I mean obviously she has a point here (her argument is that shaming is counter-productive and you need to consider the viewpoint of the skeptics and persuade them logically) and I absolutely agree that elitist tsk-tsking in media coverage of deaths is extremely counter-productive.
But the vast majority of vaccine denialism is derived from two sources:
A complete destruction of trust in institutions and experts with a very valid basis that has ballooned into a total and insane conspiracy theory consciousness
Deeply ingrained partisan identification where getting the shot is essentially admitting the libs were right all along and have owned you
These cases are almost entirely unreachable by logical argument. Theyre unreachable because what they seek is an emotional "truth" disconnected from material reality and has its terms set by their own individual grievances and resentments. Both are also deeply connected with insane religious fundamentalism.
Even the case she laid out of trying to talk to her skeptical uncle has its problem. He's clearly a right-wing evangelical, so one of the initial "concerns" he has is the ethical sourcing of the vaccines, whether they were tested on "fetal stem cells". This is just an excuse cooked up to cover fhe real reason, which is certainly one of the two cases I outlined above. I highly, highly doubt her uncle has similar ethical concerns over the sourcing of the meat he eats or the blue jeans he buys. The same goes for other denialists who fake concern for the potential side effects of "chemicals" used to make the vaccines; do they ever have similar concerns about the industrial pesticides sprayed on the fruits and vegetables they eat, or the hormones pumped into cattle to fatten them up quickly? Hell no.
Luckily I mostly don't feel anything anymore when these people die. My emotional expression mostly comes somewhere between :proletariat: and :pathetic:
I mean obviously she has a point here (her argument is that shaming is counter-productive and you need to consider the viewpoint of the skeptics and persuade them logically) and I absolutely agree that elitist tsk-tsking in media coverage of deaths is extremely counter-productive.
But the vast majority of vaccine denialism is derived from two sources:
A complete destruction of trust in institutions and experts with a very valid basis that has ballooned into a total and insane conspiracy theory consciousness
Deeply ingrained partisan identification where getting the shot is essentially admitting the libs were right all along and have owned you
These cases are almost entirely unreachable by logical argument. Theyre unreachable because what they seek is an emotional "truth" disconnected from material reality and has its terms set by their own individual grievances and resentments. Both are also deeply connected with insane religious fundamentalism.
Even the case she laid out of trying to talk to her skeptical uncle has its problem. He's clearly a right-wing evangelical, so one of the initial "concerns" he has is the ethical sourcing of the vaccines, whether they were tested on "fetal stem cells". This is just an excuse cooked up to cover fhe real reason, which is certainly one of the two cases I outlined above. I highly, highly doubt her uncle has similar ethical concerns over the sourcing of the meat he eats or the blue jeans he buys. The same goes for other denialists who fake concern for the potential side effects of "chemicals" used to make the vaccines; do they ever have similar concerns about the industrial pesticides sprayed on the fruits and vegetables they eat, or the hormones pumped into cattle to fatten them up quickly? Hell no.
Luckily I mostly don't feel anything anymore when these people die. My emotional expression mostly comes somewhere between :proletariat: and :pathetic:
deleted by creator
God is dead and we have killed him. QED
deleted by creator
No, now we become gods
deleted by creator
:sicko-beaming: