Anti-Vaxxers, Creationists, 9/11 Truthers, Climate Deniers, Flat-Earthers, Covid-19 deniers, et al have the specifics of their quirky views tied to deeper fundamentals. Those who found a home for all their various resentments in the person of Donald Trump can't change their views about vaccinations for the virus. Election fraud and disease hoax are welded together. Getting vaccinated is tantamount to accepting that there was no fraud in the 2020 election. — Bitter Crank

It's not just that.

Given the combative culture that has been present in so many societies for quite some time, and which capitalism thrives on, to do what another person tells you to do amounts to admitting defeat, it amounts to submitting oneself to another person, to enslave oneself to them.
And this is what some people are fighting against, not the vaccination.

What is sometimes happening now is that if a person who previously wasn't particularly enthusiastic about vaccination gets vaccinated, the pro-vaccers interpret their decision as "Finally, you have accepted the truth" or "Finally, you have decided to listen to science" and such. And this is what is so offensive: not being allowed to own one's intentions for one's actions. You bet people are going to fight against that.


The chance for a constructive approach to the covid pandemic was wasted long ago, somewhere around the time when capitalism was enshrined as the only good and just world order. We're now reaping the fruits of having normalized capitalism.

In fact, I was not saying you are wrong, only that your beliefs about my position were unduly influenced by your assumption that devaluation is inherently bad or only used for bad (and should thus be avoided). I was not saying it was bad or good; only that it is not inherently bad. — James Riley

Do you know of an example that isn't in the context of a military operation? Your analysis is correct; I'm making the assumption that devaluing groups is inherently a bad decision. The exception of "so I don't mind killing them" doesn't carry the same weight with a civilian. I'm sure I'm making a dogmatic error somewhere, but I haven't located an example where devaluing a group of people was the solution.

it goes both ways. — Srap Tasmaner

Indeed. In fact, like a little child, I feel like saying "But they started it!" LOL!

On the other hand, it is funny to watch the right start playing the victim card when the left starts giving them a taste of their own fucking medicine. Once they get their teeth kicked in with some push-back truth, they, with the tails between their legs, come back in trying their hand at "reason" and "calm" and "gravitas". So, our aggression and devaluation has served it's purpose: It's shown these bullies what it's like to be on the short end of the stick. Now they get a little more polite, they learn some manners, and don't venture out from under the fridge unless they are prepared to act like adults. They are still wrong, but at least they aren't throwing their weight around like they have been. Good stuff.

Taking the 'high road' in the moment looks like weakness, but we forget it's a choice. It is often frustrating to play by the rules while the opponent would cheat at every turn. — Cheshire

It's not about "taking the high road" -- and it's telling that people conceive of it this way.

It's about employing a strategy that may have a better chance of success, with less collateral damage.

Contempt breeds contempt. If you attack people, they will fight back, what else? That's not a way to change them, or at least not for long.

People get persuaded by goodwill, not by arguments, nor by force.

This is true, but in the American culture war, if that's part of the topic here, it goes both ways. — Srap Tasmaner

Sure. But the pro-vaccers are trying to present their contempt as justified, and as if people who are not enthusiastic about vaccination (and they are a very versatile group) are somehow obligated to accept this contempt.

This is simply megalomania on the part of the pro-vaccers. If they really are trying to make a difference, one would expect that they would go about it more constructively, instead of using medieval methods of coercion.

Do you know of an example that isn't in the context of a military operation? Your analysis is correct; I'm making the assumption that devaluing groups is inherently a bad decision. The exception of "so I don't mind killing them" doesn't carry the same weight with a civilian. I'm sure I'm making a dogmatic error somewhere, but I haven't located an example where devaluing a group of people was the solution. — Cheshire

I do know of an example and I lead with it: Trumpettes/Republicans.

However, you have entirely missed my distinction between devaluation and dehumanization when you say "so I don't mind killing them." That is the dehumanization used by many a human to make themselves feel better about killing, enslaving, etc.. That is a totally different than devaluation which is nothing more than an assessment of relative worth, of a person, a group, a position, etc.

If you want a non-military example of the benefit of devaluing a group of people, see every party in every election.

It's not a left/right thing and it hasn't been good for anyone.

I don't have a solution for the "tolerating intolerance" conundrum, but I'm confident everyone being intolerant about everything isn't it.

But the pro-vaccers are trying to present their contempt as justified, — baker

I agree at least that contempt is not helpful.

I was reminded, entering this little subtopic, of an interview I heard once with John Gottman, the University of Washington marriage expert: his number one sign that a relationship is going to fail is not arguing, but contempt.

In this context, I find that thought a bit chilling.

However, you have entirely missed my distinction between devaluation and dehumanization when you say "so I don't mind killing them." — James Riley

Intuitively, dehumanization seems like the extreme result of devaluation. I'm sure you have a reasonable threshold, but I don't see them as different types of activities.

I do know of an example and I lead with it: Trumpettes/Republicans. — James Riley

I disagree with them, but I don't see a need to devalue them. I need people that disagree with me in order to improve my ideas. A world where everyone agrees would eliminate this activity.

If you want a non-military example of the benefit of devaluing a group of people, see every party in every election. — James Riley

Every human organization, endeavor, or product will be subject to human error. If I devalue everyone subject to error, then I devalue myself.

I share the sentiment with regard to the struggle in today's landscape. Taking the 'high road' in the moment looks like weakness, but we forget it's a choice. It is often frustrating to play by the rules while the opponent would cheat at every turn. — Cheshire

Notice how, in this very thread, the defeated are trying to now take the high road? Conveniently forgetting how they call vaxers "sheep" and tools of big pharma, and whatnot? Treating us like shit?

Then, once the left stands up on it's hind legs and starts bringing them some of their own shit, they all of a sudden starting crying foul. Fuck them. And the gurney they are rolled in on.

They can dish it out but they can't take it. This kind of attitude, of mine, expressed here aggressively, is then used by them as they cry to mommy, the reasonable mediator (you?) about how bad people like me are. Don't fall for it. They'll be right back to slinging shit and being bully's once they get their way.

They can dish it out but they can't take it. This kind of attitude, of mine, expressed here aggressively, is then used by them as they cry to mommy, the reasonable mediator (you?) about how bad people like me are. Don't fall for it. They'll be right back to slinging shit and being bully's once they get their way. — James Riley

Nah, I don't judge you either.

contempt.

In this context, I find that thought a bit chilling. — Srap Tasmaner

Of course. In cultures where contempt has been normalized, vaccination tends to go slowly, despite there being enough of the vaccine. And things are going from bad to worse.


Instead, look at a country like Denmark: they have officially ended the pandemic, all restrictions have been cancelled. Marvelous things can happen when people don't insist on contempt.

My question is whether we should engage with them -- assuming I'm correct about their irrationality. — Xtrix

If you try to engage someone whom you believe to be irrational, then you are the one who is irrational, and at fault.

Here's part of the problem, for me: is time better spent organizing/mobilizing those who agree, or perhaps with those who are "on the fence"/ those who are more persuadable, who really just want to understand the issue and weight the evidence?

Unless you're a high politician or otherwise influential, this question is beside the point, you're just spinning your wheels, wasting time that would better be spent otherwise.

dehumanization seems like the extreme result of devaluation. — Cheshire

Anything can be taken to an extreme. That doesn't make it undesirable.

I disagree with them, but I don't see a need to devalue them. I need people that disagree with me in order to improve my ideas. A world where everyone agrees would eliminate this activity. — Cheshire

You like a hard stone upon which to whet your edge. That's a good thing. But if that stone is banging against your edge, it has lost it's value.

Every human organization, endeavor, or product will be subject to human error. If I devalue everyone subject to error, then I devalue myself. — Cheshire

Notice your use of the word "every", "everyone". Take it down a notch. That is extreme. If you see the world in such extremes, it is no wonder you can't appreciate the nuance of relative value.

I'm confident everyone being intolerant about everything isn't it. — Srap Tasmaner

You might be right. All I know is, some times it is good to not tolerate something.

You have not demonstrated goodwill toward them, and that's why they don't listen to you. — baker

Quite the opposite. I have— they haven’t.

Which is exactly what the question pertains to. If anyone wants to enter a discussion in good faith and a spirit if goodwill, I’m all for it. But not only do they not do so, their views (through their actions or non-actions) harm everyone.

You just expect others to be other than they are, as if they owed you that. — baker

I’m not interested in your continual projections and diagnoses.

They don’t “owe” me anything.

Notice your use of the word "every", "everyone". Take it down a notch. That is extreme. If you see the world in such extremes, it is no wonder you can't appreciate the nuance of relative value. — James Riley

It's a rare deliberate use of a universal. All human knowledge is subject to unknown errors. It's assumed to be undeniable as the basis of critical rationalism; until critical rationalism is shown to be an error.

Nah, I don't judge you either. — Cheshire

Go ahead and judge. It's human. Value, it's human.

I need people that disagree with me in order to improve my ideas. — Cheshire

It's more mundane than that. Imagine if you were to boycott the products and services provided by anyone who isn't particularly enthusiastic about vaccination. You'd be hungry, cold, homeless, and naked.

The people who aren't particularly enthusiastic about vaccination are still people who are making the economy possible. So to dismiss them just like that (either as subhuman, or as irrational or childish) is to dismiss the work they otherwise get done, and from which you benefit.

Go ahead and judge. It's human. Value, it's human. — James Riley

Suppose hypothetically I place a low value on a human and then fail to realize when they produce a good idea. It's only to my detriment.

It's a rare deliberate use of a universal. All human knowledge is subject to unknown errors. It's assumed to be undeniable as the basis of critical rationalism; until critical rationalism is shown to be an error. — Cheshire

I don't even know what that meant in the context of our discussion.

Quite the opposite. I have— they haven’t. — Xtrix

And blaming them is helping you how exactly?

Suppose hypothetically I place a low value on a human and then fail realize when they produce a good idea. It's only to my detriment. — Cheshire

Suppose you don't place a low value on a human and then end up a prospect? That could be to your detriment.

I don't even know what that meant in the context of our discussion. — James Riley

The position I'm putting forward is the attitude of critical rationalism. To see every person as a source of knowledge for the sake of working closer to the truth. Devaluing people is counter this particular philosophy.

The position I'm putting forward is the attitude of critical rationalism. To see every person as a source of knowledge for the sake of working closer to the truth. Devaluing people is counter this particular philosophy. — Cheshire

There is your extreme again, assuming devaluation is the assessment of no value. Just because I think your widget isn't worth what you are asking for it, doesn't mean I think it's worthless.

People get persuaded by goodwill, not by arguments, nor by force. — baker

So you’re indirectly answering my question: it’s not worth engaging with people who are actively harming others, the planet, etc.

Why? Because having “goodwill” towards those who are actively harming you is not only next to impossible, but undesirable.

If they’re not persuaded by reason, then force is all that remains. Hence the vaccine mandates.

My point is that as long as one is looking for happiness outside, one is going to be faced with an endless amount of problems.
— baker

Well, I never took you for an optimist. This reads like early Woody Allen.

And yet despite everything you say there I have known many people who are happy and found happiness readily achievable. And they weren't rich or powerful. They just went about their business taking an interest in some matters and not others, working, raising a family, gardening, reading and finding humor in many things. And sure, it's hard to do this is a warzone or when sick, but frankly it isn't impossible. — Tom Storm

Working, raising a family, gardening, reading and finding humor in many things needn't necessarily be done in an effort of looking for happiness outside.

My reference was to the Buddhist concept of looking for happiness inside. This means that one's happiness doesn't depend on how the world is, or how one manages to make it. Looking for happiness inside doesn't mean that one stops engaging with the world, on the contrary, one still engages with it, it's just that one doesn't believe that working, raising a family, gardening, reading and finding humor in many things is what is going to make one happy.

Then, once the left stands up on it's hind legs and starts bringing them some of their own shit, they all of a sudden starting crying foul. Fuck them. And the gurney they are rolled in on. — James Riley

Basically, yes.

Suddenly it’s all about empathy, contempt, and how generally mean we are.

Patience and empathy have their limits. If you don’t listen to reason, evidence, and argument — you leave little recourse.

Well, expect backlash.

Patience and empathy have their limits. If you don’t listen to reason, evidence, and argument — you leave little recourse. — Xtrix

The thing is that you see yourself as the arbiter of rationality.

If you don't see the problem with that ...

And blaming them is helping you how exactly? — baker

Helping with what? They are to blame, bringing everyone down with them, and patience is rightfully wearing thin.

Goodwill doesn’t last forever.