"Let me be clear: I think the COVID-19 vaccines are a miracle and pulling back on policing during a historic surge in shootings and homicides is a terrible idea. But I don’t wish any harm on people who disagree with me about these topics, or who make decisions they honestly think are best for themselves and their communities."
Those topics are not the same. Unlike crime, when we can see the victims, the people who refuse to vaccinate infect countless others invisibly. Their decisions don't affect only themselves but people like my immunocompromised sister, children, and anyone who has the misfortune to have a heart attack when all the ICU beds are filled because of their selfishness and stupidity.
Feeling schadenfreude is a "better" emotion than utter contempt and hate. The talk show hosts who died after convincing their followers not to vaccinate deserved their fates. Actions have consequences and I refuse to feel shamed by you or anyone telling me I have to "understand" antisocial, selfish utterly stupid behavior.
It stands to reason that cutting police funding with consequent reduction in the number of police on duty will engender an increase in crime, and this is borne out by crime statistics for cities where such cuts have been effected. The consequent uptick in murder, robbery, burglary, larceny, criminal assault, etc. affects people other than the politicians who mandate such defunding and those who encourage them to do so. So I don't see a fundamental ethical distinction between those behaviors and eschewing Covid vaccination. (That is, a fundamental distinction as regards effect on others. Other ethically-relevant distinctions could be drawn that militate for viewing people who forego Covid vaccination in a more favorable light than those who mandate or agitate for defunding police.)
That's not to say that no police budget should ever be cut. There may well be municipal police forces that could be reduced in size without consequent crime increase, but determining whether this is possible and to what extent a police budget could be cut without undue risk of adverse consequences would require painstaking analysis, patient and thorough deliberation, and prudent decision-making. Little, if any, of which was in evidence in the recent defund-the-police clamor in the wake of George Floyd's death.
These topics are not the same. Unlike crime, when we can see the victims, the cohort that is vaccinated is infect countless others invisibly (with break though infections and according to solid evidence by driving escape variants, and often relaxing their protective measures that reduce their own continuing transmissibility when we should all continue to use due care). Their decisions don’t effect only themselves but people like me who are prone to auto-immune issues that contraindicate vaccines and may be further triggered by escape variants, and anyone else who may catch more virulent and possibly more deadly variants down the line, due to their well-meaning adherence to protocols that are not fully grounded in the science.
Feeling schadenfreude is a gateway to contempt and hate. Those who die after taking the vaccine due to complications or breakthrough covid are worthy of our compassion. Actions have consequences and I hope we can all sleep well at night if we have based our decisions on diligent, open-minded research and healthy skepticism of all narratives being pushed upon us in favour of sincere data analysis and research.
Here’s the thing. There are crazy anti-vaxxers. And then there are people who are not partisan, who take covid seriously, and who have dug deep into the data, “The science” isn’t settled. And no matter where the practical facts of covid eventually land, we all need to live with each other in our communities, in these countries, on this planet. Normalizing the idea of deaths as deserved in this context is a failure to learn from history.
It may turn out in the end that the vaccines were the best strategy for this thing, but when you look deeply behind the spin it becomes obvious that that is not yet clear. A danger greater still than covid, which is tragic and serious but only marginally lethal, is the loss of our sense-making and cooperative spirit. So for now, if we really “follow the science” we need to acknowledge that if we look beyond the culture wars the actual data is still messy and inconclusive. And after the pandemic moves on, we still need to live together. The virus is bad enough without a manufactured civil war.
I agree that people who die after taking the vaccine (This number is minuscule) or due to breakthrough covid deserve our compassion. As for "digging deep into the data" I would respectfully ask: "Are you a doctor or scientist?"
The mistrust and contempt for people who have spent their lives in medicine and the idea that a lay person can "follow the science" is curious to me. I would not presume to know more than a person who has dedicated his/her life to a particular research field and I would not expect others to understand my field. Why do people assume they can google a few studies and know more than those who work in medical research and have access to studies unavailable to the public?
As for the "Civil War"-- we're already in a cold one. The contempt I feel for others is, in my opinion, justified and as I said above, I make no apologies for it.
The scientific community is not in consensus about these issues. Many doctors and scientists are concerned about the downstream effects of vaccines. I don't pretend to understand the data better than they do, but I am reading careful data analysis from all across a spectrum of concerns - and there are legitimate (as well as illegitimate) concerns enough to dissuade people from getting the vaccine. I would encourage everybody to review the Nuremburg code. We all have a right to be educated about the procedures we are subjected to and the right to withdraw consent. And ultimately, your contempt hurts you more than it hurts people like me.
I'll bet that the number of those, who mistrust people who have spent their lives in medicine, dwarfs the number of those with *contempt* for such people.
That you would imagine otherwise likely says a huge amount about you.
"I would *not expect* others to understand my field", but nonetheless
"The contempt I feel for others is, in my opinion, justified...."
With that combo of attitudes, I'll not believe a single word you say about anything.
"Actions have consequences and I refuse to feel shamed by you or anyone telling me I have to "understand" antisocial, selfish utterly stupid behavior."
I wouldn't ask you to feel shame. I think I understand how you feel, having felt something similar myself. I do have a more pragmatic question: who does this contempt or schadenfreude help? Perhaps you feel a righteous flash of vindication or satisfaction, but I doubt that's more than a short-lived pleasure. It doesn't serve to convince anyone who didn't already agree with you.
The reason we try to "understand" antisocial, selfish, and stupid behavior is twofold:
1) We're not perfect. We make mistakes. Maybe this is one -- and one useful way to evaluate our ideas is to determine and understand why someone disagrees with them.
2) If we wish to effect changes in the behavior or decisions or understanding of others, and wish to do so through persuasion rather than force, we must understand them and their decisions. We must understand how they see the world and the issue and tailor our communication to that (and perhaps even, if we are humble, change our thoughts a little bit in response to hearing a different perspective, and find the empathy that is the root of the very best persuasion).
I used to have a lot of empathy for all kinds of people. However, it evaporated during the Trump administration, when being as cruel and selfish as possible became the sole goal of the GOP. And of course, I've read lots of articles in the mainstream press that stress how "we" must show compassion and empathy to THEM while they aren't asked to show any kind of empathy for others.
I live in the upper-Midwest so I am actually very familiar with Trump antivaxxers because they live all around me. They tailgate me because I have a Biden sticker, they fly their Trump 2024 flags, and they utter racist slurs at my non-white son.
I truly do not care how many Trump supporters die after ingesting horse dewormer. They have access to a safe, available, effective vaccine but they prefer to prolong the pandemic and kill people like my sister who is immunocompromised or children, all in the name of their "freedumb."
You all can tell me how my contempt and anger hurt me and you might be correct but I don't care. I also have no "empathy" for Nazis, people in the Klan, or the Taliban. Does that also make me a "bad" person?
< "we" must show compassion and empathy to THEM while they *aren't asked* to show any kind of empathy for others.... >
No, they aren't "asked" to show any kind of empathy, it's *demanded* of most of them (save for those in in Red states) to say *zip* against such empathy, lest they be Cancelled.
< I live in the upper-Midwest so I am actually very familiar with Trump antivaxxers because they live all around me. They tailgate me because I have a Biden sticker.... >
Well, I live in a quite Blue part of the US, so I am actually *very* familiar with Dem pro-vaxxers, because they live all around me, and *if* I was for Trump (I'm ambivalent, for complex reasons), I'd *not think* of having *any* Trump etc. sticker on my car, home, etc., or even of indicating my ambivalence.
In Blue America, nothing less than *total* fealty to the (Woke) Dem party line will save you from Cancellation, or worse, depending on exactly where you are.
If you insist on comparing anti-vaxers to "Nazis, people in the Klan, or the Taliban", I'll insist on comparing pro-vaxers to Jacobins, Leninists, Maoists, etc.
As I've had occasion to stay in "Red" parts of the US, incl. as recently as last year, I'm confident enough in my grasp of both groups that I can *emphasize* that, for all their flaws, the bulk of Deplorables are (at least recently) vastly *fairer* people, than are the bulk of Wokesters.
In particular, the "Reds" have come upon a slew of good reasons to suspect everything that the MSM etc. tell them, incl. about the vaxes.
Those Blues etc. who display (or feign) ignorance of these reasons are, not informed, but pseudo-informed, in what I'll keep calling an utterly *stunning* Intellectual, emotional, and moral collapse.
Esp. in light of this slew of good reasons to suspect the MSM etc., it's brutal when Ms. Scott etc. demonize these Deplorables, because *some* of them "utter racist slurs" at her non-white son.
If she ever hangs in a Blue town, and fails to toe the Woke line down to the last *scintilla*, hearing slurs will likely be the least of her problems.
Good stuff, but the rot of wokeism is permeating everywhere, and too few are facing, that the Woke are determined to convert, not via through persuasion, but rather via force.
If one were to back up a few years, one might find far more patience and sympathy with ‘the other side.’ Sure, schadenfreude has been with us forever. But starting this narrative at COVID-19 deniers allows a glossing over of years of setting-the-scene.
A great deal of anger and contempt has been directed at people who have yet to be vaccinated for Covid, and such people are now harried by vaccination mandates from schools and employers, including a sweeping requirement for Federal employees and those working for private companies pursuant to contracts with the Federal government. AFAIK, none of the mandates and few, if any, of the haters make any exception for people who have recovered from Covid infection.
But according to an op-ed by a Johns Hopkins Med School prof published two days ago in the Wall Street Journal, a rigorous study conducted in Israel with a sample group of more than 700,000 people found that the incidence of symptomatic Covid infection in unvaccinated people who had recovered from previous Covid infection was 27 times less(!) than among those who'd been fully vaccinated for Covid but had not previously been infected. The author excoriates the CDC for failing to conduct similar research and publish the results without spin or cherry-picking.
I use “M.” like the French do, for Monsieur but ALSO for Mesdames and Mademoiselle EQUALLY. ALL CAPS are ITALICS. :)
TY (thank You) M. Jilani. Contrary to M. Scott, I'm thankful to have a character flaw pointed out to me. Excuse is that I only think the things, but still... *I* know is, I guess, the point.
I don't get around as much as I'd like to but, ON BALANCE (italics), wouldn't it be the Leftists who are more prone to this disability? If so, I'd relate it to the moral superiority they falsely give themselves.
To those interested, there's a nationwide group that hopes to bridge the gap between Dems and Repubs. https://braverangels.org/ Aim is for each to just see each other as fellow human beings capable of TALKING, if not agreeing.
TYTY again, for this wonderful essay, M. Jilani! :) = 😊
M. jt,-- I'm not a "leftist," whatever that means to you, and I'm not conservative either. I'm a frustrated, angry American who is sick and tired of the stupidity on "both sides." ON BALANCE I don't consider my "character flaw," as you put it, to be anything near the selfish stupidity of antivaxxers or the smugness of the woke.
Ah... I agree to the extent that I felt the same Way about the antivaxxers and the woke. Still having difficulty, right now, thinking/feeling about the woke. That's just me.
I apologize. I guess I was moralizing. But I just don't see the benefit to YOU of being hateful to somebody else. But then, maybe You weren't being hateful, and I misinterpreted. But if I'm right, then all I can suggest is, as a general rule, maybe hate IS the wrong word and what I mean is "anger" doesn't do much good for the one who feels it. I know, more moralizing, but I'm "speaking" from experience on this one.
I'm centrist, too. I still wonder if most of this anger/hate is coming from the Leftists.
Zaid, I appreciate what you're saying here, and I agree that we walk a fine line when we air these stories. But do you not see any potential value to making people aware of how stubborn political ideologies can have life-threatening consequences? In several of these reports about deaths among the vaccine-resistant, the articles have also highlighted how, among the victim's final words were warnings to their friends and family (and presumably anyone else whom the message might reach) that they regretted their decision not to get vaccinated. I find this especially poignant in the case of political firebrands who vociferously promoted anti-vaccination ideology or downplayed COVID; for their regular listeners to be made aware by friends and family that their dying sentiments were that people should take the disease more seriously and get vaccinated, this has the potential to change some people's minds.
Maybe I'm being naive. Maybe most people are dug in on this issue and aren't going to be swayed by these stories. But I have to believe it's worth trying. Bad ideas are supposed to die because they fail - so one way or another, people have to be made aware that refusing to get vaccinated is a decision that entails far more risk to one's health than taking the vaccine. And while I agree that general statistics on COVID deaths should be enough to establish this, the unfortunate thing is that human beings often tend to be unmoved by such arguments even when they *aren't* skeptical of the veracity of the statistics in the first place. Sometimes, very human stories like this, where an individual with whom the reader identifies on a personal level suffers a tragic fate as a result of misconceptions that they share with the reader, powerful lessons can be imparted in ways where dry analyses fail. Even though it's anecdotal, for better or worse, people respond to anecdotal evidence - much like the almost purely anecdotal "evidence" that fuels vaccine skepticism in the first place.
So I would ask you - is there any way that you feel these articles could be presented in a way that more suits (what I would assume is) their purpose? Do you feel writers are giving cues as subtle (or even overt) "permission" to engage in schadenfreude? Or do you think that this is just an inevitable consequence of even presenting these stories in the first place? Most articles that I read on this honestly don't feel to me like they're crossing a line, but maybe that's just me. Surely though, there must be *some* way to present these stories as compassionate warnings rather than I-told-you-so grave dancing, no?
"Let me be clear: I think the COVID-19 vaccines are a miracle and pulling back on policing during a historic surge in shootings and homicides is a terrible idea. But I don’t wish any harm on people who disagree with me about these topics, or who make decisions they honestly think are best for themselves and their communities."
Those topics are not the same. Unlike crime, when we can see the victims, the people who refuse to vaccinate infect countless others invisibly. Their decisions don't affect only themselves but people like my immunocompromised sister, children, and anyone who has the misfortune to have a heart attack when all the ICU beds are filled because of their selfishness and stupidity.
Feeling schadenfreude is a "better" emotion than utter contempt and hate. The talk show hosts who died after convincing their followers not to vaccinate deserved their fates. Actions have consequences and I refuse to feel shamed by you or anyone telling me I have to "understand" antisocial, selfish utterly stupid behavior.
It stands to reason that cutting police funding with consequent reduction in the number of police on duty will engender an increase in crime, and this is borne out by crime statistics for cities where such cuts have been effected. The consequent uptick in murder, robbery, burglary, larceny, criminal assault, etc. affects people other than the politicians who mandate such defunding and those who encourage them to do so. So I don't see a fundamental ethical distinction between those behaviors and eschewing Covid vaccination. (That is, a fundamental distinction as regards effect on others. Other ethically-relevant distinctions could be drawn that militate for viewing people who forego Covid vaccination in a more favorable light than those who mandate or agitate for defunding police.)
That's not to say that no police budget should ever be cut. There may well be municipal police forces that could be reduced in size without consequent crime increase, but determining whether this is possible and to what extent a police budget could be cut without undue risk of adverse consequences would require painstaking analysis, patient and thorough deliberation, and prudent decision-making. Little, if any, of which was in evidence in the recent defund-the-police clamor in the wake of George Floyd's death.
These topics are not the same. Unlike crime, when we can see the victims, the cohort that is vaccinated is infect countless others invisibly (with break though infections and according to solid evidence by driving escape variants, and often relaxing their protective measures that reduce their own continuing transmissibility when we should all continue to use due care). Their decisions don’t effect only themselves but people like me who are prone to auto-immune issues that contraindicate vaccines and may be further triggered by escape variants, and anyone else who may catch more virulent and possibly more deadly variants down the line, due to their well-meaning adherence to protocols that are not fully grounded in the science.
Feeling schadenfreude is a gateway to contempt and hate. Those who die after taking the vaccine due to complications or breakthrough covid are worthy of our compassion. Actions have consequences and I hope we can all sleep well at night if we have based our decisions on diligent, open-minded research and healthy skepticism of all narratives being pushed upon us in favour of sincere data analysis and research.
Here’s the thing. There are crazy anti-vaxxers. And then there are people who are not partisan, who take covid seriously, and who have dug deep into the data, “The science” isn’t settled. And no matter where the practical facts of covid eventually land, we all need to live with each other in our communities, in these countries, on this planet. Normalizing the idea of deaths as deserved in this context is a failure to learn from history.
It may turn out in the end that the vaccines were the best strategy for this thing, but when you look deeply behind the spin it becomes obvious that that is not yet clear. A danger greater still than covid, which is tragic and serious but only marginally lethal, is the loss of our sense-making and cooperative spirit. So for now, if we really “follow the science” we need to acknowledge that if we look beyond the culture wars the actual data is still messy and inconclusive. And after the pandemic moves on, we still need to live together. The virus is bad enough without a manufactured civil war.
I agree that people who die after taking the vaccine (This number is minuscule) or due to breakthrough covid deserve our compassion. As for "digging deep into the data" I would respectfully ask: "Are you a doctor or scientist?"
The mistrust and contempt for people who have spent their lives in medicine and the idea that a lay person can "follow the science" is curious to me. I would not presume to know more than a person who has dedicated his/her life to a particular research field and I would not expect others to understand my field. Why do people assume they can google a few studies and know more than those who work in medical research and have access to studies unavailable to the public?
As for the "Civil War"-- we're already in a cold one. The contempt I feel for others is, in my opinion, justified and as I said above, I make no apologies for it.
The scientific community is not in consensus about these issues. Many doctors and scientists are concerned about the downstream effects of vaccines. I don't pretend to understand the data better than they do, but I am reading careful data analysis from all across a spectrum of concerns - and there are legitimate (as well as illegitimate) concerns enough to dissuade people from getting the vaccine. I would encourage everybody to review the Nuremburg code. We all have a right to be educated about the procedures we are subjected to and the right to withdraw consent. And ultimately, your contempt hurts you more than it hurts people like me.
"your contempt hurts you more than it hurts people like me."
But it also hurts society, unless it tips people off, to the extent to which so much of the med. profession has become brutally power-drunk.
Please keep up the good posting here.
Thanks Kaishaku!
I'll bet that the number of those, who mistrust people who have spent their lives in medicine, dwarfs the number of those with *contempt* for such people.
That you would imagine otherwise likely says a huge amount about you.
"I would *not expect* others to understand my field", but nonetheless
"The contempt I feel for others is, in my opinion, justified...."
With that combo of attitudes, I'll not believe a single word you say about anything.
"Actions have consequences and I refuse to feel shamed by you or anyone telling me I have to "understand" antisocial, selfish utterly stupid behavior."
I wouldn't ask you to feel shame. I think I understand how you feel, having felt something similar myself. I do have a more pragmatic question: who does this contempt or schadenfreude help? Perhaps you feel a righteous flash of vindication or satisfaction, but I doubt that's more than a short-lived pleasure. It doesn't serve to convince anyone who didn't already agree with you.
The reason we try to "understand" antisocial, selfish, and stupid behavior is twofold:
1) We're not perfect. We make mistakes. Maybe this is one -- and one useful way to evaluate our ideas is to determine and understand why someone disagrees with them.
2) If we wish to effect changes in the behavior or decisions or understanding of others, and wish to do so through persuasion rather than force, we must understand them and their decisions. We must understand how they see the world and the issue and tailor our communication to that (and perhaps even, if we are humble, change our thoughts a little bit in response to hearing a different perspective, and find the empathy that is the root of the very best persuasion).
Thank you for your comment.
I used to have a lot of empathy for all kinds of people. However, it evaporated during the Trump administration, when being as cruel and selfish as possible became the sole goal of the GOP. And of course, I've read lots of articles in the mainstream press that stress how "we" must show compassion and empathy to THEM while they aren't asked to show any kind of empathy for others.
I live in the upper-Midwest so I am actually very familiar with Trump antivaxxers because they live all around me. They tailgate me because I have a Biden sticker, they fly their Trump 2024 flags, and they utter racist slurs at my non-white son.
I truly do not care how many Trump supporters die after ingesting horse dewormer. They have access to a safe, available, effective vaccine but they prefer to prolong the pandemic and kill people like my sister who is immunocompromised or children, all in the name of their "freedumb."
You all can tell me how my contempt and anger hurt me and you might be correct but I don't care. I also have no "empathy" for Nazis, people in the Klan, or the Taliban. Does that also make me a "bad" person?
My "empathy" drained a long time ago.
< "we" must show compassion and empathy to THEM while they *aren't asked* to show any kind of empathy for others.... >
No, they aren't "asked" to show any kind of empathy, it's *demanded* of most of them (save for those in in Red states) to say *zip* against such empathy, lest they be Cancelled.
< I live in the upper-Midwest so I am actually very familiar with Trump antivaxxers because they live all around me. They tailgate me because I have a Biden sticker.... >
Well, I live in a quite Blue part of the US, so I am actually *very* familiar with Dem pro-vaxxers, because they live all around me, and *if* I was for Trump (I'm ambivalent, for complex reasons), I'd *not think* of having *any* Trump etc. sticker on my car, home, etc., or even of indicating my ambivalence.
In Blue America, nothing less than *total* fealty to the (Woke) Dem party line will save you from Cancellation, or worse, depending on exactly where you are.
If you insist on comparing anti-vaxers to "Nazis, people in the Klan, or the Taliban", I'll insist on comparing pro-vaxers to Jacobins, Leninists, Maoists, etc.
As I've had occasion to stay in "Red" parts of the US, incl. as recently as last year, I'm confident enough in my grasp of both groups that I can *emphasize* that, for all their flaws, the bulk of Deplorables are (at least recently) vastly *fairer* people, than are the bulk of Wokesters.
BTW, I have many decades of in-depth social experience with folks from both factions, so I'm quite qualified to assess both.
The "Reds" have grown up *some* in the last decade, while the Blues have shown an utterly *stunning* Intellectual, emotional, and moral collapse.
In particular, the "Reds" have come upon a slew of good reasons to suspect everything that the MSM etc. tell them, incl. about the vaxes.
Those Blues etc. who display (or feign) ignorance of these reasons are, not informed, but pseudo-informed, in what I'll keep calling an utterly *stunning* Intellectual, emotional, and moral collapse.
Esp. in light of this slew of good reasons to suspect the MSM etc., it's brutal when Ms. Scott etc. demonize these Deplorables, because *some* of them "utter racist slurs" at her non-white son.
If she ever hangs in a Blue town, and fails to toe the Woke line down to the last *scintilla*, hearing slurs will likely be the least of her problems.
Good stuff, but the rot of wokeism is permeating everywhere, and too few are facing, that the Woke are determined to convert, not via through persuasion, but rather via force.
Weltmacht oder Niedergang!
If one were to back up a few years, one might find far more patience and sympathy with ‘the other side.’ Sure, schadenfreude has been with us forever. But starting this narrative at COVID-19 deniers allows a glossing over of years of setting-the-scene.
A great deal of anger and contempt has been directed at people who have yet to be vaccinated for Covid, and such people are now harried by vaccination mandates from schools and employers, including a sweeping requirement for Federal employees and those working for private companies pursuant to contracts with the Federal government. AFAIK, none of the mandates and few, if any, of the haters make any exception for people who have recovered from Covid infection.
But according to an op-ed by a Johns Hopkins Med School prof published two days ago in the Wall Street Journal, a rigorous study conducted in Israel with a sample group of more than 700,000 people found that the incidence of symptomatic Covid infection in unvaccinated people who had recovered from previous Covid infection was 27 times less(!) than among those who'd been fully vaccinated for Covid but had not previously been infected. The author excoriates the CDC for failing to conduct similar research and publish the results without spin or cherry-picking.
Here's a link to the op-ed, but if you're not a paying WSJ subscriber you may be blocked from seeing the entire text: https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-19-coronavirus-breakthrough-vaccine-natural-immunity-cdc-fauci-biden-failure-11631548306?mod=searchresults_pos1&page=1
I use “M.” like the French do, for Monsieur but ALSO for Mesdames and Mademoiselle EQUALLY. ALL CAPS are ITALICS. :)
TY (thank You) M. Jilani. Contrary to M. Scott, I'm thankful to have a character flaw pointed out to me. Excuse is that I only think the things, but still... *I* know is, I guess, the point.
I don't get around as much as I'd like to but, ON BALANCE (italics), wouldn't it be the Leftists who are more prone to this disability? If so, I'd relate it to the moral superiority they falsely give themselves.
To those interested, there's a nationwide group that hopes to bridge the gap between Dems and Repubs. https://braverangels.org/ Aim is for each to just see each other as fellow human beings capable of TALKING, if not agreeing.
TYTY again, for this wonderful essay, M. Jilani! :) = 😊
M. jt,-- I'm not a "leftist," whatever that means to you, and I'm not conservative either. I'm a frustrated, angry American who is sick and tired of the stupidity on "both sides." ON BALANCE I don't consider my "character flaw," as you put it, to be anything near the selfish stupidity of antivaxxers or the smugness of the woke.
Ah... I agree to the extent that I felt the same Way about the antivaxxers and the woke. Still having difficulty, right now, thinking/feeling about the woke. That's just me.
I apologize. I guess I was moralizing. But I just don't see the benefit to YOU of being hateful to somebody else. But then, maybe You weren't being hateful, and I misinterpreted. But if I'm right, then all I can suggest is, as a general rule, maybe hate IS the wrong word and what I mean is "anger" doesn't do much good for the one who feels it. I know, more moralizing, but I'm "speaking" from experience on this one.
I'm centrist, too. I still wonder if most of this anger/hate is coming from the Leftists.
Zaid, I appreciate what you're saying here, and I agree that we walk a fine line when we air these stories. But do you not see any potential value to making people aware of how stubborn political ideologies can have life-threatening consequences? In several of these reports about deaths among the vaccine-resistant, the articles have also highlighted how, among the victim's final words were warnings to their friends and family (and presumably anyone else whom the message might reach) that they regretted their decision not to get vaccinated. I find this especially poignant in the case of political firebrands who vociferously promoted anti-vaccination ideology or downplayed COVID; for their regular listeners to be made aware by friends and family that their dying sentiments were that people should take the disease more seriously and get vaccinated, this has the potential to change some people's minds.
Maybe I'm being naive. Maybe most people are dug in on this issue and aren't going to be swayed by these stories. But I have to believe it's worth trying. Bad ideas are supposed to die because they fail - so one way or another, people have to be made aware that refusing to get vaccinated is a decision that entails far more risk to one's health than taking the vaccine. And while I agree that general statistics on COVID deaths should be enough to establish this, the unfortunate thing is that human beings often tend to be unmoved by such arguments even when they *aren't* skeptical of the veracity of the statistics in the first place. Sometimes, very human stories like this, where an individual with whom the reader identifies on a personal level suffers a tragic fate as a result of misconceptions that they share with the reader, powerful lessons can be imparted in ways where dry analyses fail. Even though it's anecdotal, for better or worse, people respond to anecdotal evidence - much like the almost purely anecdotal "evidence" that fuels vaccine skepticism in the first place.
So I would ask you - is there any way that you feel these articles could be presented in a way that more suits (what I would assume is) their purpose? Do you feel writers are giving cues as subtle (or even overt) "permission" to engage in schadenfreude? Or do you think that this is just an inevitable consequence of even presenting these stories in the first place? Most articles that I read on this honestly don't feel to me like they're crossing a line, but maybe that's just me. Surely though, there must be *some* way to present these stories as compassionate warnings rather than I-told-you-so grave dancing, no?