6 ms·

>ask questions, challenge points, have different opinions or simply take principled stances. This is a common conspiracy red herring because anti-vaxxers by de

>ask questions, challenge points, have different opinions or simply take principled stances. This is a common conspiracy red herring because anti-vaxxers by definition have already made a choice to be anti-vaccine. Very few people are still genuinely debating the merits of vaccines (or the covid vaccine), and those who choose against vaccines try to nobilize their opinion as being some unsung investigators. UFO enthusiasts, big foot hunters, and other conspiricists shine themselves in the same light.

mensetmanusman 4y ago
If you are against forced global monkey pox vaccination, does that make you anti-VAX?
- dubswithus 4y ago
  No, anti vax means you're against vaccines that are prudent. Like if you got bit by a dog with rabies but refused the rabies vaccine.
rglullis 4y ago
Alright, let's play a game of "What am I?": - 40-year old with no health conditions. Suspects of having contracted Covid back in February of 2020 (symptoms were high-fever, a really bad sore throat, anosmia) but due to lack of tests at the time could not confirm it. - Inclined to oppose vaccine mandates. Doesn't believe that any vaccine in particular is "dangerous", but that mass-vaccination brings systemic risks. (Black swans) - Got the vaccine anyway as soon as they were available in Spring 2021. Got the booster in end of 2021. - Has two kids of school age, all of them received the commonly scheduled vaccines for "traditional" diseases. - Opposes vaccination of healthy children for Covid. Prefers the policy of frequent testing instead. - Supports the eventual decision to have scheduled Covid vaccinations like the flu: for older people and those with health conditions, or anyone recommended by a doctor. - Despite triple-shot, got infected (this time confirmed by rapid tests and a PCR) in February 2022. Symptoms were again high-fever and a bad throat. No anosmia. Kids also got infected, only one of them with symptoms of fever for one day and two days of coughing. - Not planning to get the fourth booster, unless required for practical reasons. So... What's your verdict? Anti-vaxxer? Conspiracy theorist?
- Arainach 4y ago
  If you "oppose vaccine mandates" you don't understand how vaccines work and are antivax, full stop. Their individual effects are far less potent without the herd effects.
  - smsm42 4y ago
    And here we go - now "anti-vax" also means "opposed to the government using force to make every single person to take certain medication". That's as stupid as saying somebody is "pro-murder" because they oppose the idea of people spending all their lives under house arrest - under the theory that this would reduce the number of murders. Since you oppose the action that reduces the number of murders - you are clearly "pro-murder"!
    - minsc_and_boo 4y ago
      You retained your bodily rights with the covid vaccine because nobody forced you to take it - full stop. You forfeited certain public privileges by opting out of the vaccine because you made yourself a lethal threat (a literal plague rat) to others. Next you'll be saying that driving drunk is your bodily right too. Grandstanding and pretending you're under house arrest or had a gun to your head is bordering on a persecution fetish. Intentional motivation or not, the actions of rejecting the covid vaccine for non-medical reasons is definitely pro-plague.
      - smsm42 4y ago
        It's makes as much sense as saying when the mugger on the street says "your wallet or your life", it's just a proposal for a voluntary transaction - after all, if you give up your wallet, no harm will come to you, and it's certainly entirely in your free choice to choose just that. And if you make yourself a threat to him by refusing to give him so needed cash - well, it's on you mate. > Grandstanding and pretending you're under house arrest or had a gun to your head is bordering on a persecution fetish I think your reading comprehension is lacking. Please try to read on the concept of "analogy". I gave you one more above as an exercise. To make it easier for you, I will reveal now that I did not actually claim people are getting robbed when vaccinated, and people are not actually getting shot when they refuse to get vaccinated. The point of the "analogy" thing is to emphasize a certain structure of the situation by imagining some other situation - "other" is the key word here, meaning the situation is not the same - which shares some structural element with the situation being illustrated. In this case, something being a "free choice" seemingly, but due to very grave consequences attached to one of the choices, not being choice at all but rather an exercise in coercion - which in both cases btw nobody is really intending to hide, the coercive element is there precisely because only one result is considered acceptable by the coercing power. Hope this helps you with understanding the concept behind the "analogy" device.
smsm42 4y ago
By which definition? There are a lot of people that doubt effectiveness or risk-reward benefits of some vaccines, and choose not to take them by themselves for one reason or another. There are much less people that oppose any medication called "vaccine" on general principle, just because it is called so. Conflating all variety of people's opinions about all variety of medications called "vaccines" into a binary "for-against" choice and establishing a tribal barrier that discards everybody with a wrong value of the bit as "conspiracy" is a useless exercise for anything except making yourself feel better because you have the right bit value, not like those idiots. And of course, for each new vaccine, its merits must be debated, and its risk-reward profile (no medication is ever without risks) needs to be discussed on merits. Saying it can not and should not happen only paints you as a quasi-religious zealot who would refuse to even look at facts and consider them - that's not how science is or should be done.
- minsc_and_boo 4y ago
  The semantics of anti-vaxx here almost exclusively to people who opted out of covid vaccines/mandates for non-medical reasons, or people who still follow Jenny McCarthy's view on standard vaccinations for which risk/reward profiles have already been established.
  - smsm42 4y ago
    Nope, we just witnessed using "anti-vax" label for people that oppose mandatory vaccinations, even if they themselves are vaccinated up to the tip of their head. This term is a bludgeon designed to mark somebody as "doubleplusungood" and thus summarily dismiss anything this person is saying. Very useful if you don't want to bother to discuss some things and support your opinion, and still want to look like you won the discussion and have the moral high-ground. Not very useful if you want to understand things or convince people.

mensetmanusman 4y ago

If you are against forced global monkey pox vaccination, does that make you anti-VAX?

dubswithus 4y ago
No, anti vax means you're against vaccines that are prudent. Like if you got bit by a dog with rabies but refused the rabies vaccine.

rglullis 4y ago

Alright, let's play a game of "What am I?": - 40-year old with no health conditions. Suspects of having contracted Covid back in February of 2020 (symptoms were high-fever, a really bad sore throat, anosmia) but due to lack of tests at the time could not confirm it. - Inclined to oppose vaccine mandates. Doesn't believe that any vaccine in particular is "dangerous", but that mass-vaccination brings systemic risks. (Black swans) - Got the vaccine anyway as soon as they were available in Spring 2021. Got the booster in end of 2021. - Has two kids of school age, all of them received the commonly scheduled vaccines for "traditional" diseases. - Opposes vaccination of healthy children for Covid. Prefers the policy of frequent testing instead. - Supports the eventual decision to have scheduled Covid vaccinations like the flu: for older people and those with health conditions, or anyone recommended by a doctor. - Despite triple-shot, got infected (this time confirmed by rapid tests and a PCR) in February 2022. Symptoms were again high-fever and a bad throat. No anosmia. Kids also got infected, only one of them with symptoms of fever for one day and two days of coughing. - Not planning to get the fourth booster, unless required for practical reasons. So... What's your verdict? Anti-vaxxer? Conspiracy theorist?

Arainach 4y ago
If you "oppose vaccine mandates" you don't understand how vaccines work and are antivax, full stop. Their individual effects are far less potent without the herd effects.
- smsm42 4y ago
  And here we go - now "anti-vax" also means "opposed to the government using force to make every single person to take certain medication". That's as stupid as saying somebody is "pro-murder" because they oppose the idea of people spending all their lives under house arrest - under the theory that this would reduce the number of murders. Since you oppose the action that reduces the number of murders - you are clearly "pro-murder"!
  - minsc_and_boo 4y ago
    You retained your bodily rights with the covid vaccine because nobody forced you to take it - full stop. You forfeited certain public privileges by opting out of the vaccine because you made yourself a lethal threat (a literal plague rat) to others. Next you'll be saying that driving drunk is your bodily right too. Grandstanding and pretending you're under house arrest or had a gun to your head is bordering on a persecution fetish. Intentional motivation or not, the actions of rejecting the covid vaccine for non-medical reasons is definitely pro-plague.
    - smsm42 4y ago
      It's makes as much sense as saying when the mugger on the street says "your wallet or your life", it's just a proposal for a voluntary transaction - after all, if you give up your wallet, no harm will come to you, and it's certainly entirely in your free choice to choose just that. And if you make yourself a threat to him by refusing to give him so needed cash - well, it's on you mate. > Grandstanding and pretending you're under house arrest or had a gun to your head is bordering on a persecution fetish I think your reading comprehension is lacking. Please try to read on the concept of "analogy". I gave you one more above as an exercise. To make it easier for you, I will reveal now that I did not actually claim people are getting robbed when vaccinated, and people are not actually getting shot when they refuse to get vaccinated. The point of the "analogy" thing is to emphasize a certain structure of the situation by imagining some other situation - "other" is the key word here, meaning the situation is not the same - which shares some structural element with the situation being illustrated. In this case, something being a "free choice" seemingly, but due to very grave consequences attached to one of the choices, not being choice at all but rather an exercise in coercion - which in both cases btw nobody is really intending to hide, the coercive element is there precisely because only one result is considered acceptable by the coercing power. Hope this helps you with understanding the concept behind the "analogy" device.

smsm42 4y ago

By which definition? There are a lot of people that doubt effectiveness or risk-reward benefits of some vaccines, and choose not to take them by themselves for one reason or another. There are much less people that oppose any medication called "vaccine" on general principle, just because it is called so. Conflating all variety of people's opinions about all variety of medications called "vaccines" into a binary "for-against" choice and establishing a tribal barrier that discards everybody with a wrong value of the bit as "conspiracy" is a useless exercise for anything except making yourself feel better because you have the right bit value, not like those idiots. And of course, for each new vaccine, its merits must be debated, and its risk-reward profile (no medication is ever without risks) needs to be discussed on merits. Saying it can not and should not happen only paints you as a quasi-religious zealot who would refuse to even look at facts and consider them - that's not how science is or should be done.

minsc_and_boo 4y ago
The semantics of anti-vaxx here almost exclusively to people who opted out of covid vaccines/mandates for non-medical reasons, or people who still follow Jenny McCarthy's view on standard vaccinations for which risk/reward profiles have already been established.
- smsm42 4y ago
  Nope, we just witnessed using "anti-vax" label for people that oppose mandatory vaccinations, even if they themselves are vaccinated up to the tip of their head. This term is a bludgeon designed to mark somebody as "doubleplusungood" and thus summarily dismiss anything this person is saying. Very useful if you don't want to bother to discuss some things and support your opinion, and still want to look like you won the discussion and have the moral high-ground. Not very useful if you want to understand things or convince people.