4 ms·

Oh, Mirriam-Webster already decided that "fully vaccinated" people are "anti-vaxxers" if they do not support vaccine mandates. [1] [1]: https://www.merriam-web

Oh, Mirriam-Webster already decided that "fully vaccinated" people are "anti-vaxxers" if they do not support vaccine mandates. [1] [1]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-vaxxer https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-vaxxer

rchaud 5y ago
"Webster defines [word] as..." has been a running punchline for over 20 years. I think the dignity of the real anti-vaxxers will remain intact.
rabuse 5y ago
That is absolutely ridiculous.
- roflc0ptic 5y ago
  Not really though. If you go back 2 years, people who were opposed to mandatory vaccinations were generally people who thought their children shouldn't be required to get vaccinated against measles. Vaccine mandates are crucial social policy
  - mlang23 5y ago
    No, they are not crucial social policy. You will have to accept that democracy does not mean that everyone has to be of the same opinion as you.
  - Jensson 5y ago
    > Vaccine mandates are crucial social policy Maybe the reason USA has so many anti vaccers is because of vaccine mandates? It is much easier to believe that something is evil when you are forced to do it. Also many first world countries doesn't mandate vaccines and people get vaccinated anyway, so it isn't crucial social policy.
    - rabuse 5y ago
      Exactly. COVID is so deadly, that people have to be coerced and mandated into taking it, when in the beginning of all of this, most were walking around asymptomatic with it.
    - roflc0ptic 5y ago
      No, that’s probably not the reason. The anti-COVID stuff preceded discussion of vaccine mandates. Europe has mandatory childhood vaccinations and not the same level of anti-vaccine sentiment.
  - jaywalk 5y ago
    No, it really is. You're ignoring the fact that the definition was changed in order to shame people who are against mandating COVID vaccines.
    - roflc0ptic 5y ago
      According to what?
      - dredmorbius 5y ago
        They're wrong. https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/descriptive-vs-prescriptive-defining-lexicography https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/descriptive-vs...
  - BackBlast 5y ago
    Or they are tools for a medical totalitarian dystopia. 2 years ago there were effectively zero exception free vaccine mandates, and only a very few places where they were actually hard to get.
woodruffw 5y ago
What's the point of appealing to Mirrian-Webster? They're the tail, not the dog; nobody goes to one of their dictionaries to determine how a word or phrase is used.
- rdtsc 5y ago
  That’s how they are traditionally being used. They are used as the ultimate source of truth. “We don’t agree, let’s see what the dictionary says”. That trick would still work on majority of people I’d think. But yes, it’s the tail that is wagging the dog which is wagging the tail. There have been cases where lobbyists and special interest groups got the dictionary definitions altered to suit they client’s needs.
mns 5y ago
In my country people that are already double-jabbed and say they want to wait for the 3rd dose/booster are already called science deniers and anti-vaxxers, so that's that.
dredmorbius 5y ago
Merriam-Webster's standard in definitions is descriptive rather than prescriptive: Merriam-Webster is a descriptive dictionary in that it aims to describe and indicate how words are actually used by English speakers and writers. Generally, the descriptive approach to lexicography does not dictate how words should be used or set forth rules of "correctness," unlike the prescriptive approach. https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/descriptive-vs-prescriptive-defining-lexicography https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/descriptive-vs... If Merriam-Webster are defining a word in a specific way, that reflects typical usage of that word, not M-W's "decision". It is literally the voice of the people.
- mbg721 5y ago
  The complaint is that Merriam-Webster is not reflecting typical usage by "the people" here, but rather spin from a concentrated press campaign. John Q. Budweiser down the street isn't using the word differently, but all the right newspapers and pundits are, and all at the same time. To John, that starts to look Orwellian.

rchaud 5y ago

"Webster defines [word] as..." has been a running punchline for over 20 years. I think the dignity of the real anti-vaxxers will remain intact.

rabuse 5y ago

That is absolutely ridiculous.

roflc0ptic 5y ago
Not really though. If you go back 2 years, people who were opposed to mandatory vaccinations were generally people who thought their children shouldn't be required to get vaccinated against measles. Vaccine mandates are crucial social policy
- mlang23 5y ago
  No, they are not crucial social policy. You will have to accept that democracy does not mean that everyone has to be of the same opinion as you.
- Jensson 5y ago
  > Vaccine mandates are crucial social policy Maybe the reason USA has so many anti vaccers is because of vaccine mandates? It is much easier to believe that something is evil when you are forced to do it. Also many first world countries doesn't mandate vaccines and people get vaccinated anyway, so it isn't crucial social policy.
  - rabuse 5y ago
    Exactly. COVID is so deadly, that people have to be coerced and mandated into taking it, when in the beginning of all of this, most were walking around asymptomatic with it.
  - roflc0ptic 5y ago
    No, that’s probably not the reason. The anti-COVID stuff preceded discussion of vaccine mandates. Europe has mandatory childhood vaccinations and not the same level of anti-vaccine sentiment.
- jaywalk 5y ago
  No, it really is. You're ignoring the fact that the definition was changed in order to shame people who are against mandating COVID vaccines.
  - roflc0ptic 5y ago
    According to what?
    - dredmorbius 5y ago
      They're wrong. https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/descriptive-vs-prescriptive-defining-lexicography https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/descriptive-vs...
- BackBlast 5y ago
  Or they are tools for a medical totalitarian dystopia. 2 years ago there were effectively zero exception free vaccine mandates, and only a very few places where they were actually hard to get.

woodruffw 5y ago

What's the point of appealing to Mirrian-Webster? They're the tail, not the dog; nobody goes to one of their dictionaries to determine how a word or phrase is used.

rdtsc 5y ago
That’s how they are traditionally being used. They are used as the ultimate source of truth. “We don’t agree, let’s see what the dictionary says”. That trick would still work on majority of people I’d think. But yes, it’s the tail that is wagging the dog which is wagging the tail. There have been cases where lobbyists and special interest groups got the dictionary definitions altered to suit they client’s needs.

mns 5y ago

In my country people that are already double-jabbed and say they want to wait for the 3rd dose/booster are already called science deniers and anti-vaxxers, so that's that.

dredmorbius 5y ago

Merriam-Webster's standard in definitions is descriptive rather than prescriptive: Merriam-Webster is a descriptive dictionary in that it aims to describe and indicate how words are actually used by English speakers and writers. Generally, the descriptive approach to lexicography does not dictate how words should be used or set forth rules of "correctness," unlike the prescriptive approach. https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/descriptive-vs-prescriptive-defining-lexicography https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/descriptive-vs... If Merriam-Webster are defining a word in a specific way, that reflects typical usage of that word, not M-W's "decision". It is literally the voice of the people.

mbg721 5y ago
The complaint is that Merriam-Webster is not reflecting typical usage by "the people" here, but rather spin from a concentrated press campaign. John Q. Budweiser down the street isn't using the word differently, but all the right newspapers and pundits are, and all at the same time. To John, that starts to look Orwellian.