|
So, no profits in the Hollywood sense.
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 18:41 |
|
|
Local news posted a facebook bit about how not enough teens are getting the HPV vaccine. Queue the anti vaxxers attacking. Why why oh why do these people bother me so much?  I can't even
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
Tigntink posted:Local news posted a facebook bit about how not enough teens are getting the HPV vaccine. Queue the anti vaxxers attacking. Because they are completely ignorant of how vaccines work and such ignorance results in suffering for people who could have gotten a vaccine. This also results in a increase of risk of cancer for women who contract it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
Tigntink posted:Local news posted a facebook bit about how not enough teens are getting the HPV vaccine. Queue the anti vaxxers attacking. They're worse than people who believe in faith healing. The death of a child because the parents refused to get them medical help when necessary is a tragedy. The death of a child because another child's parents chose not to get their child medical help is an atrocity.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
Seriously, how do these people just not kill themselves from fear? They don't trust the CDC, NHS, anything in the government, scientists, doctors... There's been 32 deaths out of 57,000,000 vaccinations administered and those were of questionable relation to the hpv vaccine but apparently that's too many! I realize there's no logic to it but loving christ - why not just live in a bunker for the rest of their lives so they don't infect others with their stupid?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
Tigntink posted:Seriously, how do these people just not kill themselves from fear? They don't trust the CDC, NHS, anything in the government, scientists, doctors... Because their lives aren't actually so bad due to them still benefiting, almost entirely unknowingly of course, from all those institutions and people. None of them wants to go back to massive child mortality and permanent paralysis because of measles or whatever, but they also magically don't want vaccines anymore due to ignorance and don't you dare try to educate them because that might cause them to have hurt feelings! First world problems, but with lethal consequences for some random kids, basically. Incidentally yes I do support government simply making vaccinating your kids mandatory and gently caress you and all your dumb made up reasons for an exemption. Fun story about anti-vax religious nutters in the Netherlands. We got this bible belt of I don't even know exactly what idiotic denomination who basically believe that everything that happens is gods plan and nobody should try to interfere. So don't vaccinate your kids or build a fence in your backyard so your kid can't fall in the river or whatever. Then there was a measles outbreak and they went to interview some of these people and the interviewer noticed they were wearing seatbelts. So he asked about it and they said "yeah we're technically against that too but it's the law so...". I'm not impressed by the word of your god when you yourself give a seatbelt law higher priority, so vaccinate those loving kids already. Orange Devil fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Feb 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
ChaseSP posted:Because they are completely ignorant of how vaccines work and such ignorance results in suffering for people who could have gotten a vaccine. This also results in a increase of risk of cancer for women who contract it. They're not just ignorant, they know vaccines don't spread disease, but they deliberately lie so they can feel important. That's a pretty good reason to be incensed. The biggest mistake you can make with people like that is giving them the benefit of the doubt and think they're just crazy/naive/stupid to buy into conspiracy theories. The fact is that nobody is that dumb, they use the "movement" as a support group so they can inflate each other's egos in lieu of actually accomplishing anything. gently caress 'em.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
Lemma posted:They're not just ignorant, they know vaccines don't spread disease, but they deliberately lie so they can feel important. That's a pretty good reason to be incensed. The biggest mistake you can make with people like that is giving them the benefit of the doubt and think they're just crazy/naive/stupid to buy into conspiracy theories. The fact is that nobody is that dumb, they use the "movement" as a support group so they can inflate each other's egos in lieu of actually accomplishing anything. gently caress 'em.  That's...a really sweeping generalization that's not really borne out by the evidence. You're saying that no anti-vaxer actually believes that vaccines cause or spread disease, that they're all just lying to feel important, and that they know they're wrong. I've personally known people who have switched from anti-vax to at least neutral on the issue with education, because they previously believed that vaccines cause disease. I literally don't even know why you would say that no one believes that vaccines cause or spread disease, and take such a dismissive stance on the issue. That's a far bigger mistake than assuming that an anti-vaxer is misinformed or naive, because assuming that someone knows the truth creates the assumption that they will, given the right circumstances, act in line with the truth. There's no evidence to support the idea that these people will ever simultaneously hold their views and still get vaccinated when it would be too dangerous not to. Orange Devil posted:Because their lives aren't actually so bad due to them still benefiting, almost entirely unknowingly of course, from all those institutions and people. And what's worse - it will always be "unknowingly" because a lot of them also believe that herd immunity is a lie, while benefiting directly from its existence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
I've probably posted this before, but my uncle blamed his business that he opened on a personal loan(because the bank wouldn't give him a business loan) going bankrupt on Obama. His bankruptcy was in Fall 2008. Obama's inauguration was in January 2009. We called him out on it and he said we just didn't understand because we're liberals.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:I've probably posted this before, but my uncle blamed his business that he opened on a personal loan(because the bank wouldn't give him a business loan) going bankrupt on Obama. His bankruptcy was in Fall 2008. Obama's inauguration was in January 2009. We called him out on it and he said we just didn't understand because we're liberals. drat liberals - didn't you know that every problem since Obama was born is all his fault since he is the president now?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
It's a well known fact that liberals are too stupid to understand that Obama is such a horrible President that he actually breaks the laws of physics, making the consequences of his policies become non-linear.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
He came up with some bullshit explanation about how Obama's momentum in the campaign made lawmakers start passing liberal laws before Obama was even elected, but when we asked him for specifics he didn't have any. Imagine that. EDIT: For another example of how smart this dude is, he got kicked out of pharmacology school for stealing drugs from the lab and selling them for spending money. He tried to claim his admissions counselor told him it was okay to do. A Fancy 400 lbs fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Feb 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:He came up with some bullshit explanation about how Obama's momentum in the campaign made lawmakers start passing liberal laws before Obama was even elected, but when we asked him for specifics he didn't have any. Imagine that. That admissions counselor's name: Barack Obama.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:EDIT: For another example of how smart this dude is, he got kicked out of pharmacology school for stealing drugs from the lab and selling them for spending money. He tried to claim his admissions counselor told him it was okay to do. Sounds like he is even more spoiled than most conservatives in terms of answering for his awful decisions if all this cost him was his spot in grad school, since I know a number of people who have gone to state prison for doing exactly this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:
Well, okay, I should explain: Some folks hear about the vaccines being dangerous, they think "the hell? Is this for real?" and eventually seek out the information they need to get set straight on the issue. Those aren't the people I'm talking about. If your mind is changed by the facts, you automatically don't fall into the category I'm describing here, you're just a normal person who got some bad info. That can happen to anyone. What I'm talking about are the people who, despite any amount of evidence or convincing, not only aren't swayed but actually seem to become enraged at you for contradicting their notion that vaccines are poison/government did 9-11/Obama is a satanist. You're right that people should get the benefit of the doubt if there's still a chance that they've just been misled, but once you give them a convincing argument you'll know where they fall, depending on whether they change their minds or if they defend their belief even more zealously than before. The only reason to get angry at someone for disproving their conspiracy is if they have a significant amount of their identity or self-worth wrapped up in it, you are attacking not just their belief but their character. I highly recommend this Slacktivist article that explains the phenomenon much more articulately than I can.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
Edit - drat, beaten even to the anti-christ Obama  Kugyou no Tenshi posted:
There's a strange crowd of people attracted to conspiracy theory poo poo, in general, whose beliefs are more like a superstition or (dangerous) fantasy that they hold onto because it benefits them emotionally. They don't behave like people who actually believe that Y2k is going to crash all computers, or that the world was ending in 2012, or that Obama is a communist from Kenya who is going to turn American into a concentration camp using the UN. If they did, they would have ditched their electronics on New Years Eve, or quit their job and blew all their money in 2011, or actually took up arms against their government or fled. Instead, they just want to post on Facebook about it, which does nothing but show everyone how clever they are and how we're all just sheeple. That other poo poo requires more work, but if you seriously believe the President is the antichrist, are you really just going to whine to coworkers about it? I know they exist and I've read the stories about people who condemned their children to suffer because they believe vaccines are harmful, but the people I've met who would describe themselves as "anti-vaxx" behave more like children who decided that vaccines carry cooties and they're going to call out all the other kids who stupidly gave themselves cooties. It's just a fear that vaccines might be dangerous, the same way aspartame might give you cancer and there might be a spider crawling up behind you while you're reading this. Knight fucked around with this message at 00:40 on Feb 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
Rosalind posted:Yeah my dad runs a small business and complains that they made no profit the year before or that all the profit was eaten up by taxes. Then he tells me that the taxes take forever and that it costs him a ton of money just to file his taxes. He is constantly telling me that he's going to close his business or fire all his employees "because Obama made things too hard."
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
Lemma posted:The only reason to get angry at someone for disproving their conspiracy is if they have a significant amount of their identity or self-worth wrapped up in it, you are attacking not just their belief but their character. But that still doesn't mean they don't believe it. A person can believe a lie without knowing it's a lie, and someone who has wrapped themselves in the lie can believe that the opposing evidence is, itself, the lie. It's similar to the people who deny evolution - there's a mountain of evidence that everything they say is total bunk, but they truly believe that the real scientific evidence is the falsehood. And holy gently caress that Slacktivist article is kind of frightening. He's taking anecdotal data that we can't even actually verify, data that would normally require extraordinary proof because he claims that the "they don't believe it" statement applied to everyone repeating the myth, and claiming that people don't actually believe the conspiracy theories they repeat. He goes from "they're not interested in facts or reality", which would support "they believe it, and disbelieve the opposing evidence", to "they don't actually believe it to begin with". I don't think it's eloquent or even useful, simply because it's so wholly wrong on the general level. Yes, there are people who forward stuff just because they think it's "interesting if it's true" or whatnot, but to generalize his personal experience - again, an experience we cannot even verify occurred - is irresponsible. While it might have been true of the people starting that specific rumor, it was certainly not categorically true of the people spreading that rumor. Knight posted:I don't completely agree with Lemma's post but it would not shock me to see someone who refused a vaccination start thinking about it the second their decision starts to actually inconvenience them. Yes, but there's a difference between "rethinking your position" and "simultaneously stating that vaccinations cause/spread disease and accepting one yourself". At best, it's "the only moral X is my X" special pleading if they continue spreading the lie, but there are HIV-positive AIDS deniers that will not go on retrovirals because they still believe that the pills cause AIDS, not the virus, indicating that they do, actually, believe that position.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
Knight posted:Edit - drat, beaten even to the anti-christ Obama There's another aspect here, namely fear. The possibility of your child being autistic, or getting sick and dying, is a legitimately scary idea, and parents have to find some way to cope. In reality, there is nothing you can do to guarantee your child's safety: life is random and bad things happen with no obvious cause. So, as odd as it seems, it's comforting to invent a reality where you can take a definite step like "avoid vaccinations". Just like it's comforting to believe that 9/11 or Sandy Hook weren't just random tragedies, even when you have to make up this huge, evil conspiracy in order to do it. I think the key is that most of these people know the conspiracy isn't really true in the kind of way that would make the whole world paralyzingly terrifying, but they're able to compartmentalize it away and avoid the cognitive dissonance when they use it to justify not worrying about whatever motivated them to start the belief.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
Rosalind posted:Yeah my dad runs a small business and complains that they made no profit the year before or that all the profit was eaten up by taxes. Then he tells me that the taxes take forever and that it costs him a ton of money just to file his taxes. He is constantly telling me that he's going to close his business or fire all his employees "because Obama made things too hard."
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 06:41
|
|
|
not a forward, but a rant on a clemson football message board that's particularly awfulquote:Re: OT: pretty scary stuff here Reply
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 07:34
|
|
|
That's a pretty heartbreaking story, then I get to the part where he apparently thinks that The Citadel is part of the U.S. Armed Forces instead of a sleepaway camp for Conservative fetishists and start going 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 07:41
|
|
|
This is me being petty, but I stop reading anything where the author masks profanity. Either swear or don't swear, but don't pretend like typing fvck somehow fools the baby Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 08:14
|
|
|
Knight posted:Instead, they just want to post on Facebook about it, which does nothing but show everyone how clever they are and how we're all just sheeple. That other poo poo requires more work, but if you seriously believe the President is the antichrist, are you really just going to whine to coworkers about it? Exactly. The point is you have to be interpreting people's intentions through the things they actually do. Posting the occasional message on Facebook from the comfort of your iPad would be downright goddamn baffling behavior if you really thought Obama was destroying the country- but it's totally understandable if your only motivation is to "show everyone" What Kind of Person You Are, telling them "I'm the kind of guy who is OUTRAGED that welfare cheats are getting a free ride!" The trouble arises when the only things you have to define yourself are things you think you hate. Kugyou no Tenshi posted:But that still doesn't mean they don't believe it. A person can believe a lie without knowing it's a lie, and someone who has wrapped themselves in the lie can believe that the opposing evidence is, itself, the lie. It's similar to the people who deny evolution - there's a mountain of evidence that everything they say is total bunk, but they truly believe that the real scientific evidence is the falsehood. Sure it does. Repeating a lie until you forget that it's a lie doesn't change the fact that it's a lie. And again, unless you're repeating false information in good faith (i.e. you were genuinely misled, which can be provably demonstrated to not be the case once you refute mountains of evidence and reveal an emotional stake in maintaining the lie) you are volitionally spreading false information. You don't get to knowingly spread false information habitually, to everyone you can, every day, and then turn around and say "but I'm not some kind of a liar!" The act of lying makes us liars, regardless of how we might try to spin it. "It might not be the truth, but it's my truth." This applies also in the case of "passing on a story because it would be interesting IF true." Our reluctance to verify (at the risk of being disappointed if the story turns out to be false) betrays our intentions- not to share facts, but to share something we would prefer to be true. (By the way, the article specifically mentions that the people starting the rumor had very mundane, simple motives- they were trying to make their competition look bad. The motivation of the people active in spreading the rumor was totally different.) quote:And holy gently caress that Slacktivist article is kind of frightening. He's taking anecdotal data that we can't even actually verify, data that would normally require extraordinary proof... Verify? I mean, these specific cases he's talking about are anecdotal, sure, but come on, who hasn't witnessed people in everyday life exhibiting this exact behavior? (read: this very thread.) Anecdotal evidence stands in this case because every human alive has the same anecdote. Sure, we don't know for a fact his specific story about the dossier isn't something he just made up, but what difference does it make if his point was correct? We aren't generalizing his experience, we're referring back to the experience each and every one of us has had (maybe even on both sides of the equation) when we read the details of his story. I mean, I know where you're coming from- just about all of us are prone to the same knee-jerk reaction of trying to out the proponent of an idea as somehow unqualified to share said idea, thus discrediting it; this is how we are taught to approach everything. (Hence the popularity of political talk shows.) But we're not talking about something that's going into a peer reviewed journal- there are no hard numbers or standards of measurement for what is basically a mental trick people use on themselves. Again, actions are what's important, those can be observed by anybody. Granted, I still don't know for sure all this is true, but it explains enough about otherwise baffling behavior that I feel safe regarding it as accurate. People on this forum have often asked, "how can people in function in society when they believe every government body/educational institution/research paper is in on the same massive conspiracy? Simple: they don't believe it. They just really, really want it to be true, and for some people that's good enough. quote:There's no evidence to support the idea that these people will ever simultaneously hold their views and still get vaccinated when it would be too dangerous not to. Wait- you have no evidence that people might say one thing while doing the exact opposite? What wonderful planet are you living on where this is true?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 09:58
|
|
|
Soonmot posted:This is me being petty, but I stop reading anything where the author masks profanity. Either swear or don't swear, but don't pretend like typing fvck somehow fools the baby Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 13:24
|
|
|
Tigntink posted:Local news posted a facebook bit about how not enough teens are getting the HPV vaccine. Queue the anti vaxxers attacking. Are there any statistics that show higher levels of preventable illness among anti-vacs than the general population? I can't imagine many willingly allowing themselves to be documented by a  group of scientists .
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
Soonmot posted:This is me being petty, but I stop reading anything where the author masks profanity. Either swear or don't swear, but don't pretend like typing fvck somehow fools the baby Jesus. It might be that the forum automatically censors that sort of thing, or that mods immediately take down any profanity. It's dumb, but a lot of boards work like that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
I don't remember when or how I got subscribed to the Texas Values mailing list, but they send out constant emails about how conservatives are always under attack and how you should donate money TODAY to help out the cause. I got this one today that was probably the most absurd headline yet: If this "gay marriage" attack succeeds, say goodbye to the Texas Constitution Starting with referring to marriage in quotation marks when talking about gays and then devolving into a nice slippery slope that if the gay marriage ban is overturned, then the Texas constitution will be worthless.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
Ratmtattat posted:I don't remember when or how I got subscribed to the Texas Values mailing list, but they send out constant emails about how conservatives are always under attack and how you should donate money TODAY to help out the cause. Man, hyperbole gets you everything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
Hey, don't call Republicans racists or homophobes, that's just the MSM duping you!quote:An Identity given to them by liberal politicians and propoganda from a complicit media. Wanting to secure borders and deny blanket amnesty is not racism. Not wanting to spend federal tax dollars paying for abortions is not a war on woman. Not wanting to force religious organizations to violate their beliefs does not make them bible thumpers. Wanting to see ID to vote is not racism. Wanting to cut off aid based on drug tests is not racist. Wanting to crack down on fraud in welfare, medicaid, medicare, disability is not a war on the poor or seniors. I can go on and on. But I have to admit it is a successful strategy, you are the shining example. You buy into it hook line and sinker.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
Interlude posted:Hey, don't call Republicans racists or homophobes, that's just the MSM duping you!
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
Guilty Spork posted:"Why do people think we're racist, homophobic, and anti-poor, just because we have a laundry list of policies that disenfranchise and actively hurt those people?!" That's all just just been coincidental for over two hundred years jeez.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
Guilty Spork posted:"Why do people think we're racist, homophobic, and anti-poor, just because we have a laundry list of policies that disenfranchise and actively hurt those people?!" "It's almost like they think we had a strategy that we've been using since the 50's to court the disenfranchised racists who left the Democratic party during/after the civil rights era..."
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
Looks like I'll be getting some cheap stock soon!
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
This is less "crazy" than most emails, but someone sent this link to me: http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/a-single-picture-to-show-that-many-nations-are-economically-doomed It seems like a lot of hand-waving that boils down to "no one should get money from the government" but am I missing something?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
Lemma posted:Sure it does. Repeating a lie until you forget that it's a lie doesn't change the fact that it's a lie. Well, yes, it does. Something's only a lie if you legitimately believe that it's false. It is never lying to state something that you believe is true. And even then, this statement presumes that they thought that it was false in the first place and simply forgot that it was, which isn't the case; obviously if you think that evidence could conceivably convince them, then even you yourself agree that they started out thinking it was true, because evidence wouldn't convince them under any circumstance if they started out thinking it was false. Being stubborn in the face of evidence is different from being convinced by evidence and continuing on anyway, and if you legitimately aren't convinced by mountains of evidence, then you're wrong, but you're not lying. These people aren't secretly convinced by the evidence but deciding to continue on anyway; they simply aren't convinced by the evidence. They believe what they're saying in spite of it, and it is simply impossible to lie by stating something that you legitimately believe is true, even if your belief in that truth is completely and 100% unjustified. Yes, people that spread false information, especially harmful false information, are doing something wrong by doing so. But that doesn't mean that the wrong thing that they're doing is lying, and it's not defending them to say that they aren't lying. It's like the difference between murder in the first and second degrees; you aren't exactly defending someone by saying that they didn't plan to kill someone, but the distinction is still important, and saying that everyone that murders someone must have gone in intending to kill someone is just incorrect.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
Hahaha in my head I just screamed ARE YOU READY TO ROCK!? Luckily i'm still young and if I lose my 401(a) ill be ok. Feelin bad for other folks though. edit: That graphs dates look really wacked out. Is it implying the next stock crash will be on/around 4/2/2014?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
Lemma posted:Verify? I mean, these specific cases he's talking about are anecdotal, sure, but come on, who hasn't witnessed people in everyday life exhibiting this exact behavior? quote:Sure, we don't know for a fact his specific story about the dossier isn't something he just made up, but what difference does it make if his point was correct? You have literally proven my point. The fact that you have responded angrily, with insults, assumptions, and distortions of what I have said just further bolsters it. You're doing exactly what the author of that piece said you would do because you don't actually believe what he's saying, rather than responding as someone who does believe would, according to his assertions. So either you don't believe what he's saying and are passing it along with the intention to misinform, proving him right, or you believe what he says, think you are passing along true information, and getting angry that someone would disagree with what you believe to be true, proving him wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 18:41 |
|
|
I meant in the same sense that I don't know for certain that the earth is round. Most everything most people know about science is taken on faith that the person who told them the fact was right. Why is that a problem if the information is indeed actionable? Edit: I feel like we're on the verge of a thread derail, so I'll shift this particular line of discussion over to the "9/11 Trutherism" thread. Lemma fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Feb 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 22:07
|
|