5 ms·

> They want it so much they are even willing to forego hostilities to the 'other' group of unvaccinated people I find it interesting you use the word 'other' h

> They want it so much they are even willing to forego hostilities to the 'other' group of unvaccinated people I find it interesting you use the word 'other' here, as usually this is said when trying to frame a dehumanisation argument, where the 'other' is a suppressed minority of sorts As someone that holds this opinion (sod the unvaccinated) and has done since the start of people doing this, I'm not surprised other people are now starting to go 'you made your bed' with this one The thing is, being unvaccinated is a choice and if you want to make that choice then go for it However, that choice has contributed to the deaths of people I know and extending the general disruption of the world for months on end for no other reason that unsubstantiated scepticism You can make that choice but as the article says, do NOT expect the rest of the world to respect it when it's blindingly obvious it's a really dumb choice to make for absolutely no gain to you or anyone around you When you see your mates grandmas dying and people are actively refusing the vaccine, I quite frankly do not care what happens to them, as they didn't care what happened to the people I know who have died

dennis_jeeves 5y ago
peteradio 5y ago
> However, that choice has contributed to the deaths of people I know It was not a choice many people took to get the virus prior to vaccine availability, and these people would be taking extra risk to get vaccinated (excluded from trials) so you are spewing rage at them for what? Because of an error of incorrect application of priors?
- crispypotatoes 5y ago
  Availability has nothing to do with what I've said and I think you know I'm not speaking to that group If you have access and you deliberately turn it down over nothing AFTER the trial phase, that's who I'm raging at
  - yucky 5y ago
    >deliberately turn it down over nothing AFTER the trial phase Not as an argument against the vaccine, but maybe to help enlighten why many have chosen not to get vaccinated; keep in mind that the FDA approval letter for the Pfizer vaccine indicates that long term testing is not projected to be complete until June 2025. https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download
    - crispypotatoes 5y ago
      The same thing is being said about long COVID Either way, you're risking long-term side effects, I'd rather go with the tried and tested technology we have here
  - peteradio 5y ago
    Recovered people were excluded from trials so conclusion of trials says nothing for them. What percent of vaccine holdouts do you reckon have already been infected? If that is a significant percentage, realize your anger is being channeled into restrictions against these people you are not speaking to.
    - crispypotatoes 5y ago
      > What percent of vaccine holdouts do you reckon have already been infected? I'm not going to sit here and guess You have the information to work this one out yourself if you like and none of these comments make any sense mate
      - peteradio 5y ago
        So you don't have those numbers on hand? It seems crucial, if 100% of unvaccinated have already recovered then what is to be gained by vaccinating now?
        crispypotatoes 5y ago
        > It seems crucial, if 100% of unvaccinated have already recovered then what is to be gained by vaccinating now? Except we know this isn't the case at all lmao Elsewhere in the thread it's stated in AUS that 50% of COVID admissions are from the 8% unvaccinated population, that's about enough to prove the point here and I don't need to go any further You're also seeing more and more cases like this crop up - https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/frightened-vaccine-sceptic-fighting-life-6504148 https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/frighten... Vaccines work. They reduce severity, transmission and the chance of death. It's on you to prove your point with some actual facts now, instead of more questions missing the point entirely.
DarkWiiPlayer 5y ago
> I find it interesting you use the word 'other' here, as usually this is said when trying to frame a dehumanisation argument, where the 'other' is a suppressed minority of sorts Interesting, maybe, but definitely correct. The unvaccinated are routinely dehumanised and you even do so in your own comment.
- crispypotatoes 5y ago
  > The unvaccinated are routinely dehumanised and you even do so in your own comment They can quite easily change this one by getting vaccinated, people can't with their skin colour They're people, just very stupid people who have made their own bed and now need to lie in it I'm not advocating executing them but I just don't give a fuck about them any more and there is a BIG difference I forgot to finish that point - TL;DR false equivalency, reap the consequences etc.
  - DarkWiiPlayer 5y ago
    Would you make the same point about religious persecution? After all, unlike skin colour, you can easily change your belief.
    - crispypotatoes 5y ago
      > Would you make the same point about religious persecution? Yes, if your religion caused you to harm people by just being near them because it is optional Again, it's more false equivalency Some religions require you to not even look at a woman that isn't covered, they need to go and live in an area where that's supported rather than expecting wider society to support that stupid standard
      - DarkWiiPlayer 5y ago
        It's funny how you're finding more and more excuses about how your hate for this one group of people is different from anything else. Because it's always different; that's just how tribalism works.
sovietmudkipz 5y ago
I intentionally used the term 'other' because I wanted to highlight how tribal people tend to get about things; there is an in group and an out group and terrible things can, will, and (horrifyingly) ought to happen to the out group. I try to keep my tribal sensibilities in check by reframing everyone I am considering as a part of my own tribe. Obviously, there are exceptions for violent criminality which I apply a strategic empathy for (understand as fully as possible while still condemning the actions). The boundary of who gets what treatment is fuzzy if I really thought about it, but pragmatically this model serves me well. But that's my own personal stance fueled from experiences and research. My friends draw their tribal circles more narrowly, which is their prerogative. I like to listen to how they engage with the world because it helps me understand how they think and what their influences are. They are more willing to allow state hostility/violence against people who are the other (the 'worthy victim' under the propaganda model). I sometimes point out that what powers you give the state will be wielded by the other party as well. The fact that my friends are saying who cares, let's just go back to normal is an interesting signal IMO. While the narrative is still 'make things uncomfortable (by disregarding constitutional rights and social norms)' they are seemingly okay with 'it's your life and your choice.' My friend group is not a representation of society as a whole. They do make up a large part of my social reality. This is an important data point for me but it's much less so for everyone else. Still, I felt compelled to share!
- crispypotatoes 5y ago
  I think the tribal thing is interesting but a meaningless distinction when it's such an easy choice like this The tribes are essentially people refusing free vaccines for no reason vs people who are vaccinated to protect themselves/others This is one of the easiest cut and dry examples I could think of to justify in-group/out-group behaviour, you shouldn't be forced to tolerate or associate with people making deliberately bad decisions You could extend this argument to drunk drivers and I think it would hold just as little weight

dennis_jeeves 5y ago

peteradio 5y ago

> However, that choice has contributed to the deaths of people I know It was not a choice many people took to get the virus prior to vaccine availability, and these people would be taking extra risk to get vaccinated (excluded from trials) so you are spewing rage at them for what? Because of an error of incorrect application of priors?

crispypotatoes 5y ago
Availability has nothing to do with what I've said and I think you know I'm not speaking to that group If you have access and you deliberately turn it down over nothing AFTER the trial phase, that's who I'm raging at
- yucky 5y ago
  >deliberately turn it down over nothing AFTER the trial phase Not as an argument against the vaccine, but maybe to help enlighten why many have chosen not to get vaccinated; keep in mind that the FDA approval letter for the Pfizer vaccine indicates that long term testing is not projected to be complete until June 2025. https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download
  - crispypotatoes 5y ago
    The same thing is being said about long COVID Either way, you're risking long-term side effects, I'd rather go with the tried and tested technology we have here
- peteradio 5y ago
  Recovered people were excluded from trials so conclusion of trials says nothing for them. What percent of vaccine holdouts do you reckon have already been infected? If that is a significant percentage, realize your anger is being channeled into restrictions against these people you are not speaking to.
  - crispypotatoes 5y ago
    > What percent of vaccine holdouts do you reckon have already been infected? I'm not going to sit here and guess You have the information to work this one out yourself if you like and none of these comments make any sense mate
    - peteradio 5y ago
      So you don't have those numbers on hand? It seems crucial, if 100% of unvaccinated have already recovered then what is to be gained by vaccinating now?
      - crispypotatoes 5y ago
        > It seems crucial, if 100% of unvaccinated have already recovered then what is to be gained by vaccinating now? Except we know this isn't the case at all lmao Elsewhere in the thread it's stated in AUS that 50% of COVID admissions are from the 8% unvaccinated population, that's about enough to prove the point here and I don't need to go any further You're also seeing more and more cases like this crop up - https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/frightened-vaccine-sceptic-fighting-life-6504148 https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/frighten... Vaccines work. They reduce severity, transmission and the chance of death. It's on you to prove your point with some actual facts now, instead of more questions missing the point entirely.

DarkWiiPlayer 5y ago

> I find it interesting you use the word 'other' here, as usually this is said when trying to frame a dehumanisation argument, where the 'other' is a suppressed minority of sorts Interesting, maybe, but definitely correct. The unvaccinated are routinely dehumanised and you even do so in your own comment.

crispypotatoes 5y ago
> The unvaccinated are routinely dehumanised and you even do so in your own comment They can quite easily change this one by getting vaccinated, people can't with their skin colour They're people, just very stupid people who have made their own bed and now need to lie in it I'm not advocating executing them but I just don't give a fuck about them any more and there is a BIG difference I forgot to finish that point - TL;DR false equivalency, reap the consequences etc.
- DarkWiiPlayer 5y ago
  Would you make the same point about religious persecution? After all, unlike skin colour, you can easily change your belief.
  - crispypotatoes 5y ago
    > Would you make the same point about religious persecution? Yes, if your religion caused you to harm people by just being near them because it is optional Again, it's more false equivalency Some religions require you to not even look at a woman that isn't covered, they need to go and live in an area where that's supported rather than expecting wider society to support that stupid standard
    - DarkWiiPlayer 5y ago
      It's funny how you're finding more and more excuses about how your hate for this one group of people is different from anything else. Because it's always different; that's just how tribalism works.

sovietmudkipz 5y ago

I intentionally used the term 'other' because I wanted to highlight how tribal people tend to get about things; there is an in group and an out group and terrible things can, will, and (horrifyingly) ought to happen to the out group. I try to keep my tribal sensibilities in check by reframing everyone I am considering as a part of my own tribe. Obviously, there are exceptions for violent criminality which I apply a strategic empathy for (understand as fully as possible while still condemning the actions). The boundary of who gets what treatment is fuzzy if I really thought about it, but pragmatically this model serves me well. But that's my own personal stance fueled from experiences and research. My friends draw their tribal circles more narrowly, which is their prerogative. I like to listen to how they engage with the world because it helps me understand how they think and what their influences are. They are more willing to allow state hostility/violence against people who are the other (the 'worthy victim' under the propaganda model). I sometimes point out that what powers you give the state will be wielded by the other party as well. The fact that my friends are saying who cares, let's just go back to normal is an interesting signal IMO. While the narrative is still 'make things uncomfortable (by disregarding constitutional rights and social norms)' they are seemingly okay with 'it's your life and your choice.' My friend group is not a representation of society as a whole. They do make up a large part of my social reality. This is an important data point for me but it's much less so for everyone else. Still, I felt compelled to share!

crispypotatoes 5y ago
I think the tribal thing is interesting but a meaningless distinction when it's such an easy choice like this The tribes are essentially people refusing free vaccines for no reason vs people who are vaccinated to protect themselves/others This is one of the easiest cut and dry examples I could think of to justify in-group/out-group behaviour, you shouldn't be forced to tolerate or associate with people making deliberately bad decisions You could extend this argument to drunk drivers and I think it would hold just as little weight