Is It Wrong To Mock People Who'd Opposed Covid Vaccines and Then Died of Covid? (cnn.com) 869
Slashdot reader DevNull127 shares a transcript from a recent segment on CNN:
CNN: Here's a moral question peculiar to these days: Is it wrong to mock people who publicly crusade against the Covid vaccine, and then die of the disease?
Or does it drive home the message about saving lives?
There are entire web sites that are devoted to such mockery. Sorry Antivaxxer.com gleefully tales stories and photos of anti-vaccine advocates who end up in the ICU, intubated, or dead from the disease.
One recent case of this kind of tasteless taunting spurred two dueling opinion pieces in the Los Angeles Times. Orange County Republican Kelly Ernby, a former assistant D.A. and state assembly candidate who had lobbied publicly against the Covid vaccines, passed away earlier this month at age 46 from Covid complications. She was unvaccinated. Ernby's death unleashed a torrent of reaction on the internet. On her own Facebook page under a Christmas collage that she had posted, there are now more than 4,600 comments. Some are sympathy notes; many other are not.
In response to the piling on, Los Angeles Times columnist Nicholas Goldberg wrote, "I don't understand how crowing over the death of others furthers useful debate — or increases vaccination rates." But a few days later, Goldberg's colleague Michael Hiltzik published a column expressing the exact opposite. "Mocking anti-vaxxers' Covid deaths is ghoulish, yes — but may be necessary." Michael Hiltzik joins me now, he's the L.A. Times' business columnist. He's also a Pulitzer Prize winner. Michael let's make clear at the outset: you are not talking about the everyday people who don't get vaxxed, sadly contract Covid, and die. You're talking about people with a platform, right?
Michael Hiltzik: That's correct... In my column, I pointed out that the unvaccinated really fall into three categories. There are those who can't get vaccinated for legitimate reasons — small children, people with genuine medical contra-indications of vaccination. Then there's a fairly large group of people who I think have been duped into resisting the vaccine, duped by misinformation and disinformation about the vaccines, and sort of nonsense about preserving our freedoms in the face of this pandemic.
The real targets who are important here are those who spent the last few months or years of their lives crusading against sensible, safe policies such as vaccination and social distancing and what have you — and ended up paying the ultimate price for their own — basically, their own folly.
[CNN puts a pargraph on the screen, highlighting Hiltzik's comment that "Mockery is not necessarily the wrong reaction to those who publicly mocked anti-Covid measures and encouraged others to follow suit, before they perished of the disease the dangers of which they belittled."]
Michael Hiltzik: You know, we have sort of a cultural habit of not speaking ill of the dead, of treating the good deceased — looking at the good that they've done during their lives. I'm not sure that in this case that's entirely appropriate, because so many of them actually have promoted reckless, dangerous policies.
And as I wrote there, they took innocent people along with them.
So is mockery the only response? Well, I don't know — but as I wrote, every one of these deaths is a teachable moment. And unfortunately we haven't been learning from the lesson that we should be hearing from them.
In his column, Hiltzik had argued that "[P]leas for 'civility' are a fraud.
"Their goal is to blunt and enfeeble criticism and distract from its truthfulness. Typically, they're the work of hypocrites."
Or does it drive home the message about saving lives?
There are entire web sites that are devoted to such mockery. Sorry Antivaxxer.com gleefully tales stories and photos of anti-vaccine advocates who end up in the ICU, intubated, or dead from the disease.
One recent case of this kind of tasteless taunting spurred two dueling opinion pieces in the Los Angeles Times. Orange County Republican Kelly Ernby, a former assistant D.A. and state assembly candidate who had lobbied publicly against the Covid vaccines, passed away earlier this month at age 46 from Covid complications. She was unvaccinated. Ernby's death unleashed a torrent of reaction on the internet. On her own Facebook page under a Christmas collage that she had posted, there are now more than 4,600 comments. Some are sympathy notes; many other are not.
In response to the piling on, Los Angeles Times columnist Nicholas Goldberg wrote, "I don't understand how crowing over the death of others furthers useful debate — or increases vaccination rates." But a few days later, Goldberg's colleague Michael Hiltzik published a column expressing the exact opposite. "Mocking anti-vaxxers' Covid deaths is ghoulish, yes — but may be necessary." Michael Hiltzik joins me now, he's the L.A. Times' business columnist. He's also a Pulitzer Prize winner. Michael let's make clear at the outset: you are not talking about the everyday people who don't get vaxxed, sadly contract Covid, and die. You're talking about people with a platform, right?
Michael Hiltzik: That's correct... In my column, I pointed out that the unvaccinated really fall into three categories. There are those who can't get vaccinated for legitimate reasons — small children, people with genuine medical contra-indications of vaccination. Then there's a fairly large group of people who I think have been duped into resisting the vaccine, duped by misinformation and disinformation about the vaccines, and sort of nonsense about preserving our freedoms in the face of this pandemic.
The real targets who are important here are those who spent the last few months or years of their lives crusading against sensible, safe policies such as vaccination and social distancing and what have you — and ended up paying the ultimate price for their own — basically, their own folly.
[CNN puts a pargraph on the screen, highlighting Hiltzik's comment that "Mockery is not necessarily the wrong reaction to those who publicly mocked anti-Covid measures and encouraged others to follow suit, before they perished of the disease the dangers of which they belittled."]
Michael Hiltzik: You know, we have sort of a cultural habit of not speaking ill of the dead, of treating the good deceased — looking at the good that they've done during their lives. I'm not sure that in this case that's entirely appropriate, because so many of them actually have promoted reckless, dangerous policies.
And as I wrote there, they took innocent people along with them.
So is mockery the only response? Well, I don't know — but as I wrote, every one of these deaths is a teachable moment. And unfortunately we haven't been learning from the lesson that we should be hearing from them.
In his column, Hiltzik had argued that "[P]leas for 'civility' are a fraud.
"Their goal is to blunt and enfeeble criticism and distract from its truthfulness. Typically, they're the work of hypocrites."
Fuck no (Score:5, Insightful)
They got what they deserved.
Re:Fuck no (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe it's permissible to mock hypocrisy.
Formal answer: Yes (Score:3, Insightful)
The formal answer to the question is: yes, it's wrong.
In terms of the philosophy of ethics, officially the definition of evil/wrong is when it would cause you suffering if it was done to you. This is embodied in the golden rule, "do unto others...", and also is mentioned in Genesis: Adam and Eve knew they were naked, and also knew the difference between good and evil. In other words, Adam and Eve recognized their own vulnerability and thus what would cause them harm, and thus what would cause harm to others
Re:Formal answer: Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
"officially the definition of evil/wrong is..."
Which official is that?
Re:Formal answer: Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not talking about Right and Wrong, I'm talking about Good and Evil.
I agree that most of the time they mean the same thing, and that OP above didn't make that distinction. But when they don't, the difference is important.
So let's talk about Evil for a moment.
For example (I don't know much about Utilitarianism, just assuming here, but...): If you see a situation and you conclude that you need to to a specific thing to resolve that situation to everybody's delight; and you do that specific thing, but some circumstance you either couldn't have foreseen, or you've genuinely missed (despite best efforts), leads your actions causing harm.
Now is that what you've done Wrong? Possibly. (Not in my book, but to each their own...)
Is it Evil? I'd very, very, very much doubt that, even for Utilitarian standards.
Different things are Wrong to different people, because Right and Wrong is just a matter of convention. Stealing? Definitely Wrong. Sleeping with somebody else's wife? Wrong. Killing someone in a car accident? Why of course Wrong, you do go to jail for that.
But claiming someone is outright Evil is another level. Actually wanting someone to suffer, torturing them, murdering them? That's outright Evil. There may be many felons, or even murderers around, led on by bad luck, circumstance or plain stupidity. But not many are actually capable of actually wanting to generate suffering. It's for those who are who we've reserved this label for.
Now... mocking. Admittedly not quite as Evil as torturing someone for the pure lust of it, but... is it actually that different? Mocking someone does obviously not happen for any constructive reason, because not only is there any evidence lacking that it actually helps, it's actually really difficult to imagine that it could. So mocking someone is usually done for the sole purpose of entertaining the mocker, at the cost of the one being mocked. Structurally pretty close to torturing -- same motives, same state of mind, just different intensity.
Re:Formal answer: Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
So, I think the ethics are actually somewhat cloudy.
Mocking loud antivaxxers who get covid and then die? It might actually save a LOT of lives if we publicly call those people out as pathetic idiots, and said mockery drives up the vax rate. If it increases the vax rate by even a few tenths of a percent, that's probably quite a few lives saved. What does ethics have to say about that one?
Re:Formal answer: Yes (Score:5, Interesting)
Mocking loud antivaxxers who get covid and then die? It might actually save a LOT of lives if we publicly call those people out as pathetic idiots
The problem is, I don't think it will, because the antivaxxers just double down on stupidity. They get all butt hurt over the premise that liberals want them to die, which is stupid all over because those same liberals begged them to get the vaccine... which they commonly beg for when they're on their death bed and it's too late. That's that liberal bias that reality is well-known to have. Until they get sick they're screaming about how we want the vaccine to kill them. When covid has almost killed them, then they cry for the vaccine, but they never seem to blame themselves, their parents, and all the other people who told them that liberals want to destroy everything they hold dear. No, idiots, only the toxic parts that hurt you as well as us. But just try convincing them of that before they're about to die...
Re: (Score:3)
Mocking is social. Making fun of the other strengthens group cohesion.
Liberals seem to favor those activities if the "in" group is any kind of minority. So they should be ok with this as long as most people aren't vaxxed.
Conservatives seem ok with making fun of anything that will piss liberals off. So if the majority are vaxxed, mocking the unvaxxed would trigger libs, thus be ok.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
They got what they deserved.
Keep in mind a lot of people are being mislead. We live in a "post truth" world, an era in which certain groups of people want to get people riled up against "the establishment", by any means necessary. These bloggers, YouTubers, Facebookers, alternative news websites and other influencers, keep telling people that "the establishment" is out to get them, established news sources are full of lies and nothing their read or hear over official sources can be trusted. You should, of course, trust *them* instead.
Re: (Score:3)
His blog is very long and it took him halfway before he referenced a study, so I stopped reading after that. The studies conclusion:
"In summary, the risk of hospital admission or death from myocarditis is greater following COVID-19 infection than following vaccination and remains modest following sequential doses of mRNA vaccine including a third booster dose of BNT162b in the overall population. However, the risk of myocarditis following vaccination is consistently higher in younger males, particularly fol
Re:Fuck no (Score:5, Interesting)
To be fair I think governments could have done a lot more to reassure people, and to find the issues that exist for a very small number of people much earlier than they did.
I am triple vaxxed, but I regret taking the first one because it really damaged my health and I'm a long way from recovery. I've been in contact with the agency that monitors for health issues, and they are now starting to take these issues seriously. Obviously way too late for me though, and I could have been spared a lot of pain and frustration if they had done their jobs better.
That kind of thing just feeds into the conspiracy theories and fear of getting vaxxinated. Having experienced the push-back when trying to get my issue recognized and addressed, I can understand why people are sceptical.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Lol,
The following essay has been rigorously fact-checked by Stanford medicine professor and infectious disease expert Dr. Jay Bhattacharya
. The scientific claims regarding post-vaccine myocarditis are fully in line with the current medical literature.
Well that settles it. I have some gold to sell you along with a piece of paper guaranteeing its not lead.
One of my Indian co-workers mentioned Covid and the latest Omicron strain during some chit-chat, and it was all fine, until he mentioned "there are known, simple remedies for Covid here". I was too polite to say anything else than "what are those", to which he exclaimed "Steam!". I admit I immediately thought of the gaming platform, which could be effective by keeping people in their homes, rather than getting Covid on the street. But, alas, he was talking about sticking your face in a bowl of steaming wate
Re:Fuck no (Score:5, Insightful)
Much of the contents of the article are out of context but true. The most important lie in the article is when it has a graph which shows the Moderna vaccine as "100". 100 what? If you look around carefully in the original paper you will find that's a 100 in a million - or a 1 in 10000 chance. There's a big scary bar on a graph but look in the linked article and there's nothing that tells you about the other 999900 people who had no problem even close to that graph.
The other lie in the article is that it doesn't mention the other risks of COVID for males in the 12-15 age group. Obviously there are plenty of other ways of dying apart from myocarditis. For people of that age group, getting long COVID and being out of education can cut them out of things like college and destroy their entire futures. Killing their parents and ending up without support in life is also a potential serious problem and is noticeably reduced with the right vaccine. None of these benefits of vaccines are included in the article and so comparing the only known major risk of the vaccines myocarditis with one of the more minor risks of the vaccine
Finally myocarditis events are not all the same. Most vaccine myocarditis events don't kill and are recovered from completely. I haven't seen clear numbers but it seems that many of the COVID myocarditis events are serious.
So, why do I say the article is true when you ignore it's lack of context? Well there is an increased risk of myocarditis, with more events even than after infection in young males which is noticeable and higher even than the known risk of myocarditis from COVID with a Moderna 3rd dose. There are alternatives (Pfizer) which don't have this increased risk. It doesn't seem unreasonable for someone getting their kids vaccinated to aim for one of the vaccines which are safer if they can. In fact in the UK we only give under 18s Pfizer right now.
Re: Fuck no (Score:5, Insightful)
Others have beliefs that go against them getting it, like Christian Scientists.
What part of being a Christian Scientist means you have to eschew modern medicine? I want to be clear, I'm not disagreeing with you: I know these people are claiming an exemption. But really? It's bullshit. Christian Scientists pick and choose which medicine they want and which orders they want to follow. It's all a bunch of bullshit.
My religion says I can't pay taxes that fund war. Can I get out of paying half of my federal taxes?
Re: (Score:3)
Christian Scientists have been pretty consistent in what they are against for a very long time. I don’t think it is rational, but they have different beliefs.
Re: (Score:3)
Therefore: mocked for being irrational. I see no problem there.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There is nothing in the constitution that permits government to force you to take a vaccine
Agreed. But there is nothing in the constitution that prohibits mocking of fools. In fact, there is an amendment that specifically allows it.
The dead anti-vaxxers really deserve a Darwin award, but they are too numerous and Darwin awards can only be rewarded individually, not collectively. So contemptuous mocking will have to suffice.
Re: Fuck no (Score:4, Insightful)
It's still a shitty thing to do.
It's up to you to decide what kind of person you want to be, but that doesn't mean you get to be free from the consequences of those choices. If an appeal to virtue isn't enough for you, remember that it's in your own self-interest to at least act like a decent person.
Re: Fuck no (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that anti-vaxxers don't just kill themselves, they kill other people around them too. I believe that disqualifies them for a Darwin Award.
More importantly, it means we have an interest in getting them vaccinated to protect ourselves. Mocking them does not seem like the best way to do that. It was tried with fat people, and it didn't work.
Re: (Score:3)
"The problem is that anti-vaxxers don't just kill themselves, they kill other people around them too. I believe that disqualifies them for a Darwin Award."
Not if it's their family.
Re: Fuck no (Score:5, Insightful)
More importantly, it means we have an interest in getting them vaccinated to protect ourselves. Mocking them does not seem like the best way to do that. It was tried with fat people, and it didn't work.
Right. Mocking dead anti-vax influencers for the often irrational choice of not being vaccinated will not persuade their followers to get the shot. It will further alienate them and deepen societal rifts that will plague our societies for many years to come. Given the low fatality rate (especially among the fully vaccinated) of the Omicron variant the costs of alienation of a rather large portion of the society is simply much higher than whatever the benefits could be from this type of rhetoric.
And here is a suggestion that will solve the issue: In parallel to the vaccination effort make a Covid-19 infection effort for those who do not want to be vaccinated and prefer natural immunity (they must of course know that there are some risks involved). When infected they must stay in isolation for a specified amount of time and only stop the isolation once tested negative a couple of times. That way you will have a controlled immunization of the anti-vax component of the population.
Re: Fuck no (Score:5, Insightful)
And here is a suggestion that will solve the issue: In parallel to the vaccination effort make a Covid-19 infection effort for those who do not want to be vaccinated and prefer natural immunity (they must of course know that there are some risks involved). When infected they must stay in isolation for a specified amount of time and only stop the isolation once tested negative a couple of times. That way you will have a controlled immunization of the anti-vax component of the population.
Sorry, but that won't work. I have a collague at work who refuses to take the vaccine and is pretty quiet about it. Now some of my vaccinated colleagues have gotten the omicron strain or have family members that are confirmed cases. They are in quarantine. But we are pretty sure that this non-vaccinated colleague will refuse to test himself if showing symptoms. He has already said that this is just a big collective hysteria. He considers any kind of restrictions to be infringements on his personal freedoms.
Your suggestion only works if everyone follows the rules. But when people are more concerned with their perceived "personal freedoms" than anything else, it won't work. Sadly.
Re: (Score:3)
In the end, medicine should be a personal choice. For that matter, I think funding wars should also be a personal choice, but alas...
I'm all for personal choice up to the point where it affects others health/safety. And that's the whole crux of this issue. If you want to isolate yourself from others that you could inadvertently infect, great, make that personal choice not to get vaccinated. Same thing goes for funding wars...if you want to defend yourself, GTFO.
Re: Fuck no (Score:5, Insightful)
I know the J&J used some embryonic stem cells in development and there are religions beliefs against that too
One of the issues with this is that many vaccines are made from stem cells, so there are people that are claiming religious exemption to the COVID vaccine, but gladly getting a flu shot (because this whole thing is actually somehow political). A hospital in Arkansas is requiring those seeking an exemption based on that reasoning to sign an affidavit attesting they will also stop taking 30 over-the-counter medications that were also developed using fetal stem cell lines to include Tylenol, Tums, and ibuprofen. [bizpacreview.com] This is, frankly, how we have to treat people who decide that the COVID vaccine is "because of their religion." I stand by my original point: it's all a bunch of bullshit.
Re: Fuck no (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Fuck no (Score:5, Insightful)
The issue with so many "personal choice" arguments is that it's hard to impossible to draw a line, and a lot of people arguing for personal choice are concurrently arguing against choice for others.
Yup. The same people who are now crying, "My body, my choice" are the exact same people who are telling women they have no choice over their bodies, that the government knows best.
Funny how that works.
Re:Fuck no (Score:5, Insightful)
That just plain isn't true. Immunocompromised people are considered highest priority for getting vaccinated. All the severely immunocompromised people I know got either Pfizer of AstraZeneca vaccine as soon as they could.
Re: (Score:3)
The issue is just the opposite: poor immune responses to vaccination.
My cousin included. Got Janssen. No detectable antibodies after vaccination. She's since been boosted; I haven't asked whether her antibody levels have gone up since then.
Re:Fuck no (Score:4, Informative)
This is exactly right. It is wrong to take pleasure in the suffering of others. Nothing more really needs to be said.
Re: Fuck no (Score:3)
More to the point.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Then its ok to mock people who got vaccinated thinking they were safe, then died of COVID? (thats a pretty large group)
Its OK to mock people who died of vaccine side effects? (smaller group, but exists)
This rabbit holes goes a LONG way down, and yes, includes obesity, smokers, sports people, outdoor adventure fans, drivers, etc, etc.
The answer is so clearly 'Of COURSE NOT' that the actual people needing to be mocked are the retards posing the question.
Re: More to the point.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the question was about people who are publicly anti mask, anti vaxx, and anti everything else that could help stop the spread of Covid
If somebody dies of it even after taking the vax, I wouldn't hold that person to blame.
A vax is very effective, but not 100% (no vax for any disease is).
The rabbit hole isn't as deep as you think it is.
Re: (Score:3)
I think it may not be right to mock those who did not vaccinate (cos they were mislead into believing the anti vaxers), as long as they were not trying to get on a soap box and try to "convert" others.
Once they get on the soap box, and make a platform for themselves, then everything that happens to them, good or bad, is public, and it's fine for the public to comment on. I consider those as public figures, and they get the good and the bad that traditional public figures get. Which includes getting mocked.
O
Re: More to the point.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: More to the point.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
OK, what about smoking people dying from lung cancer? Pretty funny, right?
Yes, it is. How many decades have people been told smoking can and does lead to lung cancer? How many commercials, advertisements, studies by the CDC and others have reinforced this? And yet, these people still chose to smoke because they knew better than the experts.
If you willfully ignore or disdain the facts, you get what you deserve.
Re:More to the point.. (Score:5, Interesting)
The devil's in the details.
But first, I'll start by saying that today's society is twisted by this "new way" which imposes everyone to be just too damn nice all the time. Cancel Culture and the multitude of angry Internet mobs, ready to jump and endlessly shame anyone who even budges from the way of "THE MESSAGE", have created some sort of culture of fear. Fear of making jokes about large swaths of areas (which were totally fine 10, 15 years ago), for example.
Your post is a perfect example. On one hand, we have the subject of someone being mocked after doing pretty much everything in their power to throw themselves at danger (risk of being infected), while taking none (or close to none) of the safety measures (wearing masks, get vaccinated, keeping distance from others, etc). On the other hand, you start spewing nonsense about other groups (some related, some not).
Here's why your post is illogical:
1: "people who got vaccinated thinking they were safe, then died of COVID" - There are several subcategories here.
1a. People who got vaccinated and acted as if the vaccine is an invulnerable shield and dropped all precautionary methods - maybe we should mock them as well.
1b. People who had preexisting medical conditions, and their immune system was shot, vaccine wasn't as effective (antibodies still need to be created, if your body can't do it properly, well, we all *should* know what that means). No reason to mock them. They did their best with what they had.
1c. people who apparently got vaccinated (faked vaccinations), to quote your own words "smaller group, but exists". They damn well deserve to be mocked!
2: "Its OK to mock people who died of vaccine side effects?" - No, because they did their best and were unlucky as fuck. This is also not a new thing, vaccination always caused death to a very tiny percentage of people, since vaccines were introduced. It's funny, though, how nobody who brings this argument forward would compare death rates from a disease before and after vaccination. That wouldn't go well with their argument's strength, now, would it?
3: Obesity: That's a big subject, and being brief means being too brief, but I'll try, risking it. There are people who can't afford to eat healthy food. There are people who are predisposed to obesity, as well as cultures who also make it easy to get fat. There are also very rich interest groups (corporations from both sides of the fence) who would (unofficially) rather have everyone get obese, that have their profits reduced ("big is beautiful, etc"). As with everything else, there's, of course, a subgroup here which deserves being mocked. It's just much harder to identify without lengthy research.
4. Smokers: Hell yeah. They deserve being mocked. Smoking is stupid. (Disclaimer: I'm a smoker)
5. Sports people: I mock them sometimes, if they don't use safety equipment, and if they do and still die, I don't mock them, but I am not mourning them either. Dying despite your best efforts not to is not a good reason to mock someone.
6. Outdoor adventure fans: see #5. Pretty much the same thing applies.
7. Drivers: They ARE mocked all the time. What was your point, again?
So yeah, the answer is not clear at all. There are many, many shades of grey here. However, in case of antivaxxers who died of Covid, they are firmly planted in the "fuck yeah, let's mock them" category. If that hurt your feelings, that's your problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Fuck no (Score:4, Insightful)
Obesity isn't contagious, last I checked.
Re:Fuck no (Score:5, Insightful)
Got it. Now lets apply this rule to obesity.
I don't see fat people going around telling everyone else that they have to get fat too. I don't see fat people attacking weight training rooms trying to stop people [independent.co.uk]. I don't see fat people coming up on TV and saying "actually, if you weighed an extra 40 stone you would have much better health outcomes". I most of all definitely don't see fat people complaining to us all how the establishment is in a conspiracy to try to force them to become thinner.
When fat people start behaving like anti-vaxxers then they will deserve to be mocked.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't see fat people going around telling everyone else that they have to get fat too.
Kinda, actually. There’s a lot of messaging around these days that it’s ok to be “plus sized” and that sort of thing. I don’t put it in the same boat as anti-vaxxers (whom I firmly and frequently mock), and I’ve been fat myself, but I personally don’t consider such messaging to be helpful.
no. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:no. (Score:5, Insightful)
Your words strike me as saying "enterprise security products are useless because attackers are constantly developing (evolving) new attacks"; utter drivel.
Right now we're still playing Cat-and-Mouse. If we play the game well enough, hopefully it won't turn into Whack-a-Mole.
Absolutely not (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
It's a matter of likelihood. Look long enough and you can find someone who was hospitalized and nearly died from a thumbtack. That does not mean that people juggling cobalt 60 pellets are no more crazy than people using thumbtacks. It does not mean that I as a user of thumbtacks have no high ground to laugh at people who think juggling cobalt 60 is safe.
Just like Darwin award winners (Score:5, Insightful)
Mocking people who died of Covid is no different than all the Darwin award winners websites.
Re: (Score:3)
Mocking people who died of Covid is no different than all the Darwin award winners websites.
Actually it is different. Darwin award winners are largely stupid people who make mistakes. Anti-vaxxers however are largely vocal proponents of the spread of bullshit. Darwin award winners don't genuinely have a negative impact on society as much as anti-vaxxers do spreading not only literally a disease but also misinformation about how to prevent / treat it.
They are orders of magnitude worse to society than Darwin award winners and actively deserve to be mocked more.
Betteridge's law of headlines (Score:5, Insightful)
"Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."
So no. They chose to be what they were, and as noted, they chose to be the vehicle by which dozens of others may have gotten sick and some died alongside them.
We laugh and mock them because the real emotional reaction we are feeling requires that we scream at them.
Re: (Score:3)
We laugh and mock them because the real emotional reaction we are feeling requires that we scream at them.
Yea, but the more important message is this is what happens to you when you make bad life choices you would never have made if only you knew what was real. Yes, someone being a complete moron and killing them selves should be shown because we well past a half million of them and counting, to hide the truth only insulates them more and keeps covid killing the ignorant.
Let's Quote the Bible... (Score:5, Interesting)
What does the Bible say on this one? How about Proverbs 1:20-32 (KJV)
Wisdom crieth without; she uttereth her voice in the streets:
She crieth in the chief place of concourse, in the openings of the gates: in the city she uttereth her words, saying,
How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?
Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.
Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded;
But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof:
I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh;
When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you.
Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me:
For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD:
They would none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof.
Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices.
For the turning away of the simple shall slay them, and the prosperity of fools shall destroy them.
I'm gonna interpret that as a solid "yes".
Re: (Score:3)
Sigh...
"Yes" it is time to laugh at their calamity and mock their fear. Curse you Betteridge!
I'm not Christian. Can I be excused now? (Score:4, Insightful)
The bible provides very clear context here (Score:4, Interesting)
It shows that the same issues were being thought about 3000 years ago and a certain conclusion was reached then. If it was a good conclusion then - and it's appearance in Proverbs suggests it was believed to be - then it offers support for the view now.
Mocking them isn't super classy... (Score:4, Informative)
but also isn't wrong.
No is the correct answer (Score:3)
Is it wrong to mock juice cleanse instead of chemo (Score:5, Insightful)
By similar note, if you refuse to get a vaccine and shove ivermectin up your ass or inject bleach or shine UV light into your body or any other alternative medicine...you're a MEGA-FUCKING-DUMBASS...just like Steve Jobs. Kelly Ernby is a MEGA FUCKING DUMBASS who died at 46. Fortunately, she had no kids.
Look, I get no joy over calling Darwin Award recipients dumbasses or mocking them. I'm actually sick of putting down conservatives for acting stupid. It stopped being fun long ago. I wish they'd just wise up and accept medicine. While the world is better off without people like Kelly Ernby, the problem is they have a bad habit of reproducing.
No matter how horrible of a human being a parent is, I never wish for a kid to grow up without a mother or father. I wish all these horrible people would just accept common sense and live responsibly. I get no joy in pointing out they're MEGA FUCKING DUMBASSES. But by the same logic, I am not going to pretend this was a tragedy or something to be diplomatic about. Steve Jobs acted like an arrogant idiot and it cost him his life. Kelly Ernby did the same thing. I mock them without hesitation, but also without joy or schadenfreude.
Folks, please get vaccinated, wear a mask, stop being recklessly suicidal...chances are you have loved ones who will miss you. Listen to your fucking doctor...it's what adults do. Be an adult, not an impetuous child.
Schdenfreud (Score:4, Insightful)
It feels good to mock those you disagree with. If it feels good to mock those whom have died, that is a special kind of psychopathy.
You may think it feels good because you are doing something positive, to save other people's lives. But, no, it feels good because you enjoy the misery of others, or someone else being so wrong that they die from it, makes you feel superior to them. There is something wrong with your personality.
Re: (Score:3)
Depends on one thing (Score:3)
There's no doubt that any given invention - indeed every invention, thought, theory, and idea - requires testing, and therefore can fail in any number of ways.
I think we all know the risks associated with volunteering to be a guinea pig for any medical study.
So the idea of questioning a new vaccine is, to be ultra-fair, the responsible duty.
The question here is simply: at what point is that question either a) answered; or b) voided?
Personally, by May, I was fully satisfied (by March, I was sufficiently satisfied, which didn't matter because I didn't qualify until the end of May anyway). But I have a lot of advantages over many others -- I'm educated, I'm highly scientifically literate, I know how to interpret government statements (i.e. social sciences), and I know how to make my own decisions.
None of that means I'm always correct. It's looking pretty good this time though.
I wouldn't blame the average person for not having enough of those skills to make the correct decisions. I'd want to blame those local governments for inconsistent or incorrect messaging.
It's a different story entirely when we talk about anti-vaxxing fanatics, but those differences really hinge on the fanatics part more than the other part.
My understanding of their decisions, however, isn't worthy of mocking. The idea that the entire population would get through this faster without vaccines, and instead with whatever deaths may come, is a valid choice, albeit a misguided one. So they chose the more risky path, and they flipped the coin one too many times. That doesn't make them incorrect. That actually supports their argument -- silly as it is.
To anyone left who still isn't convinced, I ask you only to stop getting your medical advice from anyone standing in-front of a camera. If they are being watched by more than 1'000 individuals, then they will focus on avoiding riots, not giving good advice.
Instead, leave your medical advice to the same people you've always approached -- hopefully that's your family doctor. If your family doctor says you shouldn't get vaccinated, then I support you all the way -- whether I like it or not.
Was it covid? (Score:3)
Don't Punch Down (Score:5, Insightful)
If the person you are mocking is in a position of power and has the ability to influence others - then it's OK to punch up at them and make fun of them. If the person is below you - maybe they're less educated and have a hard time understanding COVID because they were misinformed, then it's best to bite your tongue. Yes, it's possible for people to be more influential and simultaneously below you, in which case you make a judgment call. Does their influence outweigh your social status?
Those people are kiling others w/ their stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck them. Both for spreading the plague and using up resources. Many ICUs are overrun [theguardian.com], and they're killing innocent people through their lack of responsibility.
This is the /r/HermainCainAward fundraiser [bonfire.com] for the Gavi Alliance, which has donated a billion vaccines so far to poor countries. [gavi.org]
I got a shirt and a mug, they're hilarious and I know at least one rabid pro-Trump antivaxxer who denied CV19 was real, caught it themselves, and are still firmly down the right wing conspiracy rabbit hole - basically saying all the same stupid fucking talking points that jackasses like Hulk Hogan are spewing. [marca.com] Disinformation kills. [i.redd.it]
To paraphrase something I heard someone else say about religion, "You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into."
We all have rights and responsibilities (Score:3)
We all have rights.
They have the right to refuse.
We have the right to tell them to keep away from us.
They can protest about their rights,
we can protest about their irresponsibility.
Balance their personal rights
and the broader communities right to safety.
responsibilities rights
Herd thinumity (Score:4)
Some Sars-2 like virus comes in and right wing/Facebook people start getting skeptical that the world is trying to save their lives ?
If you don't want the vaccine, fuck off and let the rest of us go and live our lives while you stand the chance of being dead.
I for one (vaccinated) don't give a shit about you anymore. Thin the herd!
Absolutely not - it's a very useful tool (Score:5, Informative)
Their lives were a waste, the best thing they can accomplish is being a bad example for other people. I've gotten 5 people vaccinated this way.
For what it's worth, the people who are just stupid and lazy about getting vaccinated are 20-40% (the amount who tell you they will quit a job if you force them to get vaccinated) but the people who are actually hardcore anti-vax dumbasses and will actually quit a job when push comes to shove are 1-2%. Making fun of dumbass people who died because they were too stupid and lazy to get vaccinated can and does convince the remaining 18-38%.
I've specifically used sorryantivaxxer.com to get 5 people who thought they didn't 'need' vaccination (because they could just avoid people who had covid, LOL) vaccinated. And they're all still alive, unlike 3 of my relatives who resisted getting vaccinated to the end, and died for it.
Fuck them all (Score:3)
Perhaps bad taste but not entirely off limits. (Score:3)
Dying of CoViD isn't fun and having a loved one dead isn't either. But if that person made lots of stupid noise against vaccination despite being well informed and having easy access to free vaccination or even an anti-vax / conspiracy activist, a witty remark is completely acceptable IMHO.
Stop framing this as a 'debate'. (Score:3)
Some people need a conflict narrative in crisis.
They picked vaccines because nobody in their right mind outside the party would agree with that position.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Mocking does nothing to convince them of their errors and only creates more strife and division.
The question was about mocking people who died of COVID, the only thing that will convince them of their errors is a seance.
Re:Yes (Score:5)
Anyone that still chooses to be unvaccinated isn't going to be convinced by anything. They're making an emotional decision, not one based on data.
Re: (Score:3)
They're dead. I think we're past the point of convincing them of the errors.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
"Mocking does nothing to convince them of their errors ..."
It doesn't intend to, nor is such a thing possible.
Mocking does, however, make it clear that certain thoughts and behaviors are unwelcome. The problem is that we don't have enough mocking with regarding to anti-masking, anti-vaxxing, etc. These positions should be driven out of public discourse through relentless humiliation.
Re:Yes (Score:4, Interesting)
It is wrong to mock or belittle others no matter how much they deserve it.
I just can't believe how silly and naive this statement is. I thought adults learn sooner or later that Barney the dinosaur is just a TV series for young children, but apparently modern society is becoming so infantilized we should all be put into kindergarden.
Do you really think that for example Chaplin shouldn't have filmed The Great Dictator [wikipedia.org] because it may hurt the feelings of Hitler and Mussolini? (I think the example is relevant to the discussion, so am I still godwinizing the thread?). Or that Voltaire shouldn't have written most of his pamphlets attacking tyrants and the church? Or that Mark Twain shouldn't have written the extremely funny Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offenses [virginia.edu] where he mocks Fenimore Cooper un-mercilessly? Or cartoonists pointing out the faults and ridiculousness of political figures should be jailed as wrong-doers?
I have no words...
Mockery helps negate toxic affirmation (Score:3)
Antis are manipulated by affirmation of their culture and that culture is degenerate. It kills innocent people.
Mockery makes examples of fools. When others see the example of the mocked and do not wish to join them. The dead are undamaged by mockery but respect for what they made the ADULT CHOICE to do (tacit support of biological destruction of innocent citizens) merits destruction. The antis are beyond DIRECT reach but not always peer pressure. Potential Nurglings see who is mocked and may not wish to jo
Re: (Score:3)
"If the question is reaching the unvaccinated, he is the exact wrong person to ask for strategy."
That is not the question. The question is how to deal with the people who prevent us from reaching the unvaccinated. We have always been able to reach them in the past, we have never had to deal with a political party and a propaganda network that interferes with the public good.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes [...]. Hiltzik is [...] dogmatic and dull.
No. It isn't wrong to mock the unvaccinated. What is wrong is to use a reversed argument from authority in a discussion. Whether Hiltzik is dogmatic or not has nothing to do with the truth of his statement. And a true statement remains true even if it's presented in a dull way. If you judge the truth of what you're told by the entertainment factor you're part of the problem with modern America.
The issue is actually more basic. The right to mock is a fundamental right, part of freedom of speech. CNN is once
Re:Yes (Score:4, Interesting)
Especially when the new hot Covid cure is drinking piss.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/b... [forbes.com]
Re:Mocking the dead is not a convincing tactic (Score:5, Interesting)
If I'm trying to convince you of something and go about it by mocking your dead family/relatives/friends, am I going to get a positive reaction or a negative one?
Actually, a close relative dying gets a pretty good response, that’s not who it’s for. They acutely feel the loss and the shock to whatever is up there as a brain and it lets some real info sink in. This is for the tens of millions of reality deniers, the more we show proof of ‘their own’ slowly dying in hellish conditions, the more they can be won back to reality. The only thing more effective would be for pastors and politicians to come forth and admit it’s real, it’s serious, and the vaccines are safe. But they aren’t stepping forward in any significant numbers because by now it is a lie too big to fail, a lie with blood and suffering of “the wrong people” on their hands.
Re: (Score:3)
To mock people who got vaccinated and still die?
If it is due to some other gross negligence or stupidity that serves as a warning to large groups of people then yes.
Or mock people who got vaccinated and suffer a severe reaction?
again, if as above, yes.
Personally I think everyone should feel free to mock whomever they please yet I'm not convinced mocking serves any constructive purpose whatsoever.
Well, facts and science aren’t working, perhaps if we show closeups of them gurgling and choking on what’s left of their own lungs as their brain dies from micro blood clots and paste it everywhere it will be harder to deny the reality of it because where they are headed not even their family will see them die.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To mock people who got vaccinated and still die?
No, as they weren't campaigning against it. Like the cops who protest the vaccine while it's their number one cause of death for two years straight. https://www.whsv.com/2022/01/1... [whsv.com] 100% dumb motherfuckers.
Or mock people who got vaccinated and suffer a severe reaction?
Still better than catching covid
Personally I think everyone should feel free to mock whomever they please yet I'm not convinced mocking serves any constructive purpose whatsoever.
Oh I'm certainly mocking this guy. https://www.forbes.com/sites/b... [forbes.com] Actually he might just be the best troll yet. Convincing people to drink their own urine.
Re:News for Nerds (Score:4, Informative)
You know Fox owns the NY Post? It’s a tabloid rag.
Re:News for Nerds (Score:4, Insightful)
People love a good train wreck. How your come up with the theory that Fox is now center is anyone's guess.
Re: News for Nerds (Score:4, Interesting)
Fox News is a bunch of different things, there is the part that employs actual journalists and delivers actual news, and I'd call it center, maybe center-right, but that's not new, it always has been for as long as I've been listening and watching.
Then there's the online side foxnews.com that is absolute garbage check out aisle tabloid level trash. There's a drinking game where you read a headline about a violent crime then wager shots on whether the offender is black, Hispanic, or has a middle eastern sounding name, because that's the only kind of story the site wants to carry. Well, or homeless, but that's always given in the headline so we skip those.
Then there's all the fox entertainment personalities that get mixed in with the Fox News brand. I can't stand them. But I listened to Rush Limbaugh for a long time on a Fox affiliated radio station, mostly because I like yelling at my radio while I drive to work. I'd get a huge kick when a Fox News anchor would come on during breaks and give a real news update that countered the narrative Rush was spinning about ongoing events a minute earlier. I feel bad for the real journalists at Fox News, that have to give updates during the breaks in the Tucker Carlson show, gag me with a spoon. I don't know how you all do it, but thanks for the effort all.
Re:The unmasked and the willfully unvaxxed.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Dehumanizing people is very, very dangerous. The willfully unvaxxed are stupid. And if they promote anti-vax theories to others, they're evil. But they are still human.
Re:This is rationalization. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think what's happening is there's a third party here that's been slowly converting reluctant people: experience.
Evidence? Because it looks obvious to me it’s nothing of the sort. What has been the biggest driver has been the work mandates. It’s all fun to own the libs by risking death and disability but as soon as the man will fire you the tail goes between the legs and they get the shot.
Look, (Score:3)
Read it yourself. [reddit.com]
There are plenty of Redemption awards, i.e. people who changed their minds and got vaccinated. Many of those are because someone linked them the subreddit and they read through all the deaths and shit themselves.
Re:The original doubters were Biden/Harris (Score:5, Informative)
Sure buddy
President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris have been pushing Americans to get inoculated against COVID-19. But a video on social media suggests that they actually had reservations about the safety of the vaccines.
"Keep doubting, They actually said this, it’s not editing," says the heading on the video, which contains clips of statements made by Biden and Harris appearing to cast doubt on the vaccine while they were campaigning last year.
In fact, the clips are selectively edited to take the statements out of context. The parts that are left out make clear that Biden and Harris were raising questions not about the vaccines themselves, but about then-President Donald Trump’s rollout of the vaccines and the risk that the effort would become rushed or politicized.
https://www.politifact.com/fac... [politifact.com]
Re:The original doubters were Biden/Harris (Score:5, Informative)
Once again, taken out of context since she said in the sentence prior, that if Fauci endorsed it she would be first in line
What she was expressing was doubting a known liar, not the vaccine
Re:All Relevant Questions (Score:5, Informative)
Is it wrong to mock cities who suffer skyrocketing crime after praising the idea of defunding the police, and hamstringing them during riots?
Crime rose across cities and states in 2020 (and to a lesser degree, 2021). The rise in crime hit red and blue states both, and it hit blue cities that didn't decrease their PD's funding (as well as those that actually INCREASED funding). It was largely a function of high school age kids not being in school and people being out of work. If you want to shit on a policy for increasing crime, it wasn't defund, it was closing schools longer than they needed to be closed.
Re:All Relevant Questions (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it wrong to mock perpetrators of cancel culture when the woke mob suddenly comes for them?
Ah yes the "woke mob" I remember when they cancelled the Dixie Chicks... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] Actually no wait it was rednecks and republicans.
Re:All Relevant Questions (Score:4, Interesting)
Ah yes the "woke mob" I remember when they cancelled the Dixie Chicks... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ [wikipedia.org]... [wikipedia.org] Actually no wait it was rednecks and republicans.
Pretty sure if your best example of "rednecks and republicans" exhibiting cancel culture requires going back twenty years to 2003, you are confirming that that group is not where the bulk of the problem lies.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Unfortunately, it wasn't the black population that wanted to defund the police, it was woke idiots.
Nobody wanted to defund the police per say. They simply wanted to reallocate some police funding to other groups so that police would not have to respond to situations for which they are not trained. Let the police focus on those tasks for which they are trained and have the specialized equipment to deal with. Let others deal with the mentally impaired and homeless. The idea being that this alternative setup is more effective, causes fewer deaths, and costs less money in the long run.
Then some idiot
Re:All Relevant Questions (Score:5, Informative)
Nobody wanted to defund the police per say. They simply wanted to reallocate some police funding to other groups so that police would not have to respond to situations for which they are not trained.
I guess you aren't a subscriber to the New York Times - Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police, by Mariame Kaba [nytimes.com]
The concept of defunding the police goes back (at least) to black liberation feminist and marxist activist Angela Davis in the 1960s, who wrote extensively on abolishing police and prisons. She and like-minded scholars form the ideological backbone of Black Lives Matter organization.
Rather than having somehow completely ineptly come up with a simple slogan which had no basis in what they actually meant (how probable is that?) the slogan was completely accurate. The idea that "oh no they must actually mean something more reasonable" was the invention of more moderate activists downstream to try and mitigate the fallout, knowing it would not go over well in the general electorate. So then you had true believers like Mariame Kaba come in to fight back against that and reassert the original meanings.
Ultimately, many or even most people who adopted the slogan probably *did* wind up meaning the more moderated version, as I doubt they were readers of the original literature. But it's worth knowing what the people "in charge" actually mean, because if moderated version actually does get traction then the less moderated version tends to be next.
In fact, a number of recently elected DAs throughout the country are more-or-less implementing 'abolish the polish' by refusing to prosecute crimes [cnn.com].
Re: (Score:3)
Again, you do not understand the situation. Minneapolis was going to abolish the "police department" and instead institute a department of public safety (I think that was the title). This department would include police officer, AS WELL AS safety officer, social workers, etc. The goal was to start over because most people understand the police departments will not change. There is no way to reform the departments as they are totally resistant to any type of change. But again, this is not doing away with pol
Re: (Score:3)
Who cares if people post stupid shit if it's not hurting anyone.
The obvious problem is that it is, in fact, hurting people on a tremendous scale.
Arguably, we may be better off without those who cannot separate the stupid shit on the internet from reality. But let's not pretend that organized campaigns of misinformation exist in a vacuum without consequences.
Re: (Score:3)
People not believing in vaccines is a relatively recent development
My great-great grandpa was an anti-vaxer, just so you know. When my great grandma had to get a vaccine, he tried to suck it out afterwards.
Re: (Score:3)