Lurker > OrangeWizard

FortuneCookie posted...

I think that's outweighed by the right of the people around you to go on breathing.

I don't think it is. Guess we have to wait for the constitutional lawyers, or like, the UN to decide on that one.

---

Thinking that the hesitant are all just brainwashed, conspiracy theorist, Trump supporting loons is as much a conclusion based upon disinformation as anything else.

Yesterday, there was an FDA "Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee" , and a Emergency Medicine Physician from New Orleans said "we need larger trials that demonstrate that vaccines reduce hospitalization without finding evidence of serious harm. I know many think that the vaccine hesitant are dumb or just misinformed. That's not at all what I've seen."

He went on to say "They think their risk is low. They're not wrong" and "Our trials weren't big enough. They weren't big enough to identify [that] the vaccines cause myocarditis, yet now we know they do."

https://youtu.be/WFph7-6t34M?t=15428
---

Love is not a victory march

FortuneCookie posted...

It's not compromising any of your personal liberties.

Except your liberty to decide what fluids do or don't go in your body.

SSJPurple posted...

Getting a shot isnt political bro. You probably have gotten a shot before, why is this one any different?

Probably the age of the shot.
---

Love is not a victory march

Shadow Don posted...

2) One narrative has a variety of solutions and the other leads to only violence as the solution.

That's reasonable, thank you for helping me see another side to this.
---

Love is not a victory march

Shadow Don posted...

Answered above but I'll answer again.

Oh, I apologize, I didn't see your edit.

Shadow Don posted...

Yes. There are killing us. But I don't think they are engaging in collusion or a global conspiracy to kill us for power. There is not antivaxxer "institution" out there plotting to take over the world.

But the CDC and our healthcare systems are institutions that can be targeted.

Does there need to be an "institution" to target before violence can be committed?

Could the sentiment "anti-vaxxers are killing us" inspire acts of violence against individuals? Perhaps influencers? Podcasters, youtubers, outspoken people who are known in their community?

If you think "the doctors are killing us by not giving us the right treatment!" puts healthcare workers in danger, then I think "anti-vaxxers are killing us by spreading disease!" puts anti-vaxxers in danger too. I don't think there needs to be an institution to target as a necessary ingredient for violence.

Notice the difference between "antivaxxers are getting us killed" vs "the CDC and Fauci are killing us"

Is the operative difference "killing us" vs "getting us killed?" or is it the institution vs the lack of institution?
---

Love is not a victory march

Shadow Don posted...

Maybe you didn't personally assault the healthcare worker. But if you are engaging with and promoting ideas like "the doctors are killing us by not giving us the right treatment!" (ivermectin), then you are putting our healthcare workers in danger.

Do you think "the anti-vaxxers are killing us"?
Regardless, would that sentiment, if engaged with and promoted, be putting anti-vaxxers in danger?
---

Love is not a victory march

Shadow Don posted...

I'm pointing out that it's dangerous to coddle these people just because they believe in their heart of hearts that they are saving lives.

...If you genuinely believed that there was a genocide against your people would you be ready to commit violence? Because the antivaxxers believe that the genocide is happening.

People in this topic are saying that anti-vaxxers are killing others, aren't they? Isn't this two sides of the same coin? Both sides might believe that the other is trying to kill them, so both sides could potentially act in self-defense, right?

This is where dehumanization comes in. It makes it easier to commit acts of violence if you see your enemies as sub-human.
---

Love is not a victory march

cadcrafter posted...

Elaborate? Im stupid and I don't follow

You said "the only reason they feel opposed to the vaccine are more people spewing misinformation..."

But surely you are not denying that adverse events do happen? So when people tell stories of these adverse events that occur after vaccination, this isn't misinformation, is it?

I added this edit to my post above:
Millions of doses have been given out. If even a small percentage, less than 1%, of problems occur, that'll still be hundreds or thousands of people. Those people all have friends and family members.
---

Love is not a victory march

cadcrafter posted...

I feel bad for people who beleive the vaccine will mess them up and is truly more risky then the disease because the only reason they feel opposed to the vaccine are more people spewing misinformation so they can have another hour of fame/make a quick buck at the expense of human lives

To just call every single adverse event "misinformation" seems to be quite a stretch, doesn't it?

Millions of doses have been given out. If even a small percentage, less than 1%, of problems occur, that'll still be hundreds or thousands of people. Those people all have friends and family members.
---

Love is not a victory march

cuttin_in_farm posted...

I dont understand why when people itt hear anti-vaxxer, yall jump to the most extreme scenario possible. Its weird.

I see this a lot on the religion board. When certain bad-faith posters think "bible", they latch on to the worst, most self-contradictory interpretation of the bible that they can, and then they insist that everyone must adhere to this interpretation or else they are wrong. Same with Muslims. They think all Muslims are jihad terrorists or something, and if they aren't, then they're doing their own religion wrong.

It seems like a desire to be right and to "win" online arguments that eclipses the desire to learn or understand.
---

Love is not a victory march

One_Day_Remains posted...

God you couldn't cry any more crocodile tears about this subject if you tried. You don't give a shit that people anti-vaxxers are being "dehumanized" so stop acting like you do

What makes you think this?
---

Love is not a victory march

Xavier_On_High posted...

Notice that I didn't say it wasn't dehumanization?

Good, then we agree.

This is what the TC was talking about.

Xavier_On_High posted...

Hopefully because you've learned better, rather than just doing it out of fear of being modded.

Too bad you can't really tell, since anything I'd say on the subject would be compromised by the digital gun held against my account's head.
---

Love is not a victory march

Xavier_On_High posted...

Notice how those are the views of a few individuals on a joke website that in no way represent the majority of people. They are not, in fact, state-sanctioned dehumanization of an entire class of people. Once again, your comparison of this to genocide is disgusting and trivializing.

I'm not comparing anything to genocide. The mods have made it clear that I'm not allowed to express that opinion here.

Now I'm only saying that it's dehumanization.

One of them even called him a Neanderthal. A literal sub-human.
Another said "I hate all these people so much". An entire class of people.

Want me to find more examples? Because I'm sure I can. There's a whole subreddit dedicated to this sort of thing, after all. I can also go to twitter, which I'm sure can provide thousands of more examples. What about the guy who expressed joy about a 1-year-old dying from Covid, saying something like "one less future Trumper in the world"?

It's not just jokes. Dehumanization is dehumanization. You're now defending it and trivializing it. This is a disgusting thing to do, and you should stop.
---

Love is not a victory march

Xavier_On_High posted...

Because the treatment of anti-vaxxers in no way parallels the genuine, systematic dehumanization of subdued people. People telling them not to be such inconsiderate jerks and taking a mild schadenfreude when the result of their foolish choice comes back to bite them...

Here's a few comments I picked out from one thread from the HermanCainAward subreddit that another user mentioned here:

"Rest in piss. **** you and your family."
"This is another **** I'm glad is dead."
"This is going to be an unpopular opinion, but this guy strikes me as an enormous piece of **** and his kids are probably better off being raised by anyone else."
"Jay is a POS. Dont be like **** stick Jay."
"That ****face earned his award with particular distinction.

What an absolute piece of ****, his tomb should be located in a dump."
"What an ignorant and obdurate sack of ****. Rest in piss!"
"**** that was satisfying"
"I hate all these people so much!"
"I'm very happy Covid is bumping these people off."
"****ing idiot. Good riddance to another one lol"
"LOL! Jay, youre a ****ing idiot. Congrats! You won! You got what you deserve. **** you. Good riddance, you ignorant, uneducated, inbred, Neanderthal piece of ***."
"I love a happy ending. :blush:"

This is dehumanization, and you're trivializing it by calling it "mild schadenfreude"
---

Love is not a victory march

Xavier_On_High posted...

If that's what you meant to say, then just say that, because what you appear to have been saying is "The treatment of anti-vaxxers meets the criteria for stages 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 of Genocide Watch's stages of genocide." Which at best is irrelevant, and at worst trivializes actual genocides.

Assuming this is what I'm saying, how would that "trivialize actual genocides"?
---

Love is not a victory march

hockeybub89 posted...

The entire world is pushing fucking hard to end the pandemic. Are they all working together to commit genocide? Or are individual countries just all taking advantage of the virus to begin their unique genocides? Who is even being genocided specifically?

I don't think you know what I'm talking about.

I'm saying that being callous toward, or even wishing for the death of "the others" is one thing that genocidal cultures do.

I'm not saying anyone is being, or is about to be, "genocided", nor am I trivializing "genocide". I'm pointing out that dehumanizing others puts you in the company of bad men.

Machete posted...

It is, and that post is in the queue.

If I get punished for saying "dehumanizing others is a bad thing because it's something that genocidal tyrants do", I'll have given up all hope for the mods here.
---

Love is not a victory march

hockeybub89 posted...

The entire planet is being genocided? By who? The shadow government?

I don't understand how you got "the entire planet is being genocided" from anything I've written here. Please explain your thought process.
---

Love is not a victory march

masterpug53 posted...

Internet: "Wow, is it possible to miss the mark any harder than anti-vaxxers comparing themselves to Jewish people living in Nazi Germany?"

Germany isn't the only country in the world to ever have committed a genocide, you know.
These steps are common in all genocides.
---

Love is not a victory march

Disengaged posted...

That only applies if it's not about an actual fucking deadly disease pandemic they are purposefully vocally spreading.

I don't see that anywhere in the Wikipedia article.
---

Love is not a victory march

Grave-dancing is a moddable offense. If you see anybody doing it, you can report it.

By the way, here are the 10 steps of genocide. Being so callous to the death of another seems like a dead ringer for 4:

1. Classification - People are divided into "them and us"
2. Symbolization - "...symbols may be forced upon unwilling members of pariah groups..."
3. Discrimination - Law or cultural power denying rights or freedoms
4. Dehumanization - One group denies the humanity of the other group. Members of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects, or diseases.
5. Organization - Trained and armed soldiers
6. Polarization - "Hate groups broadcast polarizing propaganda..."
7. Preparation - "Victims are identified and separated"
8. Persecution - "Expropriation, forced displacement, ghettos, concentration camps"
9. Extermination
10. Denial.

It seems like steps 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 have come to pass.
---

Love is not a victory march

AOC posted...

When I was poor and complained about inequality they said I was bitter; now that I'm rich and I complain about inequality they say I'm a hypocrite"

You would think a rich person who preaches "tax the rich" would donate their money until they are no longer rich, yes.

That would be like someone eating from a buffet where wagyu beef is arranged to spell out "feed the poor!"
---

Love is not a victory march

I haven't noticed that at all, and I frequent the Religion board.
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/263-religion

The only people who get weird about it are the ones who aren't well-educated about their own beliefs.
The only people who use it as a GOTCHA! are the ones who aren't well-educated about the beliefs that they're attempting to criticize.

Come and chat about the OT with us!
---

Love is not a victory march

Noumena posted...

People do get treated differently based on their skin.

By people who are not colorblind.

Noumena posted...

And people who espouse being colour blind are always in these topics - why?

Because if everyone were colorblind, nobody would get treated differently based on their skin.

I don't see why this is so hard to understand.

Criticizing colorblindness by pointing at the people who aren't being colorblind is like criticizing abstinence by pointing at the people who aren't being abstinent.
---

Love is not a victory march

lolife67 posted...

What is being said is that yes, as an individual you shouldn't base how you treat someone on their race. However, you should also be aware of how people are treated differently based on race at a systemic level.

So you should be aware that some people aren't being colorblind?

Again, that's not a criticism of the practice of colorblindness.

Noumena posted...

Being colorblind means you cant have a negative attitude toward things benefitting minorities, because you can't see it!

I disagree. I think it just means "Treating people differently because of the color of their skin."
---

Love is not a victory march

Background_Guy posted...

"Noticing racism is the REAL racism"

"Not treating people differently because of the color of their skin is racism!"
See, you can make witty statements out of both stances.
---

Love is not a victory march

Mr_Karate_II posted...

You'd think zookeepers would be vaccinated or at least wearing a fucking mask when being near animals.

Since the combined protection from vaccines and masks aren't 100%, who's to say they weren't doing both?
---

Love is not a victory march

Noumena posted...

So I guess people arent always colour blind as kids.

I guess people aren't. And maybe people need to be taught to overcome that.

Or it could be a product of your environment. I don't know how old you are, so perhaps we were raised under different value systems. After all, Cartoon Network today is actively trying to teach people that seeing race is actually a good thing.
---

Love is not a victory march

Noumena posted...

Another example of colour blind could be a white guy going 40 years not realizing most main characters are white (which is exaggeration if a more subtle issue)

Here's another example: A black person not caring that most main characters are white.

Who cared that Mario was white? Who cared that Sonic was blue? Who cared that Donkey Kong was brown? Who cared that Kirby was pink? Nobody did, because the color of these characters wasn't important to them.
---

Love is not a victory march

MedeaLysistrata posted...

I used to get called 'black man' in elementary school. I'm also mixed race so lol

Totally inoffensive, colorblind, but still something that was really weird that I had to put up with that was 'okay' because of colorblind culture.

That's the exact opposite of colorblind.

If you were called a "man", then that would be colorblind. Bringing attention to race is not colorblindness.

XxMahnaMahnaxX posted...

Im black too. Youre sadly misguided and really naive if you think just ignoring racism will make it go away.

Did I say anything about ignoring racism? No.

I said that treating people differently because of the color of their skin is racism.

If nobody ever does that ever again, racism will vanish. That's how you make racism go away. That's colorblindness.

XxMahnaMahnaxX posted...

you should know even when you treat people as people and ignore race-- people still but YOU in a box because of their preconceived notions of race

Because they're not being colorblind.

That doesn't mean that colorblindness doesn't work, it means that people aren't being colorblind.

That's like saying "abstinence doesn't work because people refuse to be abstinent".

You can say that "teaching abstinence" doesn't work, because people refuse to do it. You can say that "teaching colorblindness" doesn't work, because people refuse to do it, but the teaching of a practice has no bearing on whether or not the practice, when actually followed, is effective or not.
---

Love is not a victory march

I'm black, and I think color-blindness is the way to go.
Treating people differently because of the color of their skin is racism. If you let a person's skin color influence how you act around them, then you might be a racist.
---

Love is not a victory march

Solar_Crimson posted...

Is this normal?

If the person who gave you the shot didn't inform you about the common side-effects, you were done a disservice.
---

Love is not a victory march

Trumble posted...

Firstly, of course, it depends on which vaccine. But yeah - for Pfizer, 8 weeks seems to be the "sweet spot". It should come as no surprise that the US's information is a bit out of date.

I've heard of plenty of "misinformation", and heard about the pitfalls of "doing your own research", but this looks like a legitimate case where two sets of experts disagree with each-other.

I'm going to be upset if this means that I'm going to need a 3rd shot, because it turns out the US was wrong about the spacing.
---

Love is not a victory march

"The COVID-19 vaccines currently available are given in 2 doses. You usually have the 2nd dose 8 to 12 weeks after the 1st dose." - https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/coronavirus-vaccination/coronavirus-vaccine/

But in the US you get doses around 3 weeks apart. For example:

"2-dose series separated by 21 days" - https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/pfizer/index.html

This was news to me. Why is there such a difference in how the doses are spaced out? Is a longer waiting period better than a shorter one?
---

Love is not a victory march