5 ms·

Where is the anti-vax material in that post?

PhasmaFelis 5y ago
The part where he says that being snarky to vaccine deniers is literally just as bad as racism. > “Covidiots”, “Deniers” these are not rational counter-arguments, they’re slurs. Anybody employing them is not engaging in discourse but rather bigotry and prejudice. This is as inexcusable as racism. Over the past few years many have been challenged to examine their own biases and privilege, in certain contexts for perfectly valid reasons. Anybody engaging in this type of othering toward skeptics and contrarians lacks self-awareness and empathy to the same degree as a racist.
- robertlagrant 5y ago
  He didn't say they're as bad as racism. Inexcusable is not a synonym for bad.
  - PhasmaFelis 5y ago
    He uses the words "slur", "bigotry and prejudice", "as inexcusable as racism", and "lacks self-awareness and empathy to the same degree as a racist". Does that seem any more reasonable and rational than "as bad as racism"? I could even get behind the basic idea that ad hominem attacks are always bad, except that he's already launched an ad hominem attack against what he assumes are "purple-haired Millennials with nose hoops and personal pronoun mood-rings" in the same article! I don't see how to read this as anything but "snarky insults are reprehensible when they happen to me and totally justified when I throw them at someone else."
    - robertlagrant 5y ago
      Heh yeah fair point :-) Although even that is to some extent ad hominem; he might be being hypocritical, but that doesn't make the point itself wrong.
- bena 5y ago
  If the guy you responded to is not the author of that piece, he's connected to the site in some way. I do not believe his question is in good faith, but is an attempt to deflect any criticism by instead forcing his critic to defend and explain in detail any such criticism before he even attempts to defend his half-baked ideas.
  - PhasmaFelis 5y ago
    Yeah, there's definitely someone mass-downvoting anyone who criticizes the piece in any way. Dunno if it's that guy or not. But it doesn't hurt to have clear, concise answers to deflecting questions in the comments for skim-readers to see.
    - bena 5y ago
      Eh. Maybe not. As of late, in the past year or so, I forget the actual timeline, I've noticed a certain direction the overall tone of the comments and voting have taken. It's been a little frustrating (I guess that's the word closest to what I'm feeling) as I've typically viewed HN as a place that went more for technology and science rather than... other things.
      - PhasmaFelis 5y ago
        > As of late, in the past year or so, I forget the actual timeline, I've noticed a certain direction the overall tone of the comments and voting have taken. I've noticed the same thing. It's unsettling. I haven't always agreed with the HN consensus on things, but until quite recently that consensus seemed to be honest and well-intentioned.

The part where he says that being snarky to vaccine deniers is literally just as bad as racism. > “Covidiots”, “Deniers” these are not rational counter-arguments, they’re slurs. Anybody employing them is not engaging in discourse but rather bigotry and prejudice. This is as inexcusable as racism. Over the past few years many have been challenged to examine their own biases and privilege, in certain contexts for perfectly valid reasons. Anybody engaging in this type of othering toward skeptics and contrarians lacks self-awareness and empathy to the same degree as a racist.

robertlagrant 5y ago
He didn't say they're as bad as racism. Inexcusable is not a synonym for bad.
- PhasmaFelis 5y ago
  He uses the words "slur", "bigotry and prejudice", "as inexcusable as racism", and "lacks self-awareness and empathy to the same degree as a racist". Does that seem any more reasonable and rational than "as bad as racism"? I could even get behind the basic idea that ad hominem attacks are always bad, except that he's already launched an ad hominem attack against what he assumes are "purple-haired Millennials with nose hoops and personal pronoun mood-rings" in the same article! I don't see how to read this as anything but "snarky insults are reprehensible when they happen to me and totally justified when I throw them at someone else."
  - robertlagrant 5y ago
    Heh yeah fair point :-) Although even that is to some extent ad hominem; he might be being hypocritical, but that doesn't make the point itself wrong.
bena 5y ago
If the guy you responded to is not the author of that piece, he's connected to the site in some way. I do not believe his question is in good faith, but is an attempt to deflect any criticism by instead forcing his critic to defend and explain in detail any such criticism before he even attempts to defend his half-baked ideas.
- PhasmaFelis 5y ago
  Yeah, there's definitely someone mass-downvoting anyone who criticizes the piece in any way. Dunno if it's that guy or not. But it doesn't hurt to have clear, concise answers to deflecting questions in the comments for skim-readers to see.
  - bena 5y ago
    Eh. Maybe not. As of late, in the past year or so, I forget the actual timeline, I've noticed a certain direction the overall tone of the comments and voting have taken. It's been a little frustrating (I guess that's the word closest to what I'm feeling) as I've typically viewed HN as a place that went more for technology and science rather than... other things.
    - PhasmaFelis 5y ago
      > As of late, in the past year or so, I forget the actual timeline, I've noticed a certain direction the overall tone of the comments and voting have taken. I've noticed the same thing. It's unsettling. I haven't always agreed with the HN consensus on things, but until quite recently that consensus seemed to be honest and well-intentioned.