5 ms·

I (fully vaccinated) wasn’t an anti-vaxxer until Webster literally changed the definition of the word to include those “who oppose regulations mandating vaccina

I (fully vaccinated) wasn’t an anti-vaxxer until Webster literally changed the definition of the word to include those “who oppose regulations mandating vaccination“ I feel pretty good about the safety and efficacy of the current vaccines, but the discourse is poisonous bordering on religious zealotry. What happens when vaccine with genuine safety issues comes along and is mandated? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-vaxxer https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-vaxxer

SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
I didn’t believe you. I wouldn’t be surprised about the opportunistic chances to push an ideology taken by supposedly apolitical orgs. There are examples all over even if you don’t want to see it. So I was willing to believe that MW made a small addendum to their previous definition of antivaxxer. Despite it being a cheap and dirty abuse of their institution. But no. They removed it entirely and replaced it with exactly what you said. Wtf. Opposing a vaccine mandate for completely precedent and objectifiable legal reasons “now makes” you an antivaxxer huh? Well… I’m new to the club apparently, where do I pick up my Karen haircut and homeopathic treatments?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
jeofken 5y ago
Wow! That means by just sticking to the until recently common view that humans have the property right to their own body, not the government, now makes me an anti-vaxxer as well.
- maxerickson 5y ago
  Stanford is a private university, students may face some costs if they dis-enroll, but there is nothing forcing them to continue to attend.
  - xdennis 5y ago
    Private doesn't mean they can do what they want. It used to be frowned upon (and illegal) to discriminate based on medical status, but it looks like it doesn't matter any more when it comes to vaccines.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    Hasn't society decided that private entities still have to follow some rules? For example, private employers can't fire someone for getting pregnant, and private landlords can't enter their leased properties on a whim.
    - maxerickson 5y ago
      The precedent for vaccination is that they can require them. https://vaden.stanford.edu/about/entrance-health-requirements https://vaden.stanford.edu/about/entrance-health-requirement...
CrazyPyroLinux 5y ago
On the heels of changing "vaccine" definition too. And of course the self-appointed "fact checkers" are all over it: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/11/30/fact-check-merriam-webster-changed-vaccine-definition-accuracy/6354415001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/11/30/fac...
orangecat 5y ago
Webster's anti-regulation definition predates Covid: https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-034481134066 https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-034481134066 I totally agree that it's nonsensical. The tendency of many people to conflate the positions of "X is a good thing to do" and "everyone should be forcibly compelled to do X" is routinely frustrating.
banana_maker 5y ago
They updated it after observing the usage of the word. That is how dictionaries work, because they are descriptive and not prescriptive. Many people do in fact use the term anti-vaxx(er) to refer to people who are against vaccines and also against regulations around them.
- lp0_on_fire 5y ago
  > They updated it after observing the usage of the word. It's just coincidental that many in the political arena and media started to label their opponents as anti-vaxxers for questioning mandates.
  - andrewzah 5y ago
    Words/terms aren't static, and can change over time. I'm not against skepticism or conspiracy theories, but this one doesn't really make sense. Word usage and dictionary definitions update all the time.

SV_BubbleTime 5y ago

I didn’t believe you. I wouldn’t be surprised about the opportunistic chances to push an ideology taken by supposedly apolitical orgs. There are examples all over even if you don’t want to see it. So I was willing to believe that MW made a small addendum to their previous definition of antivaxxer. Despite it being a cheap and dirty abuse of their institution. But no. They removed it entirely and replaced it with exactly what you said. Wtf. Opposing a vaccine mandate for completely precedent and objectifiable legal reasons “now makes” you an antivaxxer huh? Well… I’m new to the club apparently, where do I pick up my Karen haircut and homeopathic treatments?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

jeofken 5y ago

Wow! That means by just sticking to the until recently common view that humans have the property right to their own body, not the government, now makes me an anti-vaxxer as well.

maxerickson 5y ago
Stanford is a private university, students may face some costs if they dis-enroll, but there is nothing forcing them to continue to attend.
- xdennis 5y ago
  Private doesn't mean they can do what they want. It used to be frowned upon (and illegal) to discriminate based on medical status, but it looks like it doesn't matter any more when it comes to vaccines.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  Hasn't society decided that private entities still have to follow some rules? For example, private employers can't fire someone for getting pregnant, and private landlords can't enter their leased properties on a whim.
  - maxerickson 5y ago
    The precedent for vaccination is that they can require them. https://vaden.stanford.edu/about/entrance-health-requirements https://vaden.stanford.edu/about/entrance-health-requirement...

CrazyPyroLinux 5y ago

On the heels of changing "vaccine" definition too. And of course the self-appointed "fact checkers" are all over it: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/11/30/fact-check-merriam-webster-changed-vaccine-definition-accuracy/6354415001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/11/30/fac...

orangecat 5y ago

Webster's anti-regulation definition predates Covid: https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-034481134066 https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-034481134066 I totally agree that it's nonsensical. The tendency of many people to conflate the positions of "X is a good thing to do" and "everyone should be forcibly compelled to do X" is routinely frustrating.

banana_maker 5y ago

They updated it after observing the usage of the word. That is how dictionaries work, because they are descriptive and not prescriptive. Many people do in fact use the term anti-vaxx(er) to refer to people who are against vaccines and also against regulations around them.

lp0_on_fire 5y ago
> They updated it after observing the usage of the word. It's just coincidental that many in the political arena and media started to label their opponents as anti-vaxxers for questioning mandates.
- andrewzah 5y ago
  Words/terms aren't static, and can change over time. I'm not against skepticism or conspiracy theories, but this one doesn't really make sense. Word usage and dictionary definitions update all the time.