5 ms·
That's because the phrase anti-vax is not meant to be an accurate descriptor; instead, it's meant to be a label applied to you to cause others to attack you wit
by nathanaldensr 4y ago
That's because the phrase anti-vax is not meant to be an accurate descriptor; instead, it's meant to be a label applied to you to cause others to attack you without thinking. You can see many examples of this here in this thread.
Be comfortable in your control over your own body and don't engage with those who would destroy you because you don't submit to their collective will.
- grey-area 4y agoWho ‘would destroy you’ because you don’t take a flu vaccine?
- lwhalen 4y agoEmployers (mostly in Blue strongholds) were EXTREMELY EAGER to fire people - even remote employees - who did not want to submit paperwork showing they took the vaccine. If you refused, they marked you 'refusenik' and you were let go anyway.
- matthewmacleod 4y agoAt the time I wrote this comment, there are literally two occurrences of the term “anti-vax” in this thread and they belong to you and the grandparent.
- haswell 4y ago> it's meant to be a label applied to you to cause others to attack you without thinking I would like to think the average attitude here is closer to one of intellectual curiosity than blind labeling. The trouble is that "anti-vax" sentiment is impossible to distinguish from "vaccine hesitancy" when the only reasons put forward seem to be vague mistrust in the tech / government. Rarely do these conversations lead to real discussions about actual quantified risks, which makes it easy to dismiss hesitancy as garden variety anti-vax sentiment - the kind that is based on verifiable lies and has been around for decades. I'd argue that instead of predicting inevitable binary thinking and dismissals, it'd be more useful to focus on the actual substantial claims to back up the position. Anything less moves the conversation nowhere.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]