-selfish motives, forcing them come up with I’ll-defined terms such as “safetyism”. The term you’re grasping for is “altruism”, by the way. Although I’ll freely admit, limited to me, personally, that it’s supply is running low and I mostly want people to get vaccinated to finally get this over with.