I wasn’t on my fainting couch then, and I’m not now.
OMG can we just not.
He can’t remember the last time he even engaged with me lolz.
Well then maybe you shouldn’t be hypocritically criticizing Otatop for it then.
You made it clear you have no interest in a mutual ignore. My offer stands.
You could just unilaterally ignore him, it’s super easy.
Fair enough, I accept that and apologize. As I noted in one of my other posts, I think this all comes from sloppy shorthand categorization where any person that expresses even the tiniest view that could be construed as being “anti vaxx” is labelled an ANTIVAXXER! I agree that categorization is unfair, but I still stand by the idea that we don’t really need to engage in a tortured exercise of establishing 10 deciles of levels of anti vaxx ideas and mapping each one to a forum approved acceptable label. I don’t think we can have a functional community or board if we’re going to get into a new moderation thread every time someone is hurt that they were called a Level 3B Antivaxxer when the forum rules make it CLEAR that their statement was actually a Level 2C antivaxx claim.
Go back and re-read the post and try to figure our who I was actually criticizing. Let me know when the light comes on.
I don’t think it is fair to characterize my views as antivaccine to any degree. It’s a ludicrous claim.
1 Like
That’s the point. “Antivaxx” is super loaded, so when it is brought out to characterize even the faintest concern about vaccines it will inevitably descend into pointless conflict. There are very find people on both sides!
1 Like
Are you asking me to hate these people? I feel compassion for their loss and sad that they’re putting themselves at undue risk for no reason. They’re not monsters any more than any Alex Jones listener or OAN watcher is a monster. How many Americans feel the same way? 5%? 15? I have no idea, but ten million or more, I’m sure. All monsters? I doubt it, I’ll bet a lot of people consider them to be good friends and good parents and good spouses and good whatever. A lot of people they know were probably sad when they caught covid and died.
As far as their selfishness and greed, I just don’t see it. They aren’t being selfish, they’re incredibly misinformed. They don’t see that the vaccine protects themselves and that it protects others. Selfish would be if they thinks the vaccine protects others but is risky for themselves. I just don’t think antivaxxers think like that. They think they’re acting in their own best interest because the vaccine doesn’t work. And if it doesn’t protect them why would they think it protects anyone else? As far a greed, they’re obviously in no way benefiting from their actions and I don’t see why they would think that they are.
Keeed trolling with the slightly nuanced takes that everyone bites the cheese on is really tired. So is the endless victimhood/bickering. It’s been going on for at least a decade.
Maybe some like spending their time like this and that is fine. No kink shaming.
1 Like
This is way too generous. Many of them choose to be misinformed because it satisfies some unaddressed need they have. Again, if antivaxxers were “just like everyone else but randomly somehow ended up antivaxx” then their views would be uniformly spread around society. But their views are concentrated in the parts of society that also hold a bunch of other willfully ignorant ideas that serve their personal self interest at the expense of other people. You don’t have to “hate” them, but you should let go of the delusion that they are just poor unfortunate souls who have no agency for their objectively false and destructive views and actions. C’mon man.
6 Likes
Trolling how? I don’t believe what I’m writing? Or some other definition of trolling?
Based on what he has said lately? No. Based on saying that the risk of getting the vaccine or getting covid after 2 shots and an infection is similar (or basically zero) I will say I’m not sure. That certainly raised an eyebrow of mine at the time.
I’m really enjoying the term “bites the cheese” for some reason.
1 Like
You enjoy spirited discussion on the internet and so take controversial positions or make controversial statements to engage in it. There isn’t anything wrong with it but that is certainly what you always do. Maybe it isn’t trolling. Maybe it needs it’s own name.
1 Like
Right so the issue is that I took a sincerely-held nuanced position that, as you say, very slightly falls outside of the forum orthodoxy. Is that the problem or is the reaction that position elicited the problem that you’re complaining about?
2 Likes
I’m saying your risk of getting and having a consequence from covid are not the same between:
1)3 shots + whatever amount of previous covid infection
vs.
2)2shots + a covid infection
Saying it is discourages people from getting the booster and works against the goal of moving past Covid. I’m also not sure how that could possibly be controversial but carry on.
I wasn’t actually saying that. Or rather I did say that, and it’s true, but that’s not the argument I was making to not get a booster. The comparative size of the absolute risks of the booster and unboosted covid isn’t really relevant. It’s the size of the benefit shrinking after a breakthrough case that is important.