I was just curious. Thanks.
Is he going to be permanently tl3?
I didn’t think so because there’s also a separate button to lock the trust level that I didn’t click but worst case they permanently have these features unlocked:
i’d ban wookie and smrk if i was mod right now. Not like a 24 hours ban either. And you probably for your previous posts. Would be a shitty 6 months
2 Likes
Are you perhaps looking for a campaign manager?
All the paraphrased quotes that you included in your post were things that I never said or argued for. That was the lie. The quotes don’t support those paraphrased quotes: “I’m not against vaccines, I’m against vaccine mandates.” When did I say anything like that? You implied that I said that. That was a lie. Same with the others, other than not wanting to judge people who didn’t get the vaccine. Not judging people who don’t get the vaccine isn’t the same thing as condoning what they did or why they did it.
But originally I was an antivaxxer because you said I drastically overestimated the risk of the vaccine booster. When I pointed out that I said my risk was miniscule, you pivoted. Then you said that the risk of the booster was much smaller than the risk of covid, I pointed out that the magnitude of the absolute risks of each choice is meaningless in this framework. So now you’re pivoting to a third reason I’m an antivaxxer, because I “sound” like one. I make the same arguments as an antivaxxer. Well, none of the quotes of mine you post are in any way anti vaccine in any way. None.
This is the entirety of the first quote you post, with the section you posted bolded:
This post is not antivaccine in any way, shape or form. It’s absurd to frame it as such. Vaccines work, people should get them, but at this point vaccines aren’t going to stop the virus. It’s endemic. It’s an analysis of the political reality we face right now, not a statement on vaccines and their effectiveness.
Next section, your excerpted fragment bolded again:
Honestly I don’t even understand how the fragment you quoted could be interpreted as anti-vaccine. I’m just saying waves are going to happen no matter if a community is vaccinated or not, but people should get vaccinated because those waves will be far less deadly than if they’re not.
Next:
Oh damn you quoted a whole post! Again, not in any way anti-vaccine. I’m saying that this thing is endemic, everyone is going to get it, and you better get vaccinated because you’re going to be much better protected than if you’re not vaccinated. Obvious stuff.
and then:
Is being adamantly pro-vaccine while not making judgements about what sort of people are unvaccinated actually antivaxx? Why? Why do I have to express my two minute hate against the unvaccinated in order to be pro-vaccine? What does that accomplish? I know many people I work with who haven’t taken the vaccine and won’t. I obviously think they’re wrong but I actually know them. Their reasons are bad but sincere. I go to work with them every day and they aren’t bad people and they don’t deserve to die or get covid or whatever. I could go around and yell at them and call them fucking morons but that would just get me fired. What does it accomplish other than imbue me with righteous anger? That and a buck fifty will get me on the bus.
4 Likes
Not sure why I am prohibited from making a few modest logical leaps.
“I don’t judge people who are unvaccinated for any reason” - > “You shouldn’t judge them either” - > “No one should judge them” - > “Vaccine mandates are unethical.”
If you indeed support both vaccines and vaccine mandates, I am not sure how you rectify the idea that you think unvaccinated people can and should face material consequences for not being vaccinated while simultaneously thinking that you are not passing judgment on them.
Your rebuttal reads as if you are aghast that I read and assess the implications of the totality of your words rather than only considering each statement in a vacuum without regard for what else is implied. It is pointless sophistry at this point.
Oh, and yes, casting the decision to get vaccinated as something that only impacts oneself, as wearing a helmet does, is anti vaxx. Vaccination isn’t just personal responsibility. It’s social responsibility. You are giving explicit permission for those who don’t wish to get vaccinated to have only the moral culpability of harming themselves, when the decision to not get vaccinated not only harms themselves but those around them, and, indeed, the whole world.
1 Like
You don’t have to hate the unvaxxed, and the utility of yelling at them is debatable, but it’s not clear to me that you even think it’s morally wrong for a person to refuse to get vaccinated (ignoring complicating factors like being immunocompromised), which of course it is. And when you talk about inevitable waves of infection and JAQ about infection-induced immunity being superior to vaccines – and you of course know this – you are talking about things which anti-vaxxers often raise in their rationalizations for not getting vaccinated. Like come on.
1 Like
Compromise: let’s just say he’s a “sometimes-vaxxer” instead of an “anti-vaxxer”
If you had a breakthrough infection would you take that into account when you’re timing your booster shot?
I certainly encourage people to read everything I wrote in that exchange and decide for themselves if I’m an antivaxxer. Certainly someone is a sophist in this exchange, better that people read for themselves and decide.
1 Like
It’s not antivaxx, but it’s antivax adjacent. You don’t have to go around yelling at everyone who is unvaccinated, but yes you should judge them and let them know that you view them as dangerous morons. Do it in a civil way, but let them know you are not comfortable around them and that they are being irresponsible and putting others at risk due to their actions.
Also, yes, they are bad people. I’d equate them to drunk drivers - yes they may not actually kill anyone and are most likely to kill themselves, but every time they walk around in public they are a risk to society. If everyone scorned the unvaccinated, maybe they would actually change their ways. As we’ve learned with Trump supporters, you’re not going to win them over with logic or kindness.
1 Like
Classic Keeeeeeding. If you had said “I think I’m going to wait a month or two to get my booster given my past infection,” we’re not having this conversation. But you deliberately misconstrue what you actually said, which was:
I haven’t gotten a booster and probably won’t, at least for a while.
That’s not just timing. That’s also questioning whether or not you’ll get one at all. You know this, and you know it’s shameful, so now you have to resort to pretending you were only talking about timing of your booster.
Right, I don’t know if I’ll get a booster or not. It depends on what the scientific evidence shows going forward. If no one gets a fourth shot I probably won’t get a booster. If I get a second breakthrough infection I probably won’t get a booster. If people get a fourth shot and I don’t get a second breakthrough infection I’ll probably get a booster. The world is a complicated place and I don’t know what is going to happen.
Can simplify things in this complicated world and just get the booster, and then you gain the benefit of not having to guess whether your breakthrough infection provides you as much protection as the third dose.
1 Like
My argument is that they’re doing what they think is best for themselves in good faith, but with terrible information. They don’t think that the vaccines work or that they’re a good idea. So to me that’s not a question of morality. An immoral person would be someone who thinks the vaccine works but doesn’t get it anyway, for…I don’t know. It’s not selfishness because the vaccine working for the community means that it also works for them. They just don’t trust the vaccine. They don’t think it works. That’s ignorance rather than immorality.
The inevitable waves of infection just seem like what’s going to happen. It’s going to happen to highly vaccinated New York and low vaccinated Alabama. It’s just going to happen. This is vaccine neutral as far as I can see.
I equated a breakthrough infection with a booster in its effect not because I’m hoping to get a breakthrough infection and get super immunity. It’s because I fucken got a breakthrough infection and now need to think about how that impacts my decision to get a booster! And of course I and no one else knows the answer to this question so I have to bungle through the best I can. And a breakthrough infection, at the very least, seems like it should delay the booster. We’ll know more as the scientists gather more information. I don’t see how this is in any way controversial.
OK that’s a reasonable choice but it’s not a clear cut decision. Why so much vitriol? Not from you, obviously.
Man this has been a wild Friday night
6 Likes
wat?
I got this far but I’m giving up now - this thread is insane.
1 Like
I mean, of course there is vitriol. People’s lives have been impacted in significant-to-catastrophic levels, and we’re doomed to endemic covid for the rest of our natural existence in large part as a result of people that haven’t gotten the shots and shared the burden of public health. Feel free to push back on whatever you feel is right, but you can’t honestly be surprised to get a little pushback from meh not sure if i’ll get the booster, we’ll see.