Comments (7)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Shinydenim 2 points ago +2 / -0

Sure. I agree with you there about the reasoning that followed. But you have to see the bigger picture: the term, anti-vaxx only exists as a smear tactic meant to harbor hatred.

It’s a plant in the English language meant to divide ppl on arbitrary lines and on concepts that nobody readily understands in the same way due to semantic blurring and misdirection.

There are plenty of ppl who have experienced first hand some of the adverse reactions that can occur from other vaccines. Perhaps some of those ppl truly have fallen into the “100% no vaccine ever camp”, but I’m sure many of them may just be emphatically trying to share their heartbreak. I think those ppl deserve to let their voices be heard and stand on their own rather than have their experiences editorialized and summarized, and be involuntarily grouped into an outsider or “other” group by some hate filled government teat sucker halfway across the country.

I cannot say for certain whether or not vaccines are and for a long time have been implements for bringing about a rise in autoimmune diseases, autism, etc. I plan to flesh out that area of research one day, but for now I’m still digging my way through current events with a newfound interest in medicine. From what I’ve seen already, I wouldn’t rule it impossible.

EloiEloi 4 points ago +4 / -0

oh ok, yes I agree with you that the term anti-vax is a term designed to create an "other class" that can be demonised as necessary. I think in this instance though that it was short hand for "I'm not against all vaccines?" So I suppose the issue is to provide people with another short-hand term they can use which can't be conflated.