4 ms·

Yes. 'some group thinks it needs to "protect the others"'. Virtual signaling and safetyism. Hilarious how the virtue signaling elite regularly close their conf

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.
- blooalien 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. At this point it's not even so much about protecting them anymore as it is about protecting them from continuing to mutate and spread a virus that kills people. The "anti-vaxxer" folk are choosing to not only be a danger to themselves but to potentially anyone they come in contact with. What's worse is that they're actively trying to spread their ignorance about vaccines to other people, thereby growing the danger and the problem.
  - native_samples 5y ago
    No they aren't. Vaccinated people spread the virus just as much as the unvaccinated do. Look at the data. Your belief gives you a feeling of strong moral righteousness and makes you angry, but is based in ignorance of the facts.
    - IfOnlyYouKnew 5y ago
      That's nonsense, or, more likely, wilful misrepresentation. You're referring to this story: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/30/health/covid-cdc-delta-masks.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/30/health/covid-cdc-delta-ma... Quote: "Infections in vaccinated Americans also may be as transmissible as those in unvaccinated people." That doesn't mean that vaccinated people are spreading the disease as much as the unvaccinated. Only the infected vaccinated people do. But, as happens with vaccinations, infections are, while possible, far less common among vaccinated people. Even the worst numbers put vaccine efficiency at 65%+ for infection. (85%+ for hospitalisation, 95%+ for death).
      - native_samples 5y ago
        That's not correct. Why assume I read the NYT? I'm referring to data from places with very high vaccination rates but summer waves of equal/greater size to prior waves, like Iceland. The only way that's possible is if vaccination doesn't slow down transmission at all. See for yourself. Google [iceland covid] and look at the graph. Cases go near vertical starting 16th July and are now the biggest wave they've ever had. Then click through to the vaccinations tab. They had vaccinated 70-75% of their population by that date (depending on whether you count first dose or second). If 75% of the population are vaccinated yet case curves are bigger than before, the vaccination is not stopping transmission. Edit: Also, recent data from the UK suggests effectiveness against infection has fallen to <20% in the over 50s. The calculations based on PHE data can be found here: https://dailysceptic.org/2021/07/25/phe-data-shows-vaccine-effectiveness-reduced-to-17-in-over-50s/ https://dailysceptic.org/2021/07/25/phe-data-shows-vaccine-e... By the way, are you flagging all my posts? Do you realize that's against the rules? Nothing in my last three posts is a flaggable offence yet suddenly they are all flagged. Do you want me to do the same to you if so?

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.

blooalien 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. At this point it's not even so much about protecting them anymore as it is about protecting them from continuing to mutate and spread a virus that kills people. The "anti-vaxxer" folk are choosing to not only be a danger to themselves but to potentially anyone they come in contact with. What's worse is that they're actively trying to spread their ignorance about vaccines to other people, thereby growing the danger and the problem.
- native_samples 5y ago
  No they aren't. Vaccinated people spread the virus just as much as the unvaccinated do. Look at the data. Your belief gives you a feeling of strong moral righteousness and makes you angry, but is based in ignorance of the facts.
  - IfOnlyYouKnew 5y ago
    That's nonsense, or, more likely, wilful misrepresentation. You're referring to this story: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/30/health/covid-cdc-delta-masks.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/30/health/covid-cdc-delta-ma... Quote: "Infections in vaccinated Americans also may be as transmissible as those in unvaccinated people." That doesn't mean that vaccinated people are spreading the disease as much as the unvaccinated. Only the infected vaccinated people do. But, as happens with vaccinations, infections are, while possible, far less common among vaccinated people. Even the worst numbers put vaccine efficiency at 65%+ for infection. (85%+ for hospitalisation, 95%+ for death).
    - native_samples 5y ago
      That's not correct. Why assume I read the NYT? I'm referring to data from places with very high vaccination rates but summer waves of equal/greater size to prior waves, like Iceland. The only way that's possible is if vaccination doesn't slow down transmission at all. See for yourself. Google [iceland covid] and look at the graph. Cases go near vertical starting 16th July and are now the biggest wave they've ever had. Then click through to the vaccinations tab. They had vaccinated 70-75% of their population by that date (depending on whether you count first dose or second). If 75% of the population are vaccinated yet case curves are bigger than before, the vaccination is not stopping transmission. Edit: Also, recent data from the UK suggests effectiveness against infection has fallen to <20% in the over 50s. The calculations based on PHE data can be found here: https://dailysceptic.org/2021/07/25/phe-data-shows-vaccine-effectiveness-reduced-to-17-in-over-50s/ https://dailysceptic.org/2021/07/25/phe-data-shows-vaccine-e... By the way, are you flagging all my posts? Do you realize that's against the rules? Nothing in my last three posts is a flaggable offence yet suddenly they are all flagged. Do you want me to do the same to you if so?