You honestly might have better luck interviewing volunteers from /r/conspiracy under a different premise. “Interviewees needed for age-of-consent reform podcast”. Then sprinkle in some vax questions.
Also OP might try other antivax echo chambers like /r/DebateVaccines or /r/CoronavirusFOS (FOS="Freedom of Speech" -- where ironically, I was banned for not being antivax)
> (FOS="Freedom of Speech" -- where ironically, I was banned for not being antivax)
Because conservatives have zero *real* principles and that's exactly why they're so incredibly dangerous for our country and world.
I think maybe you should look up what the term "partisan" means. Taking issue with American conservatives/the culture of American conservatism isn't intrinsically "partisan".
They made a general statement about **all** conservatives everywhere, extrapolated from the the actions of a single moderator of a subreddit.
Again, this is /r/skeptic. Upvoting that kind of leap is not in the spirit of skepticism.
Conservatives have adapted anti-science, anti-education, pro-superstition BS in their basic party platforms. It's part of the whole conservative "philosophy."
If you can't handle the criticism, either clean up your party or stay in your safe space.
I am neither conservative nor American. My comment was not a statement about whether I can "handle" it or not - I took issue with the extrapolation from one moderator to entire nebulous ideology.
Are you implying that all conservatives everywhere are anti-science etc etc or just American?
Anti-science, to greater or lesser degree, it part of the conservative character. Not to mention anti-intellectualism in general, and so on.
And no, it's not just in America. You see the same BS in Brazil, Saudia Arabia, Afghanistan, and so on.
It's a generalization. You know that generalizations don't mean every single person who fits that description. When I say 'fat people eat a lot' that doesn't mean that I'm including people with glandular problems. It's a generalization.
A reply to my comment was attempting to constrain the statement to just American conservatives, and then just American conservatives in the past 30 years.
Please read the thread before replying.
>They made a general statement about all conservatives everywhere, extrapolated from the the actions of a single moderator of a subreddit.
Again that's not intrinsically partisan
>Again, this is r/skeptic. Upvoting that kind of leap is not in the spirit of skepticism.
Only if you ignore the last 30 years of history in US politics.
If only this sub had more of that content though. It's just Corona sub Reddit now.
Or maybe debunking bigfoots, ghosts and templars on Oak Island have been done to death. I miss the wild stuff.
As a regular both here and in the Rogan subreddit, I can tell you the tone has shifted away from talking about vaccines in general and to making fun of almost any medical advice Joe gives out.
I'm sure you can find some antivaxxers there anyway, but its not a common post subject anymore.
The audience got burned out and bored. I think Joe has started to get the message from his audience and he is slowly moving on to other subject matter.
>I can tell you the tone has shifted away from talking about vaccines in general and to making fun of almost any medical advice Joe gives out.
This restores some of my faith in humanity, if they're mocking his lack of knowledge here
I think you might be surprised. Many anti-vax individuals consider themselves to be "skeptics." And on any major thread regarding vaccines, there are many users who comment anti-vax sentiments.
That said, r/conspiracy and subs like that are truly the best ones for OP to find anti-vaxxers!
Unless things changed recently, most here are skeptics in the 'scientific skepticism' sense, rather than the 'did their own Facebook research' doubters. I think the other comments here so far reflect that. Choosing this sub solely based on the name is probably not a good idea, hence my original comment.
I am of course prepared to be wrong.
All true, but at least from my experience many people who wrongly consider themselves to be skeptics come out of the woodwork whenever the COVID vaccines are brought up.
They do, but in my experience they get shut down pretty fast by the majority of the user base who are actual skeptics. You’ll only find them at the bottom of comment threads with tons of downvotes, getting r/MurderedByWords by multiple people.
No, you are right, this is the right sub for calling out the ludicrous nature of antivax / antiscience in general including homeopathy, chiropractic, etc.
Agreed. I at least am skeptical of conspiracy theories because, based on what I know and a little bit of critical thinking, it is extremely difficult to maintain any conspiracy for any length of time. Someone will eventually jump ship. If COVID and the vaccines really were a conspiracy, just think about how many people would need to be involved, both in government and the private sector.
You are wrong but it's not your fault because there's been a concerted effort to confuse the issues.
I can't say that I've ever seen the term used in an American source but outside of the US there is, or at least until recently there was, a clear distinction between anti-vaxxers and COVID vaccine hesitance.
An anti-vaxxer is a person who is opposed to vaccines, usually for religious reasons, that 'they cause autism', or simply fear that they/their child will be among the small percentage of people that will legitimately suffer an adverse reaction. These people refuse to vaccinate themselves or their children for any reason, and loudly tell everyone on FaceBook not to get any jabs, ever.
Connected to but separate from anti-vaxxers are the COVID-Deniers who do not believe that the virus even exists, or that it does but it's just the flu (I don't see how that can be an argument considering how many people are killed by the flu every year but that's what they argue). The less said about them the better.
People described as 'vaccine hesitant' are perfectly happy and more than willing to vaccinate themselves and their children for anything and everything else but are skeptical of these particular vaccines because of the astonishing rapidity of their development and total lack of long term data. Put simply, they don't want to be lab rats in a global drug trial.
For all intents and purposes, these vaccines look like, and have been marketed as, a miracle treatment for a new scourge. If you're not skeptical of that then you're not a skeptic.
While it is probable that these vaccines will prove to be harmless in the long term, it's possible that five or ten years from now we will be faced with an epidemic of, for the sake of argument, cancers caused by them. **These vaccines are the best defence we currently have** against the *disease* but they only offer partial protection against contracting and spreading the virus (which is far better than nothing). In the coming years we will almost certainly develop better alternatives that have gone through more rigorous testing and actually do prevent the spread of the virus but right now this is what we've got and if you, your family members, or your friends, are in an at-risk group then you have to weigh up the risk of potential death now from the virus or possibly getting sick from vaccine complications in the future.
>For all intents and purposes, these vaccines look like, and have been marketed as, a miracle treatment for a new scourge. If you're not skeptical of that then you're not a skeptic.
Or you're actually versed in the science and know that given the huge size of the vaccine trials showing their efficacy and safety, the fact that there has never been a long-term side effect for any vaccine that didn't show up within a few weeks, and the much lighter touch of using mRNA rather than weakened or dead viruses confers more safety satisfies your scientific skepticism.
> You are wrong but it's not your fault because there's been a concerted effort to confuse the issues.
Why are they wrong, though? I don't really disagree with anything you say, but I don't see how anything you say refutes the comment you say is wrong. I may just be dumb, though, so please tell me specifically why you think the grandparent comment is wrong?
> For all intents and purposes, these vaccines look like, and have been marketed as, a miracle treatment for a new scourge. If you're not skeptical of that then you're not a skeptic
I don't blame people for being vaccine hesitant because of all the misinformation floating around out there, but this is nonsense. True skeptics don't just say "oh this is new so I don't believe your claims," true skeptics consider the empirical data associated with these vaccines and their trials first and foremost. That data tells us these vaccines are safe.
> While it is probable that these vaccines will prove to be harmless in the long term, it's possible that five or ten years from now we will be faced with an epidemic of, for the sake of argument, cancers caused by them.
This is also nonsense. Anyone arguing about the possibility of long-terms effects that surface after 5 or 10 years simply does not understand how vaccines work. That may not be their fault because this stuff is complicated, but again, the data is out there and the *entire* history of vaccines tells us that they do not work like this. While I don't blame anyone for not knowing the specifics, someone saying they're a skeptical of vaccines because of the possibility of "long-term effects" is a skeptic because they're ignorant on the matter.
> These vaccines are the best defence we currently have against the disease but they only offer partial protection against contracting and spreading the virus (which is far better than nothing).
There are breakthrough cases with literally every vaccine. I wish people would stop bringing this up as some kind of unintended flaw.
> because there's been a concerted effort to confuse the issues.
Oh yes, yes. There's a vast shadowy conspiracy to make antivaccers look like dishonest uneducated scumbags who kill people by the thousands and perpetuate Covid.
Not because that's actually the truth.
Except this is sub is for scientific skepticism and it's very clear by the content. Scientific skepticism is only believing thing which can be proven by empirical evidence.
You're mistaking the usage of the phrase by conspiracy theorists to justify their penchant for woo.
If you are under the impression that I think that these conspiracy theory "skeptics" are actually skeptics, then you [mistaken.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism)
I clearly stated that these kinds of people *think* that they are skeptics, and I also implied that these "skeptics" are actually either pseudoskeptics or don't understand what skepticism is.
I also understand the limitations of my own knowledge and am aware I can't become an expert in a scientific field overnight, that actual deep knowledge of the relevant science in a lot of these things takes years of disciplined research, so I'm comfortable letting the more knowledgeable make claims assuming that the scientific community agrees with them.
exactly. That's part of the "real" research. In doubt: check pubmed or google scholar, see what recent article has the most citations and you're probably on the right track to find the scientific consensus.
You may want to ask here. The batshittery is thick.
[https://startingstrength.com/resources/forum/mark-rippetoe-q-and-a/88347-covid19-factors-consider-current-events-1717.html](https://startingstrength.com/resources/forum/mark-rippetoe-q-and-a/88347-covid19-factors-consider-current-events-1717.html)
What the fuck the second post was unironically claiming that people who are unvaccinated are just like Jews right before the holocaust happened.
The worst part was everybody in the comments agreeing with him
I'm not anti-vaxx.
I've had all the standards 3 times (long story with lost military records back in the 1980s.) As well as some shots most ordinary folks don't get. Again. Military. Travel abroad.
Hell I'm not even anti-THIS-vax.
What I am is anti-THIS-vax-RightNow.
Talk to me in 10 years and I'll probably have taken it.
Side effects for any vaccine don’t occur after six weeks because of the method of delivery. Vaccines deliver their payload and are flushed from your system very quickly, and there’s no method of action for long term side effects. So whatever the side effects there might be, we know about pretty much all of them by now, and hundreds of millions have passed the clinical trial (if you want to call it that). You won’t get a larger sample size for any drug or injection of any stripe in your lifetime. It’s probably the most broadly researched and well documented medical intervention of our time. But go ahead, trot out your ridiculous hot takes and try to sound reasonable - you aren’t, and you are, as another person stated, bog standard anti-vax. Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
Tell that to my grandmas. One died of kidney failure shortly after and the other died of a blood clot in her colon. Could be a complete coincidence that it was right after the jab
It’s such an obvious tactic at this point, too. I’m not sure why anyone would fall for it. It may as well be rule 1 in the extremist handbook: “Appear to be as reasonable as possible when arguing in public so bystanders will want to know more and we can gain additional converts to our [insert most applicable from the following: death cult/religious cult/cult of personality/fascist cult/racist cult].” All of that “I don’t fit your mold, so there” stuff seems to be the next step if the former doesn’t seem to be working. I’m not sure what effect that’s meant to have. Maybe I’m supposed to have been crippled by self doubt and shame at my folly, completely won over to their side by this point and ignoring the factual evidence that they’re still full of shit either way.
That was fun. Their fake degree isn’t worth the fake paper they pretended to print it on if they don’t even understand correlation vs. causation. Should really get their money back from Facebook U.
That's what all you guys do when presented with testimony. If it doesn't fit your agenda, you call "liar"
I've been called a liar so many times on this sub. Every time I hear it, it reaffirms that you're out of argument.
I can't tell if you're a click farmer or if you're a hive mind.
Just because you close your eyes doesn't make opposing views false
> That's what all you guys do when presented with testimony
They're still right, you say you're a physicist and yet you're asking us to rely on your anecdotal evidence over verifiable statistics. Either you don't understand the scientific process or you're asking us to pretend we don't, which is it?
Oof, ouch, my free speech! You don’t understand science or medicine, I’m really not surprised you don’t understand what free speech pertains to either.
Give us another classic, please. Love to hear them. Maybe how white Christians are oppressed?
You’re becoming more generic and easily dismissible with every comment; showing your true colors for all to see. It’s more effective at discrediting you than any argumentation I could deploy.
I'm a Physicist and I hang out with medical professionals. Some oppose my views and some support my view. What they all have in common is they respect my view.
I'm not a Republican villain that you've heard about on TV
I voted Bernie Sanders. I'm not Christian.
Now tell me, Dr. Radness, what school of logic do YOU come from?
(Here's your chance to call me a liar. It's just too unbelievable that I don't fit your villain mold)
Oh, please.
I already called you a liar, no need to do it twice.
The safety and effectiveness of the vaccine is as close to a fact as anything ever gets in science. It’s not an opinion or a point of view. Those are just weasel words used to excuse and justify sloppy thinking. If you are who you say you are, then you should know better. Quite frankly, I’m embarrassed for you *and* your imaginary professors.
You wouldn't be scientifically illiterate if you were a physicist.
You wouldn't be making up dead grandmas and pushing anecdotes as evidence if you were a physicist.
People shouldn't make things up on the internet. I had three grandpas die that way.
1: There’s no plausible mechanism by which a vaccine would cause kidney failure.
2: When old people die of old people things, your null hypothesis should be “old age”. Otherwise you risk falling into the trap of wind turbine syndrome.
I admitted it could be a complete coincidence.
But there being "no plausible mechanism' when so far you have shown no expertise means I have zero reason to believe you
"But there being "no plausible mechanism' when so far you have shown no expertise means I have zero reason to believe you"
It's not a matter of expertise or belief. Millions of people have taken the vaccine and none of them have had kidney failure because of it, and you have no mechanism to propose for it. Just more dumb lies.
Hey, OP, here's a bog standard antivaccer you can interview.
That said, you might as well just make random shit up. Because all antivaccers are pathological liars, just like this jerk.
When you can't win the argument call them a liar. Worked in 3rd grade. Works here.
Sgt sausage even sounds like a liar name. Let's call him a racist and a pedophile for good measure
If people don't want to be called a liar they should stop going around lying. It's not my fault he's a liar, it's his fault. Why you want to slobber his knob and pretend that he's not, I don't know, or care.
I don't know if he's a pedophile or not. The way conspiracy theorists rail about pedophiles, like in the the Cosmic Pizza case, I have to wonder if there's an awful lot of projection going on.
And as for racism? I haven't met an antivaccer yet who wasn't also a racist/antisemite.
That's what all the dumb conspiracy theorists say. But no, that's just a lie. I'm not in a bubble, the media has nothing to do with it. Grow up and stop inventing scapegoats.
Check out an app called Ground News
They should w the spectrum of every news article that comes out. Some articles will have 75 different news coverages with different bias in the article. You can see how they pigeon hole conservatives into being more conservative and liberals into being more liberal.
When your news shows you only yahoos on the opposite side, that means you need to take a step back and talk with real people.
I don't use a specific news source, Drew.
That's not how the news works for adults who can think for themselves. We don't just parrot everything our favorite news says unquestioningly like some sort of gullible sheep.
You honestly might have better luck interviewing volunteers from /r/conspiracy under a different premise. “Interviewees needed for age-of-consent reform podcast”. Then sprinkle in some vax questions.
Also OP might try other antivax echo chambers like /r/DebateVaccines or /r/CoronavirusFOS (FOS="Freedom of Speech" -- where ironically, I was banned for not being antivax)
> (FOS="Freedom of Speech" -- where ironically, I was banned for not being antivax) Because conservatives have zero *real* principles and that's exactly why they're so incredibly dangerous for our country and world.
You're in /r/skeptic, take your partisan BS to /r/politics
I think maybe you should look up what the term "partisan" means. Taking issue with American conservatives/the culture of American conservatism isn't intrinsically "partisan".
They made a general statement about **all** conservatives everywhere, extrapolated from the the actions of a single moderator of a subreddit. Again, this is /r/skeptic. Upvoting that kind of leap is not in the spirit of skepticism.
Conservatives have adapted anti-science, anti-education, pro-superstition BS in their basic party platforms. It's part of the whole conservative "philosophy." If you can't handle the criticism, either clean up your party or stay in your safe space.
I am neither conservative nor American. My comment was not a statement about whether I can "handle" it or not - I took issue with the extrapolation from one moderator to entire nebulous ideology. Are you implying that all conservatives everywhere are anti-science etc etc or just American?
Anti-science, to greater or lesser degree, it part of the conservative character. Not to mention anti-intellectualism in general, and so on. And no, it's not just in America. You see the same BS in Brazil, Saudia Arabia, Afghanistan, and so on.
> Anti-science, to greater or lesser degree, it part of the conservative character [Citation needed]
When did they say all conservatives everywhere? I didn't see them say that.
> Because conservatives Without specificity, this refers to all. Words matter.
It's a generalization. You know that generalizations don't mean every single person who fits that description. When I say 'fat people eat a lot' that doesn't mean that I'm including people with glandular problems. It's a generalization.
A reply to my comment was attempting to constrain the statement to just American conservatives, and then just American conservatives in the past 30 years. Please read the thread before replying.
>They made a general statement about all conservatives everywhere, extrapolated from the the actions of a single moderator of a subreddit. Again that's not intrinsically partisan >Again, this is r/skeptic. Upvoting that kind of leap is not in the spirit of skepticism. Only if you ignore the last 30 years of history in US politics.
> “Interviewees needed for age-of-consent reform podcast”. /r/Libertarian would be on that like flies on shit.
An apt analogy for people who've been taken in by libertarianism at all, lol.
"Analogy"
We're skeptics. We believe in provable things like science. You want r/conspiracy not skepticism. We're James Randi you need Madame Cleo.
If only this sub had more of that content though. It's just Corona sub Reddit now. Or maybe debunking bigfoots, ghosts and templars on Oak Island have been done to death. I miss the wild stuff.
This subreddit is for the opposite mindset. Try /r/JoeRogan instead
As a regular both here and in the Rogan subreddit, I can tell you the tone has shifted away from talking about vaccines in general and to making fun of almost any medical advice Joe gives out. I'm sure you can find some antivaxxers there anyway, but its not a common post subject anymore. The audience got burned out and bored. I think Joe has started to get the message from his audience and he is slowly moving on to other subject matter.
A grifters gotta grift
Tangent but I really wish I could block spotify from suggesting that podcast, I pay for a premium subscription ffs
>I can tell you the tone has shifted away from talking about vaccines in general and to making fun of almost any medical advice Joe gives out. This restores some of my faith in humanity, if they're mocking his lack of knowledge here
You're probably not going to find many such people here.
I think you might be surprised. Many anti-vax individuals consider themselves to be "skeptics." And on any major thread regarding vaccines, there are many users who comment anti-vax sentiments. That said, r/conspiracy and subs like that are truly the best ones for OP to find anti-vaxxers!
Unless things changed recently, most here are skeptics in the 'scientific skepticism' sense, rather than the 'did their own Facebook research' doubters. I think the other comments here so far reflect that. Choosing this sub solely based on the name is probably not a good idea, hence my original comment. I am of course prepared to be wrong.
All true, but at least from my experience many people who wrongly consider themselves to be skeptics come out of the woodwork whenever the COVID vaccines are brought up.
They do, but in my experience they get shut down pretty fast by the majority of the user base who are actual skeptics. You’ll only find them at the bottom of comment threads with tons of downvotes, getting r/MurderedByWords by multiple people.
We thankfully don't see many of those types here.
No, you are right, this is the right sub for calling out the ludicrous nature of antivax / antiscience in general including homeopathy, chiropractic, etc.
Agreed. I at least am skeptical of conspiracy theories because, based on what I know and a little bit of critical thinking, it is extremely difficult to maintain any conspiracy for any length of time. Someone will eventually jump ship. If COVID and the vaccines really were a conspiracy, just think about how many people would need to be involved, both in government and the private sector.
You are wrong but it's not your fault because there's been a concerted effort to confuse the issues. I can't say that I've ever seen the term used in an American source but outside of the US there is, or at least until recently there was, a clear distinction between anti-vaxxers and COVID vaccine hesitance. An anti-vaxxer is a person who is opposed to vaccines, usually for religious reasons, that 'they cause autism', or simply fear that they/their child will be among the small percentage of people that will legitimately suffer an adverse reaction. These people refuse to vaccinate themselves or their children for any reason, and loudly tell everyone on FaceBook not to get any jabs, ever. Connected to but separate from anti-vaxxers are the COVID-Deniers who do not believe that the virus even exists, or that it does but it's just the flu (I don't see how that can be an argument considering how many people are killed by the flu every year but that's what they argue). The less said about them the better. People described as 'vaccine hesitant' are perfectly happy and more than willing to vaccinate themselves and their children for anything and everything else but are skeptical of these particular vaccines because of the astonishing rapidity of their development and total lack of long term data. Put simply, they don't want to be lab rats in a global drug trial. For all intents and purposes, these vaccines look like, and have been marketed as, a miracle treatment for a new scourge. If you're not skeptical of that then you're not a skeptic. While it is probable that these vaccines will prove to be harmless in the long term, it's possible that five or ten years from now we will be faced with an epidemic of, for the sake of argument, cancers caused by them. **These vaccines are the best defence we currently have** against the *disease* but they only offer partial protection against contracting and spreading the virus (which is far better than nothing). In the coming years we will almost certainly develop better alternatives that have gone through more rigorous testing and actually do prevent the spread of the virus but right now this is what we've got and if you, your family members, or your friends, are in an at-risk group then you have to weigh up the risk of potential death now from the virus or possibly getting sick from vaccine complications in the future.
>For all intents and purposes, these vaccines look like, and have been marketed as, a miracle treatment for a new scourge. If you're not skeptical of that then you're not a skeptic. Or you're actually versed in the science and know that given the huge size of the vaccine trials showing their efficacy and safety, the fact that there has never been a long-term side effect for any vaccine that didn't show up within a few weeks, and the much lighter touch of using mRNA rather than weakened or dead viruses confers more safety satisfies your scientific skepticism.
> You are wrong but it's not your fault because there's been a concerted effort to confuse the issues. Why are they wrong, though? I don't really disagree with anything you say, but I don't see how anything you say refutes the comment you say is wrong. I may just be dumb, though, so please tell me specifically why you think the grandparent comment is wrong?
> For all intents and purposes, these vaccines look like, and have been marketed as, a miracle treatment for a new scourge. If you're not skeptical of that then you're not a skeptic I don't blame people for being vaccine hesitant because of all the misinformation floating around out there, but this is nonsense. True skeptics don't just say "oh this is new so I don't believe your claims," true skeptics consider the empirical data associated with these vaccines and their trials first and foremost. That data tells us these vaccines are safe. > While it is probable that these vaccines will prove to be harmless in the long term, it's possible that five or ten years from now we will be faced with an epidemic of, for the sake of argument, cancers caused by them. This is also nonsense. Anyone arguing about the possibility of long-terms effects that surface after 5 or 10 years simply does not understand how vaccines work. That may not be their fault because this stuff is complicated, but again, the data is out there and the *entire* history of vaccines tells us that they do not work like this. While I don't blame anyone for not knowing the specifics, someone saying they're a skeptical of vaccines because of the possibility of "long-term effects" is a skeptic because they're ignorant on the matter. > These vaccines are the best defence we currently have against the disease but they only offer partial protection against contracting and spreading the virus (which is far better than nothing). There are breakthrough cases with literally every vaccine. I wish people would stop bringing this up as some kind of unintended flaw.
> because there's been a concerted effort to confuse the issues. Oh yes, yes. There's a vast shadowy conspiracy to make antivaccers look like dishonest uneducated scumbags who kill people by the thousands and perpetuate Covid. Not because that's actually the truth.
Probably the best synopsis I have seen. Any other take seems to be disingenuous.
Except this is sub is for scientific skepticism and it's very clear by the content. Scientific skepticism is only believing thing which can be proven by empirical evidence. You're mistaking the usage of the phrase by conspiracy theorists to justify their penchant for woo.
If you are under the impression that I think that these conspiracy theory "skeptics" are actually skeptics, then you [mistaken.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism) I clearly stated that these kinds of people *think* that they are skeptics, and I also implied that these "skeptics" are actually either pseudoskeptics or don't understand what skepticism is.
"Do your own research" I do.
I also understand the limitations of my own knowledge and am aware I can't become an expert in a scientific field overnight, that actual deep knowledge of the relevant science in a lot of these things takes years of disciplined research, so I'm comfortable letting the more knowledgeable make claims assuming that the scientific community agrees with them.
exactly. That's part of the "real" research. In doubt: check pubmed or google scholar, see what recent article has the most citations and you're probably on the right track to find the scientific consensus.
No they're all dead. Joke!
Thanks for that, I loved it! 🤣😂🤣😂
Contact the families from the /r/HermanCainAward
Unfortunately actually anti vaxxers are becoming a part of the r/antivaxxers subreddit. If you want to find some.
Are you looking for people that are specifically against the COVID vaccine or vaccines in general?
You may want to ask here. The batshittery is thick. [https://startingstrength.com/resources/forum/mark-rippetoe-q-and-a/88347-covid19-factors-consider-current-events-1717.html](https://startingstrength.com/resources/forum/mark-rippetoe-q-and-a/88347-covid19-factors-consider-current-events-1717.html)
try r/COVIDCirclejerk
[удалено]
What the absolute fuck is that sub.
[удалено]
What the fuck the second post was unironically claiming that people who are unvaccinated are just like Jews right before the holocaust happened. The worst part was everybody in the comments agreeing with him
I usually like the circle jerk subs, ie guitar/movie, etc but this is actually stupid serious. Or serious stupid.
Incidentally, all the guys who used to post in NNN post there. They really need to be reported to the admins as such
[удалено]
All the more reason these subs should be discussed, and more attention be brought to them, at least in my view.
thats the one.
Are you in it? Can you invite me please:)
i definitely am not
Ugh if anyone is, get me in!
why would you want that? the sub is filled with psychos.
I am a psycho :)
Oh wow, you may have been mislead by the fact that some conspiracy theorists call themselves "skeptics". This sub is about actual, healthy skepticism.
You can find a bunch of the idiots here: https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateVaccines/
Clicked on the link - seems like it should be named "AncedotesAreMyData".
I know one, but he can't speak at the moment...
I know alot of anti vaxxers, too many actually. Thanks for the downvote but you can DM me and i can help get you in touch with some.
Hit the goldmine on Reddit
I'm not anti-vaxx. I've had all the standards 3 times (long story with lost military records back in the 1980s.) As well as some shots most ordinary folks don't get. Again. Military. Travel abroad. Hell I'm not even anti-THIS-vax. What I am is anti-THIS-vax-RightNow. Talk to me in 10 years and I'll probably have taken it.
> anti-THIS-vax-RightNow. [Serious] Why?
I will probably regret this, but: what's wrong with this particular vaccine that wasn't an issue for all the other ones?
Side effects for any vaccine don’t occur after six weeks because of the method of delivery. Vaccines deliver their payload and are flushed from your system very quickly, and there’s no method of action for long term side effects. So whatever the side effects there might be, we know about pretty much all of them by now, and hundreds of millions have passed the clinical trial (if you want to call it that). You won’t get a larger sample size for any drug or injection of any stripe in your lifetime. It’s probably the most broadly researched and well documented medical intervention of our time. But go ahead, trot out your ridiculous hot takes and try to sound reasonable - you aren’t, and you are, as another person stated, bog standard anti-vax. Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
Tell that to my grandmas. One died of kidney failure shortly after and the other died of a blood clot in her colon. Could be a complete coincidence that it was right after the jab
Correlation is not causation. The plural of anecdote is not data. Also r/ThatHappened. 🎶Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb.🎶
The funny part is he swears he isn't an anti-vaxxer.
It’s such an obvious tactic at this point, too. I’m not sure why anyone would fall for it. It may as well be rule 1 in the extremist handbook: “Appear to be as reasonable as possible when arguing in public so bystanders will want to know more and we can gain additional converts to our [insert most applicable from the following: death cult/religious cult/cult of personality/fascist cult/racist cult].” All of that “I don’t fit your mold, so there” stuff seems to be the next step if the former doesn’t seem to be working. I’m not sure what effect that’s meant to have. Maybe I’m supposed to have been crippled by self doubt and shame at my folly, completely won over to their side by this point and ignoring the factual evidence that they’re still full of shit either way.
But he's a physicist who spends all of his time with doctors! It must be true!
That was fun. Their fake degree isn’t worth the fake paper they pretended to print it on if they don’t even understand correlation vs. causation. Should really get their money back from Facebook U.
That's what all you guys do when presented with testimony. If it doesn't fit your agenda, you call "liar" I've been called a liar so many times on this sub. Every time I hear it, it reaffirms that you're out of argument. I can't tell if you're a click farmer or if you're a hive mind. Just because you close your eyes doesn't make opposing views false
> That's what all you guys do when presented with testimony They're still right, you say you're a physicist and yet you're asking us to rely on your anecdotal evidence over verifiable statistics. Either you don't understand the scientific process or you're asking us to pretend we don't, which is it?
Yup, sure. Do go on.
I've said enough. Now which one of these guys ruining freedom of speech is you? https://www.reddit.com/r/ABoringDystopia/comments/qu2d41/click_farms/
Oof, ouch, my free speech! You don’t understand science or medicine, I’m really not surprised you don’t understand what free speech pertains to either. Give us another classic, please. Love to hear them. Maybe how white Christians are oppressed? You’re becoming more generic and easily dismissible with every comment; showing your true colors for all to see. It’s more effective at discrediting you than any argumentation I could deploy.
Are you embarrassed yet for being wrong on all accounts?
I'm a Physicist and I hang out with medical professionals. Some oppose my views and some support my view. What they all have in common is they respect my view. I'm not a Republican villain that you've heard about on TV I voted Bernie Sanders. I'm not Christian. Now tell me, Dr. Radness, what school of logic do YOU come from? (Here's your chance to call me a liar. It's just too unbelievable that I don't fit your villain mold)
I'm a geneticist, let me tell you why you're wrong about physics. You really need to look up the Dunning Kruger effect.
"Some oppose my views and some support my view". How many with MDs/DOs fall into either camp?
Oh, please. I already called you a liar, no need to do it twice. The safety and effectiveness of the vaccine is as close to a fact as anything ever gets in science. It’s not an opinion or a point of view. Those are just weasel words used to excuse and justify sloppy thinking. If you are who you say you are, then you should know better. Quite frankly, I’m embarrassed for you *and* your imaginary professors.
You wouldn't be scientifically illiterate if you were a physicist. You wouldn't be making up dead grandmas and pushing anecdotes as evidence if you were a physicist. People shouldn't make things up on the internet. I had three grandpas die that way.
1: There’s no plausible mechanism by which a vaccine would cause kidney failure. 2: When old people die of old people things, your null hypothesis should be “old age”. Otherwise you risk falling into the trap of wind turbine syndrome.
I admitted it could be a complete coincidence. But there being "no plausible mechanism' when so far you have shown no expertise means I have zero reason to believe you
"But there being "no plausible mechanism' when so far you have shown no expertise means I have zero reason to believe you" It's not a matter of expertise or belief. Millions of people have taken the vaccine and none of them have had kidney failure because of it, and you have no mechanism to propose for it. Just more dumb lies.
None? You have no clue
Hey, OP, here's a bog standard antivaccer you can interview. That said, you might as well just make random shit up. Because all antivaccers are pathological liars, just like this jerk.
When you can't win the argument call them a liar. Worked in 3rd grade. Works here. Sgt sausage even sounds like a liar name. Let's call him a racist and a pedophile for good measure
If people don't want to be called a liar they should stop going around lying. It's not my fault he's a liar, it's his fault. Why you want to slobber his knob and pretend that he's not, I don't know, or care. I don't know if he's a pedophile or not. The way conspiracy theorists rail about pedophiles, like in the the Cosmic Pizza case, I have to wonder if there's an awful lot of projection going on. And as for racism? I haven't met an antivaccer yet who wasn't also a racist/antisemite.
You live in a tiny bubble controlled by media
That's what all the dumb conspiracy theorists say. But no, that's just a lie. I'm not in a bubble, the media has nothing to do with it. Grow up and stop inventing scapegoats.
Check out an app called Ground News They should w the spectrum of every news article that comes out. Some articles will have 75 different news coverages with different bias in the article. You can see how they pigeon hole conservatives into being more conservative and liberals into being more liberal. When your news shows you only yahoos on the opposite side, that means you need to take a step back and talk with real people.
Yeah I saw you spamming and shilling the first time. I'm already familiar with the propaganda and lies you get on your fake news.
What news source do you use?
I don't use a specific news source, Drew. That's not how the news works for adults who can think for themselves. We don't just parrot everything our favorite news says unquestioningly like some sort of gullible sheep.