4 ms·

In my view it's tantamount to abuse, because ultimately what it does is erodes trust. If you're shouting at someone to do something over and over again, eventu

by throwaway22032 4y ago

In my view it's tantamount to abuse, because ultimately what it does is erodes trust. If you're shouting at someone to do something over and over again, eventually they just stop listening to you and try to get away from you. The correct way is to explain to them the reasons that you feel it's good for them, or for those around them, and then let them make the decision. Otherwise you're acting as a parent. You're not treating them as an equal. I'm sure that some people will take issue with my specific use of the term "abuse", but it meets the definition as far as I can tell. It even goes down to the point that people (who disagree) just stop talking about it completely because they're always walking on eggshells. People flip out, tell you you can't go to XYZ or do XYZ, etc. It's just like, okay, whatever man, I'll say whatever you want me to say for an easy life. Doesn't mean I believe it or trust you.

luckylion 4y ago
> The correct way is to explain to them the reasons that you feel it's good for them, or for those around them, and then let them make the decision. The problem is, at least for many societies, that we don't operate on "you get to choose, but you have to live with the consequences". If you choose not to get vaccinated because you want to avoid becoming a walking 5g transmitter programmed by Bill Gates, and you get sick and need emergency care, you're not going to be denied because you made the choice and knew the risk, which has implications for everyone else, because emergency care is limited etc etc.
- throwaway22032 4y ago
  You're not understanding my point. Shouting people down, restricting their movements, trying to put them out of a job etc. is abusive behaviour. It works if the force is sufficient enough. That doesn't make it right.
  - luckylion 4y ago
    Sure, and I wasn't a fan of the approaches they used, but I do understand them. The alternative is either to accept their willful ignorance that will have life-threatening impact on third parties that weren't willfully ignorant, or to cut them off from societal institutions for anything that follows from their decisions. At least in Germany, that was the debate, and the folks who didn't want to get vaccinated didn't favor living with the consequences either. It's pretty much why we have mandatory retirement programs, because we don't trust the population at large to make smart decisions and we don't want them to rely on society after the consequences of their decisions manifest.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - throwaway22032 4y ago
      I'd love to go further into this but I feel that the attitude I expressed in my first post is coming into play here. I'll give you a short description, I guess. You're throwing around terms like "willful ignorance". It may not be conscious on your part, but that's patronising behaviour, and I don't feel a sense of goodwill there. I'd love to be able to elaborate further and enter into a proper discussion but I'm just tired.
      - luckylion 4y ago
        What term would you prefer for something that just looks ignorant and no other explanation is given for why the person does it even after information has been shared with them?
        ashwagary 4y ago
        There are many people much more educated than you in this field of study that chose not to be vaccinated. Are they ignorant or is it you? Leaving this decision up to individuals avoids the worst case scenario, which is species extinction because we acted like lemmings.
        luckylion 4y ago
        I'm sure there are good reasons to not be vaccinated. Those generally publicly shared (Bill Gates, UN-chips, 5g, radical degrowth by chemical neutering etc etc) were not among them. And it's like with most things. When 99% of weightlifters tell you that you cannot lift a metric ton, you'll probably want to listen to them and not the 1% who say you do, just because they can lift more weight than you.
        Zigurd 4y ago
        You are ignoring that those "many" are a tiny minority among the educated. Cranks are always among us.

luckylion 4y ago

> The correct way is to explain to them the reasons that you feel it's good for them, or for those around them, and then let them make the decision. The problem is, at least for many societies, that we don't operate on "you get to choose, but you have to live with the consequences". If you choose not to get vaccinated because you want to avoid becoming a walking 5g transmitter programmed by Bill Gates, and you get sick and need emergency care, you're not going to be denied because you made the choice and knew the risk, which has implications for everyone else, because emergency care is limited etc etc.

throwaway22032 4y ago
You're not understanding my point. Shouting people down, restricting their movements, trying to put them out of a job etc. is abusive behaviour. It works if the force is sufficient enough. That doesn't make it right.
- luckylion 4y ago
  Sure, and I wasn't a fan of the approaches they used, but I do understand them. The alternative is either to accept their willful ignorance that will have life-threatening impact on third parties that weren't willfully ignorant, or to cut them off from societal institutions for anything that follows from their decisions. At least in Germany, that was the debate, and the folks who didn't want to get vaccinated didn't favor living with the consequences either. It's pretty much why we have mandatory retirement programs, because we don't trust the population at large to make smart decisions and we don't want them to rely on society after the consequences of their decisions manifest.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - throwaway22032 4y ago
    I'd love to go further into this but I feel that the attitude I expressed in my first post is coming into play here. I'll give you a short description, I guess. You're throwing around terms like "willful ignorance". It may not be conscious on your part, but that's patronising behaviour, and I don't feel a sense of goodwill there. I'd love to be able to elaborate further and enter into a proper discussion but I'm just tired.
    - luckylion 4y ago
      What term would you prefer for something that just looks ignorant and no other explanation is given for why the person does it even after information has been shared with them?
      - ashwagary 4y ago
        There are many people much more educated than you in this field of study that chose not to be vaccinated. Are they ignorant or is it you? Leaving this decision up to individuals avoids the worst case scenario, which is species extinction because we acted like lemmings.
        luckylion 4y ago
        I'm sure there are good reasons to not be vaccinated. Those generally publicly shared (Bill Gates, UN-chips, 5g, radical degrowth by chemical neutering etc etc) were not among them. And it's like with most things. When 99% of weightlifters tell you that you cannot lift a metric ton, you'll probably want to listen to them and not the 1% who say you do, just because they can lift more weight than you.
        Zigurd 4y ago
        You are ignoring that those "many" are a tiny minority among the educated. Cranks are always among us.