Hacker News Reader

Comment by jjoonathan | Hacker News Reader

> You see people picking on anti-vax, flat earthers, Justin Bieber, not so much because they do harm, but because they're easy targets to hold down.

Your other examples were solid, but anti-vax absolutely does cause harm, and it seems inappropriate to dismiss the possibility that in the case of anti-vax people are motivated by genuine fear for our collective safety and that of our children.

View on HN

The claim wasn't that they're harmless, but that they're easy targets.

The claim was that people were motivated to argue by the ease of the target rather than by the genuine threat of harm. In the case of anti-vax, I don't agree. I think people see a threat to their kids and react accordingly.

It goes beyond hash criticism into gleeful joy making jokes about kids dying.

Anti-vaxxers are only a threat to kids who have another health condition that prevents them from being vaxinated. So, in most cases, it's a threat to somebody else's kids (who isn't even present in the conversation) not a threat to the anti-anti-vaxxer's kids.

This is not true. Vaccinations are not 100% effective. They're usually in the range of 90% to 99% effective. Protection also wanes over time. Because of this, herd immunity protects everyone, not just those who are unable to be vaccinated for health reasons.

I'm not anti-vax, but this is a discussion on toxicity on the internet, and I see plenty of people who take great pleasure in just unloading on anti-vaxxers because they know it's a target nobody will scold them for being cruel to. It's pretty obvious these types don't really care about changing the minds of the anti-vaxxers either, people usually don't have an epiphany about their life just because somebody was mean to them online. If anything, it's an opportunity for anti-vaxxers to band together against people who are cruel to them and probably even more deeply ingrain their beliefs.

This doesn't mean anti-vaxxers should be tolerated as a viable alternative lifestyle, but throwing curses at them online and spamming memes that make them out to be mentally challenged really doesn't do anything but satisfy a bully.

> to dismiss the possibility that in the case of anti-vax people are motivated by genuine fear for our collective safety and that of our children.

People who are genuine in that NEVER bash. For the simple reason that bashing doesn't work. What they do do is respectfully argue with any false data.

But you'll never see someone like that insult people or call them stupid, ignorant, or doubt the love of an anti-vaxxer for their own children.

Even if you don't feel strongly on the topic of vaccination, going out of your way to bash anti-vaxxers is great at signalling how you are scientifically woke. The GP is positing that people who bash anti-vaxxers do so overwhelmingly out of this motivation rather than true pro-vaccine activism.

I understand the GP's take. I think it's both incorrect and uncharitable. People care about their kids more than imaginary internet points.

I disagree. The loudest activists too often tend to be younger people who either don't have kids, or are /r/childfree types who actively disdain the concept.

Of course, by "activists", there's a difference between the genuine voices, versus the Reddit or HN meme-slingers. The latter group seems louder due to style. While they happen to be on the right side (from my POV), they're still quite awful as people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com