Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
I think a better framework might be, don’t be bigoted and don’t spread misinformation.
Bigot means:
"a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own"
This is exactly what we see on Lemmy when it comes to trans and vaccination topics. People are not tolerant of opinions different from their own.
If someone straight up insults you, that's against the rules on most instances.
People trying to walk you down from a position that doesn't make any sense by dismantling the logic behind it isn't intolerance of you or your opinion.
You're perfectly free to defend your position, but if your logic only works in your head, then it's not logic, it's delusion. I've seen you multiple times now, you say your words, then get them completely debunked in the replies. But you don't actually engage in a back and forth. You have no actual arguments. Yet you still reappear in new threads, still spouting crazy, completely unfounded, "opinions".
A refusal to accept an opinion as valid is not intolerance. "Tolerating" does not require acceptance or agreement, but merely abiding by your presence. No-one owes an instantly debunkable claim the time of day.
And when you cross the line into something that demeans a person or persons, then yes, there will be no tolerance, bans. The only valid intolerance is the intolerance of intolerance.
I guess you are referring to my comment about not trusting vaccines? That single comment got 300 downvotes or so. :) I think it shows very clearly that there is point discussing the topic.
Just the fact that you think it's crazy to not vaccinate is an absolute position with no room for discussing it at all.
So as a consequence, we don't discuss these things on Lemmy. Most people are happy about that. :) I'm just saying there are topics we don't discuss here. That can't be discussed. This is true. :)
Also the one about trans people which was almost reasonable, but failed to stick the landing.
You're trying to twist the definition of the word "bigot" to apply to those who refuse to entertain obvious invalid logic.
There is always room for discussion, and no position is absolute. That you think this is news to me is one the hurdles you will have to overcome before you can attempt to discuss things like this with someone who builds up their world view through disciplined reason.
That view on vaccines is crazy, because to arrive at such a conclusion, you must intentionally ignore facts, confuse feelings with evidence, and incorrectly consider anecdotal experience superior to statistically significant data.
You should examine how solidly you stand by your own unveriable beliefs, before you try to use the percieved solidity of mine as a point of critizism. I've change my mind on many things, many times, but you cannot make me do so by simply telling me to. "You're a bit too sure about that" is not a counterargument. You must explain, and you must explain thoroughly. More thoroughly than I think you can, considering a watertight chain of reason that leads to your position on vaccines, does not exist.
Your vaccine comment was straight up misinformation, in no way supported by available evidence. The matter is "open to discussion" in the same way you might discuss whether exercise is good for you.
There are edge cases where a workout or vaccination can be unadvisable for certain individuals due physical or immunological factors, but the idea that the utility of these things in itself has room for questioning is madness. And legitimately dangerous as a view when held by people deciding over the lives of others, or voting on it.
And it WAS discussed, people had plenty to say in response to you, including me. But none of what you said was a bona fide contribution. You simply stated something you appear to consider true, but with no supporting logic or evidence. That's not a discussion or a proper exchange of thought. It's just spitting out words as if doing so in itself makes them truthful or worthy of consideration
A lot of people believing something, doesn't make it true. Your conviction alone will convince almost no-one. Without further elaboration of the kind that others can actually follow, you may as well be speaking an alien language no-one can understand.
If talking about your opinions isn't possible in a way that makes sense, consider, that your opinions may not make sense.
Because that is what you're really admitting when you claim that certain things you think "cannot be discussed" on Lemmy.
Is there a question to me anywhere in that long post about yourself? You think of yourself as a rational person, following advice from medical professionals and scientific research. But somehow you can't see why someone may not trust the vaccines on a personal level?
There are side effects from vaccines. I decided to get covid instead of risking those side effects. I had a mild cold for a few days, then it was over and never came back.
I had coworkers who got very sick after taking the vaccine. And several of them developed very weird issues with their body. When going to a doctor, the doctor said it was covid, not the vaccine.
So in short, I rather get infected with covid and let my body develop its own anti bodies than take the vaccine. Works very well so far.
Unfortunately, by doing that, you were one of the people who decided to give the disease the time and space to develop into new strains, which could then re-infect both people who already suffered the disease and got vaccinated against it.
Herd immunity, had it been successfully achieved by vaccinating a large enough portion of the population, fast enough, would have eradicated the disease entirely.
In a way, you contributed to the fact that even your vaccinated co-workers still got infected by a strain that could also still do a lot of damage.
Of course I can. Given enough bias, paranoia, and pre-conceived notions, I am perfectly capable of picturing how you arrived at your current views. But a path to believing what you believe (that long COVID is caused by the vaccine, or that the symptoms of your co-workers were caused by the vaccine rather than suffering the disease) can only be utterly deranged.
Different people suffer widely varying symptoms during an actual infection. That all you experienced was a cold, does not mean that your co-workers more severe symptoms were caused by the vaccine rather than the disease. For fucks sake, even when unvaccinated the effects ranged between literally nothing and straight up actual death. And once vaccines were available, data showed that people who had been immunized suffered significantly less severe symptoms, and were a lot less likely to catch and spread the virus in the first place.
This benefit went down as new strains appeared, but there was still a significant improvement in symptoms compared to suffering the disease unvaccinated.
Had you been vaccinated, your symptoms during an infection might have been actually nothing. Had your coworkers not been vaccinated, their more severe symptoms could have led to death.
By comparing your symptoms to those of your co-workers, you're drawing invalid conclusions based on a false equivalences. You assume their symptoms were more severe due to the vaccine, but you literally cannot know that. That kind of logic only works using statistically significant sample-sizes, and when you do so, your assumptions instantly fall apart.
Your anecdotal experience is utterly worthless in this line of thinking.
You accept the experiences of your co-workers as an influence on your decision-making, but when told you're wrong by literal hundreds online, with links, logic and arguments, you plug your ears. That makes no sense.
Since you put such weight on using the experiences of others as evidence, here is mine: I was vaccinated thrice with no complications, and then suffered COVID twice, again with no complications. Before the vaccines were available, an average infection could take around two weeks to beat. Both times, it was over in less than four days for me.
Both of my sicknesses occurred during holiday family get-togethers, which led to my entire family suffering COVID over the holidays. Two years in a row. Everyone was vaccinated at least twice, no-one suffered complications from the vaccine. No-one suffered from the infection for more than a week.
Finally, the immunity gained from suffering the disease is literally identical to the one your body develops in response to the disease. The biological mechanisms engaged in your body are exactly the same. That you think the vaccine might come with more risk than the disease, shows you've made no real effort to look into how immunology actually works.
Your immunity is no stronger than that which has been gained by the vaccinated, and you can still be re-infected for the very same reasons vaccinated people can.
And your second infection is likely to be milder than the first, for the same reason that those who are vaccinated, and suffer an infection anyway, benefit from milder symptoms than if they hadn't been.
I'd point out that by recounting your personal experience and bringing up your coworkers, you essentially admit to this being one of your errors in logic.
You act as if your personal experience is "the average" when in reality you are an edge case who was able to suffer an infection unvaccinated, with mild symptoms. That's rare.
Others, like your coworkers, may have needed the vaccination just to survive, because without it they would have suffered symptoms severe enough to kill them.
You can't know. And the statistics, which you can't determine based on personal experience, say that's exactly how it works. That the vaccines saved millions.