this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2024
313 points (98.5% liked)

politics

19251 readers
2396 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 38 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] GrymEdm 106 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

Kids can't protect themselves. They don't have the ability to make their own informed choices. Please don't destroy the evidence-based protections we have that keep them from dying, being crippled, having to get a machine to breathe for them permanently, etc. We have decades of data and it's overwhelmingly clear: vaccines save lives and do so incredibly safely.

Every time a child is seriously harmed because a parent ignored vaccine guidelines the parents should be charged with criminal neglect. It's ~~no different~~ not different enough than if you fed your children say, mercury, and then claimed you believed it was helpful because of Facebook gurus or similarly unaccredited sources. In both situations a child is being permanently harmed due to choices they have no ability to understand, resist or protest and thus we need laws to protect them.

Also, not only are the anti-vaxxer parents endangering their own children, but also everyone else's by increasing risk of their kids becoming vectors/reservoirs for infection and potential mutation into new strains that could evade current vaccines. "High mutation rate is an important characteristic of viruses that can enable them to evade immune responses and propagate infection." So not only are anti-vaxxers making choices for their own kids, but potentially also others' kids. It's not guaranteed but it's rolling some high-stakes dice.

[–] [email protected] 62 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Not to forget, making choices for the very weakest we have: Children that are too sick to be vaccinated. Your “uneasiness” towards a little jab millions of people have survived absolutely fine might take someone else's little wonder away. Because you circle jerked a bit on facefuck or shitter.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Also any kids who do get vaccinated are more at risk.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Absolutely. Yet, neglecting the sick in a Facebook-fueled self-righteous frenzy of flawed “uhm akchually” is even more disgusting in my eyes than endangering the other healthy children is.

[–] GladiusB 3 points 8 months ago

They are a afraid. And rather than facing the fear in a responsible and healthy way they hide behind conspiracy. It's oddly paralleled to political conspiracies. The mental health crisis has a far bigger reach than just horrible gun problems. People refuse to accept their failed attempts to rationalize their own feelings of fear. It's scary thing to have the world dying. I wish they would just own it.

[–] cbarrick 3 points 8 months ago (3 children)

It's no different than if you fed your children say, mercury, and then claimed you believed it was helpful because of Facebook gurus or similarly unaccredited sources.

I totally agree that children should be vaccinated.

But I just want to point out that there is a difference between actively doing something to harm your kid, and passively not doing something to protect your kid.

Lack of protection is not equivalent to active harm.

Parents should still be required to vaccinate their kids.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 8 months ago

Letting your kids play in traffic isn't acceptable even though it is passively not doing something to protect them. That's because being different doesn't mean that one is always fine.

Not vaccinating kids* is like letting your kids play in traffic and letting them drag other kids into traffic too.

*the exception are kids who can't be vaccinated for medical reasons

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

Negligence is absolutely a form of harm.

[–] GrymEdm 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I'll upvote, agree they aren't exactly the same, and edit but I'll also argue they should both be illegal. That is admittedly opinion but let me explain. My reasoning is there are other examples of passively, but still criminally, failing to protect a child: improper storage of firearms, explosives, or chemicals. Not using seatbelts or safety seats. Failing to secure medical aid for a desperately ill child. I am not a lawyer, but those seem to set precedents where the adult wasn't actively putting a gun in the kid's hand or causing a fatal illness but they were still prosecuted.

Given the prevalence of anti-vaxxer parents, it seems current law doesn't make failure to vaccinate your young child a criminal charge. My argument, and I know there are other views, is it should be (although defining criminal limits would require work). We protect kids in other situations where there's no ill intent and IMO that's a good thing. I know my position errs towards caution and is somewhat extreme, but polio is pretty extreme. The arguments that anti-vaxxers bring eerily mirror those brought by people who resisted seat belts (and I know you clearly aren't one, just continuing the reasoning). 40 years later I think most agree mandatory seat belts proved to be a good and reasonable requirement that saves thousands every year.

[–] [email protected] 49 points 8 months ago

"Nobody gets these diseases anymore, so we shouldn't worry about requiring vaccines against them" /s

[–] Boddhisatva 46 points 8 months ago (1 children)

So pretty much all the people who lived their lives in iron lungs thanks to polio are dead now and the Republicans want to drop the vaccine requirement? Do these guys have a warehouse full of old iron lungs they're hoping to profit off of?

Never forget...

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago

warehouse full of old iron lungs

Oh my…it is with great sadness that I must admit you might be onto something here.

[–] comador 41 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Let's not forget that it was President Eisenhower, a Republican, who directed a Republican House and Senate to pass Dr. Salk's Polio Vaccine into immediate use in 1955.

You'd think these anti-vax nutjobs would let that one side on that fact alone. People are stupid to even consider letting that crap come back and potentially paralyze children.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Announcement_of_polio_vaccine_success

[–] [email protected] 18 points 8 months ago

but if I don't give my children polio, how will they grow strong?

[–] Stovetop 10 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

The modern Republican party is a different beast entirely, ever since the Southern Strategy in the late 60's-early 70's that saw the party become the new home of the former Dixiecrats.

A lot of modern Republicans will also proudly wave confederate flags, even though it was the Republican push towards emancipation by Lincoln that caused the south to turn traitor in the first place. There is definitely no "party of Lincoln" anymore.

[–] njm1314 10 points 8 months ago

Brother the conserves these days the ones that love John Birch who thought that Eisenhower was a communist.

[–] [email protected] 39 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Before criticizing the GOP for this, let's not forget the kind of degenerate that Salk was: not only did he not seek profit for the polio vaccine, but he also worked on AIDS vaccine research.

So I think the GOP should be lauded for their consistency here! Surely the work of someone who wanted healthcare for all (regardless of means) and who supported efforts towards a disease which was at the time synonymous with certain "lifestyle choices" cannot be trusted.

(Big fat /s, but I really hope that's obvious.)

[–] fluxion 12 points 8 months ago

Ah, so they are battling the evil forces of wokeness? I guess that's acceptable then.

[–] Rapidcreek 33 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Live Free or Die should be changed to replace the “or” with an “and.”

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago

...and die without taking snyone else with you.

Antivaxxers are fine taking other people with them.

[–] Hobbes_Dent 6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

They fucking Don’t Open Dead Inside-ed it.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

Live Die Free or

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I actually live there (but not born there). We used to say it should be “dying, to live free”.

There still isn’t a seatbelt law for adults (there wasn’t one for kids when I moved there), you don’t need car insurance, no helmet law for motorcycles, and no income or sales taxes, so schools in poor towns are criminally underfunded (like they cancel everything but the “3 Rs” if the budget is short).

I’m only there to care for elderly parents. Off to one of the nicer NE states after that.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

it's pretty funny how many mass plates have don't tred on meh flags

guess when it comes to voting with their wallets taxachusetts isn't so bad. you can always drive back to get cheap cigarettes

[–] [email protected] 26 points 8 months ago (1 children)

My father’s parents were told he would die when he had polio and was hospitalized. I wouldn’t be here if the doctors were right. My mother was a little girl when the vaccine was new. Antivaxxers piss me off.

[–] shalafi 5 points 8 months ago

My mom knew jack about science, nor cared. But she went off about how thankful they were for the polio vaccine. As a child, they were all scared shitless of it.

Said much the same for smallpox. She had one of those ring scars from back in the day.

[–] Chemical 20 points 8 months ago

They will always persist with anti-logic. The “grand ol’ party” is a continuation of the confederacy. They’re here to act as persistent trolls.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I would not be surprised if many of the same lawmakers do in fact vaccinate their own children.

[–] Stovetop 7 points 8 months ago

Oh I believe it. It is up there with the pro-life abortion logic of "the only ethical abortion is mine".

[–] [email protected] 17 points 8 months ago

The windmills they tilt at are embarrassingly stupid.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Like a spoiled child who won't go to bed, conservatives continue to throw a tantrum against the inevitability of progress.

They won't rest until they've reset us to 1945.

[–] Rapidcreek 13 points 8 months ago (1 children)

In 1945, mothers would kick ass to get their kids properly inoculated.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

Next conspiracy theory: Liberals are using AI to send the woke mind virus back in time to make our great-grandmothers surrender their freedoms to the deep-state

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago

Ummm....drop the one.

They want to go back to 945 AD complete with feudal-lords and dark ages bullshit where the life expectancy was 35 and that was a hard 35.

[–] Fedizen 14 points 8 months ago

polio is a horrifying disease

[–] CharlesDarwin 12 points 8 months ago

Just when you think the regressives cannot stoop any lower...

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

Fascinating compared COVID to polio and these guys were like, "Holy shit, we need to get on that!"

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago