4 ms·

I think what is missing from every debate about 'freedom to...' is that choices should have consequences. If your unsafe operation of your body (no vaccines whe

I think what is missing from every debate about 'freedom to...' is that choices should have consequences. If your unsafe operation of your body (no vaccines when you could have gotten them) injures or kills another person then you should be held accountable. This basic principle, freedom requires responsibility and accountability, is rarely ever brought up. In the US 'freedom' just means freedom from consequences which is wrong. I am more than willing to let someone tote a gun or fail to be vaccinated, but if they do so in a way that actually harms someone then they should be held accountable and the more obvious the danger, and the more reckless the behavior, the more severe the penalty. You think not vaccinating is the right choice despite the mountains of evidence otherwise? When you get sick your insurance can deny all claims. If you infect someone else they can claim damages or criminally prosecute you for assault. That is actual freedom.

echelon 9mo ago
We're all approaching this wrong. Politicizing this was one of the greatest electoral innovations of all time. Somebody realized that calling people ignorant and telling them they had to do something pissed people off and lionized them. So they took the vaccine issue and made it political. They knew the "nerdy folks" would just continue pushing and prodding, and that would continue to rile up the other side's voters. The "institutions" (which are easy to throw shade at) telling folks they had to comply or lose work - that's a cause to fight. There's much more energy in this than in opposing it, and opposition just inflames the other side even further. Genius political move. The correct response to a vaccine critic isn't to call them stupid or tell them they must get a vaccine or lose their job. The correct response is, "you do you, but the supply runs out next week". Hank Green had a nice video essay about this (I'll try to find the link). I grew up in the South. These are reasonable folks, and they can be reached, but it's being approached the wrong way. The current methodology is only making it worse. This is like a viral "meme" that actually causes harm. And the more you try to get rid of it, the deeper it digs. You have to try a new approach. The current one -- and it feels so righteous to call them out -- does the exact opposite of what you want.
- jmward01 9mo ago
  That is a great approach, but there can be multiple right paths here. Fundamentally internalizing as a nation a definition of 'freedom' that isn't 'freedom of consequences' as well as giving incentives to act responsibly aren't mutually exclusive. I totally agree that telling someone they are stupid never works. It is like the silly idea that taunting the bully will make them back down. I think both your suggested approach and mine share something in common which is we need consequences, not words. You don't want to vaccinate? It is a week long drive and that is it so you loose your chance, a consequence. You act irresponsibly and harm someone because of a 'freedom', you are charged with assault. Neither path is going on a talk-show and calling people stupid for their actions which, I totally agree, is completely the wrong path.
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
- Freedom2 9mo ago
  I agree we should generally accommodate as many people as possible for the greater good of our communities, regardless of how we may feel at the time. What is your view when they don't extend the same courtesy? We convince them to vaccinate to protect those who cannot be vaccinated, however they still dig their heels in the "got mine, forget you" mentality until it affects them personally? (Abortion rights, school lunches, walkable neighborhoods, food shelters and donation centers)
  - echelon 9mo ago
    Every single one of these wasn't originally a problem until it became politicized. Abortion was legal until it became a political issue in the 1800s. Churches used to be food banks in the 80's, then "welfare" became political. People got vaccinated until it became a political issue in the 2020s. Many of the elder anti-vaxxers remember getting vaccinated for Polio and how scary that was.
    - B1FIDO 9mo ago
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
duxup 9mo ago
I really wish refusing a vaccine only impacted the person refusing. It would make everything easier.

echelon 9mo ago

We're all approaching this wrong. Politicizing this was one of the greatest electoral innovations of all time. Somebody realized that calling people ignorant and telling them they had to do something pissed people off and lionized them. So they took the vaccine issue and made it political. They knew the "nerdy folks" would just continue pushing and prodding, and that would continue to rile up the other side's voters. The "institutions" (which are easy to throw shade at) telling folks they had to comply or lose work - that's a cause to fight. There's much more energy in this than in opposing it, and opposition just inflames the other side even further. Genius political move. The correct response to a vaccine critic isn't to call them stupid or tell them they must get a vaccine or lose their job. The correct response is, "you do you, but the supply runs out next week". Hank Green had a nice video essay about this (I'll try to find the link). I grew up in the South. These are reasonable folks, and they can be reached, but it's being approached the wrong way. The current methodology is only making it worse. This is like a viral "meme" that actually causes harm. And the more you try to get rid of it, the deeper it digs. You have to try a new approach. The current one -- and it feels so righteous to call them out -- does the exact opposite of what you want.

jmward01 9mo ago
That is a great approach, but there can be multiple right paths here. Fundamentally internalizing as a nation a definition of 'freedom' that isn't 'freedom of consequences' as well as giving incentives to act responsibly aren't mutually exclusive. I totally agree that telling someone they are stupid never works. It is like the silly idea that taunting the bully will make them back down. I think both your suggested approach and mine share something in common which is we need consequences, not words. You don't want to vaccinate? It is a week long drive and that is it so you loose your chance, a consequence. You act irresponsibly and harm someone because of a 'freedom', you are charged with assault. Neither path is going on a talk-show and calling people stupid for their actions which, I totally agree, is completely the wrong path.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
Freedom2 9mo ago
I agree we should generally accommodate as many people as possible for the greater good of our communities, regardless of how we may feel at the time. What is your view when they don't extend the same courtesy? We convince them to vaccinate to protect those who cannot be vaccinated, however they still dig their heels in the "got mine, forget you" mentality until it affects them personally? (Abortion rights, school lunches, walkable neighborhoods, food shelters and donation centers)
- echelon 9mo ago
  Every single one of these wasn't originally a problem until it became politicized. Abortion was legal until it became a political issue in the 1800s. Churches used to be food banks in the 80's, then "welfare" became political. People got vaccinated until it became a political issue in the 2020s. Many of the elder anti-vaxxers remember getting vaccinated for Polio and how scary that was.
  - B1FIDO 9mo ago

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]

duxup 9mo ago

I really wish refusing a vaccine only impacted the person refusing. It would make everything easier.