Enforcement of VAX escalating

[KJS]

Is it "externally considerate" for people to post a lot of information about the jab that paints it in a negative picture or people to be so rigid in their refusal to be vaccinated? I've seen some people in society say that getting jabbed is now an act of solidarity and "community".

What do you mean by "post a lot of information"? On social media? One can easily unfollow or block a person that is sharing information not aligned with their worldview.

That "rigid refusal" thing seems to be mechanical law at play to counterbalance coercion. Interesting thought that I've found on a blog that discusses Complexity Science that shined some light (for me) on said mechanicality:

If liberty is to be achieved and preserved, coercion must be treated as a last resort. A hopefully unnecessary evil. It would be naive to think that there are no conditions that could arise that could demand such coercion, but we should be fearful and ashamed to turn to such measures.

When one comes to the conclusion that general coercion is necessary to avoid some large systemic harm or the undue suffering of individuals, at minimum one should acknowledge that this is indeed a necessary evil. It should be treated with the utmost seriousness, and without any hint of glibness. We should examine and interrogate the rationale of the coercion and remain skeptical and doubtful of it at each step.

When the desire to coerce is presented with enthusiasm, it makes those that are coerced reasonably defensive. When those resisting coercion get labeled as if they are aggressors, it exacerbates this defensiveness. Those who resist are in fact manifesting a sacred duty, to prevent wanton coercion being applied without friction.

Whenever general coercion occurs, it ought to be done grimly and regretfully, never gleefully. The excitement that can come with collective attempts to enforce coercion is itself reason enough to resist, for there is nothing good that lies within or adjacent to this attitude.

If we must coerce our sisters and brothers, it should be done with the utmost respect and reservation. Anything less is an insult to liberty.

 

[Sybil]

act of solidarity and "community".

coercion

should the psychological view of the jab be changed to a more accomodating one?

It is a process, indeed. Phrases have been introduced to help this such as "get back to some sense of normalities" (with the help of the jab). Solidarity for the community. In what way is this different, then when is your country calling you to go to war? Your country needs you. You need to protect your family from the enemy. Now, the enemy is this 'deadly virus'. We are all in this together. Coercion. Remember the shaming campaign towards those, who refused to go to war? Same old, same old. Changing the ideology, but essentially, it is the same. No one studies history anymore as a whole. People study segments of history from a specific point of view. Students study Jack the Ripper for their A-level history. Splendid.
If you look at history, it is repeating itself with different settings. The ruling class creates a sense of community (ie nation: we have the same values both the others don't) in order to manipulate the masses easier. Go to war? Why? Because of this enemy. Take the jab. Why? Because if you not, your grandma and other's grandma will die. And yes. The excitement of yesterday will be normal tomorrow.
Please don't be mistaken people. We are not the real target here.
The real targets are the children. They come into this world as blank sheets of paper. Society fails to understand the significance of the biological and psychological warfare against children by the state. They are the future 'mind slaves'. Not you or me. This psychopathic political system is built on the sacrifice of children.
What is a community without children? Where this community will go if children will see facemasks and social distancing as normal? You and I remember when we met others and hang out with others. It only takes one generation of brainwashed people to change the whole world. Zoom and Google Meet will replace the family dinner.
The new normal is here already.
People of the western hemisphere became infantile. It is by design. The vast majority of them can't reason, can't think independently, throw temper tantrums, and depends on Big Daddy to tell them what to do and how to do it. Everything has been accepted. EVERYTHING. Coercion is not enforced by the state, it is rather enforced by people. Peer pressure is stronger than laws.
I am not surprised by a bit how this whole world unfolding now.

 

[Sybil]

If we must coerce our sisters and brothers, it should be done with the utmost respect and reservation. Anything less is an insult to liberty.

This sentence is an oxymoron. When you coerce your sisters and brothers, you infringe their freedom. It is already an insult to liberty.
There is no respect in coercion.

 

[KJS]

This sentence is an oxymoron. When you coerce your sisters and brothers, you infringe their freedom. It is already an insult to liberty.
There is no respect in coercion.

The author's definition of liberty is not limitless freedom:

Liberty in civilization depends on a balance between being personally unconstrained and not generating severe negative externalities that impact the people around us or the health and wellbeing of the collective system on which we all depend.

That is the key distinction between a society that affords liberty, and the naive notion of freedom that implies individual behavior ought to be absolutely unconstrained. The latter cannot exist inside of any system which maximizes freedom generally, as the unconstrained freedom of one becomes the unethical coercion of another.

When we must constrain the behavior of others in order to preserve the integrity of society and avoid undue harm coming to it and the individuals that comprise it, we should aim for the minimal constraint that serves its purpose, and no more.

Keep in mind that he's an expert in the field of risk analysis, so his framework might be a little bit more constrained in that regard. What I meant by citing him, is that surely that kind of enthusiastically marketed coercion is a bad and evil thing. But also rigid stance and "dying on a hill" could be some kind of mechanical feedback mechanism that we should be aware of. I'm sorry if I introduced some noise into the discussion, especially since the very same thing was already written a few times. But after reading this little article, something "clicked", and I thought that I need to share it :)

 

[SOTTREADER]

What do you mean by "post a lot of information"? On social media? One can easily unfollow or block a person that is sharing information not aligned with their worldview.

I meant here - just weary that negative information about the vaccine could influence how people feel if they took the jab for whatever reason. So wondering if it's considerate to be careful about posting too much negative information, especially the wild speculations.

That "rigid refusal" thing seems to be mechanical law at play to counterbalance coercion.

I think a part of it is down to survival instinct and also identity affirmation. I read a book once that said teenagers were quite rebellious because that affirmed their identity as independent individuals who were not an extension of their parents identity - in such a way their sense of self was formed and maintained. With the jab coercion a part of the "saying no" could be this process taking place in adults - the State or whatever entity is looking to subsume your identity into itself and people naturally resist as they feel themselves to be individuals and not extensions of something else. If you look at it, it's all a question of where the boundaries of your individuality are - the boundaries we were used to are being redrawn.

Really what's happening is we're witnessing power being exercised to push people into giving up something of themselves. We're witnessing the limits to our own individual agency in our "free" society. People then have to reconcile this reality within themselves and come to terms with it. In a different time, people were sent to war to fight and to die - if they dared ran away they'd be hunted down and hanged at dawn. So you were just this thing - a person, a human being but only to an extent, not fully. Really what's a "human being" - that's the question...

 

[Sybil]

Really what's a "human being" - that's the question...

Maybe this could be the title of another thread? :D A long one..... Am I a person if I don't have free will? What is freedom?

 

[SOTTREADER]

Maybe this could be the title of another thread? :D A long one..... Am I a person if I don't have free will? What is freedom?

I already know the answer...

• You have the power to define your own humanity at least to the extent you experience it within yourself.
• You are here to learn lessons and all their is, is lessons.
• You have to live within the constraints of the society you find yourself in. You can only struggle against it so much.
• Don't concentrate too much on the body, the soul is what counts.
• Suffering is a given but you can choose to consciously suffer.
• There's no free lunch.

 

[brandon]

I have a question now that I'm appreciating there is quite a lot of forum members who have actually been vaccinated due to various reasons and a few others soon to roll up the sleeves as they reside in places like Germany or similar.

Is it "externally considerate" for people to post a lot of information about the jab that paints it in a negative picture or people to be so rigid in their refusal to be vaccinated?

I think it can be inconsiderate.. Not the actual posting of information - given the nature of this forum I doubt anyone here wants to have information hidden from them - but the way you word it.

Super basic example: if someone said "If you get the jab you're stupid, you're letting them kill you!".. then someone who has already had to get it - even if they were coerced, and agree that the jab is bad - might read that and start feeling like they're not wanted here, and silently drift away. Which doesn't help anyone. Some people might be up for a boisterous argument, but other people are more shy or delicate..

If someone instead said something like "I don't want the jab, i'm worried it will kill me", it seems so much more gentle. It contains the same information, but it's not forcing a view on people.. basically it's not insulting, it's not limiting, or implying disdain for people. So it leaves room for those shy, quiet people to stick around. Which helps everyone, because we all have our own pieces of the puzzle to share, and someone having been injected with something doesn't change their importance.

(ok not a very good example, it was all i could think of right now..)

Like Joe said earlier in the thread:

Precisely. And more than that, I was looking out for other members of this forum who have been vaccinated and were reading this thread without posting on it, and potentially taking away a message that was disheartening and depressing for them, not reflective of our position and not based in reality. Members of this forum don't have to bother themselves with such considerations, but mods do.

Posting actual information (links to news articles etc) isn't inconsiderate though, on this forum, IMO.. I wouldn't see it as "painting a negative picture", it's just sharing data which speaks for itself.

 

[Sybil]

I already know the answer...

• You have the power to define your own humanity at least to the extent you experience it within yourself.
• You are here to learn lessons and all their is, is lessons.
• You have to live within the constraints of the society you find yourself in. You can only struggle against it so much.
• Don't concentrate too much on the body, the soul is what counts.
• Suffering is a given but you can choose to consciously suffer.
• There's no free lunch.

Your emoji () says it all.

 

[SOTTREADER]

I think it can be inconsiderate.. Not the actual posting of information - given the nature of this forum I doubt anyone here wants to have information hidden from them - but the way you word it.

Super basic example: if someone said "If you get the jab you're stupid, you're letting them kill you!".. then someone who has already had to get it - even if they were coerced, and agree that the jab is bad - might read that and start feeling like they're not wanted here, and silently drift away. Which doesn't help anyone. Some people might be up for a boisterous argument, but other people are more shy or delicate..

If someone instead said something like "I don't want the jab, i'm worried it will kill me", it seems so much more gentle. It contains the same information, but it's not forcing a view on people.. basically it's not insulting, it's not limiting, or implying disdain for people. So it leaves room for those shy, quiet people to stick around. Which helps everyone, because we all have our own pieces of the puzzle to share, and someone having been injected with something doesn't change their importance.

I wish those who got jabbed spoke up a bit more and shared their experience - in terms of the psychology, what they felt immediately afterwards, months afterwards. Are there lingering feelings of shame? How do they handle the uncertainty around the future and their health - do they think about it? Have they taken a booster... will they? Do they think about it? Do they not? Do they care? Etc

Best way to build understanding is by discussion and there's a gap between those who haven't / won't take the jab and those who will / have. People say the gap isn't there but I think it is. It's not a question of right or wrong, it's a question of one person exposing themselves to something and another not and this creates that gap.

Someone told me once that if you don't take the jab, you're essentially saying that you think all those who have, have made an error - whether willingly or unwillingly. To think this was made to appear incorrect, an error in of itself.

I get the impression that there's a balance in play - on one side of the scale is the "uncertainty" from the exposure and what it really means (no one can say they know, really) and on the other hand is the tyranny of coercion. Both appear to be trying to balance each other. Sometimes I see the glee in the eyes of some jabbed when governments introduce restrictions on the unjabbed - almost like it serves you right for thinking you were "special" and not part of society to make the sacrifice like anyone else. We all know a person, or two, who is a champion of vaccine passports and segregation. On the other side you get the impression the unjabbed are waiting for the health disasters to start happening, similar to how let's say some may be waiting for comets to hit - it's the "I told you so". This tension between the 2 is interesting.

Posting actual information (links to news articles etc) isn't inconsiderate though, on this forum, IMO.. I wouldn't see it as "painting a negative picture", it's just sharing data which speaks for itself.

The data increasingly elicits emotional reactions due to what it means e.g. imagine in 2 years you see a headline like this

• Latest research has found that those who took the Moderna covid vaccine have a 15 fold chance of getting a heart attack within their lifetime compared to those who didn't.

This isn't neutral information - this is information that will stress out hundreds of millions of people, most of who are young as moderna is targeted at young people. Would we blame a government for tweaking the truth ever so slightly and saying,

"There will be a prevalence of cardiac related issues due to an increase in environmental toxins and poor lifestyle choices amongst the young"

The more I think about it, the more I don't think there can ever be "The Truth" about these vaccines. The truth isn't neutral in this case if it's negative - it will need amending to make more palatable and accomodating but of course it may not have an impact on what actually happens. Maybe it's not a question of what happens, it's a question of how that is perceived and understood.

 

[brandon]

I wish those who got jabbed spoke up a bit more and shared their experience

That's one reason I think it's good to not slam a door in their faces, so to speak, with the kind of extreme/rigid wording I was talking about. If people feel like they're gonna be judged, they're less likely to share.

Someone told me once that if you don't take the jab, you're essentially saying that you think all those who have, have made an error - whether willingly or unwillingly.

Well yeah, and vice versa I guess.. I explicitly told people in my family that though I wouldn't be getting it myself, I certainly wouldn't think any less of them for having done so.

Partially I hated the thought of avenues of communication shutting down, if they thought I thought they were stupid (because if you believe the tv here, people not getting injected are an extreme right wing violent white supremacist antivaxxer rabble).

And partially it was calculatedly self-serving strategy - preemptively making it harder for them to turn around later and say THEY think less of ME for NOT having gotten it. :D

The data increasingly elicits emotional reactions due to what it means e.g. imagine in 2 years you see a headline like this

• Latest research has found that those who took the Moderna covid vaccine have a 15 fold chance of getting a heart attack within their lifetime compared to those who didn't.

This isn't neutral information - this is information that will stress out hundreds of millions of people

Yeah but, in the context of what I was saying, such an article might give negative emotional reactions, but sharing the article (on a forum like this) still wouldn't be implying you personally feel scorn for people who got jabbed.. that's all I was trying to say, I think. (sorry, hasty reply, short on time today, gotta go!)

 

[PopHistorian]

I think it was the Gestapo only really had a small contingent of men spread around many offices in the occupied territories, and really only waited until citizens came in, and turned in their neighbors.

Yet another example would be the East German Stasi. Their whole system depended on citizen informers.

Right, the Gestapo (and the Stasi) were kept quite busy without needing to do much in the way of actual investigations at all. In well established tyrannies, the population, out of fear, censors and regulates itself - and that's the goal of the tyrants. That makes it quite easy to notice when someone stands out as resistant.

In the 2000s, we saw the US attempting this "inform on your neighbors" strategy in Iraq. It was reported that the GW Bush administration was encouraging the setup of citizen informant networks in the USA because "security." The way I see it, back then, justification was claimed for every overreach because "security." It's the same playbook now except every overreach is because "health." It's not even clever, but works well enough.

 

[Alejo]

I have a question now that I'm appreciating there is quite a lot of forum members who have actually been vaccinated due to various reasons and a few others soon to roll up the sleeves as they reside in places like Germany or similar.

Is it "externally considerate" for people to post a lot of information about the jab that paints it in a negative picture or people to be so rigid in their refusal to be vaccinated? I've seen some people in society say that getting jabbed is now an act of solidarity and "community".

I wonder, are there any forum members who actually got vaccinated because they agreed it's the best action for them (rather than coercion) and would they feel comfortable enough to actually say that? Are there forum members who actually after taking the jab thought "I don't see what the fuss is all about?" etc. Given that more and more people will be getting the jab as we go forward, should the psychological view of the jab be changed to a more accomodating one?

Well, first, I am not sure how you're able to determine that quite a lot of forum members have been vaccinated.

Second, I don't think there's a need, nor a utility in seeing the situation in such black and white terms, people on this forum are adults and I do not believe need safe spaces nor trigger warnings in what amounts to a personal choice for which no one is passing judgement.

Third, posting information about vaccinations that can stimulate discussion is always welcome, knowledge protects after all, provided it is done in a respectful manner to all the forum members, but that has always been the case.

If anyone posts information with the intention of looking down upon someone who has made that choice, for whatever reason, then the issue is with the one who posts and not with the rest of the forum members. It's more of a reflection of how they see themselves and of a need for external validation rather than objective appreciation IMO

 

[SlipNet]

I have a question now that I'm appreciating there is quite a lot of forum members who have actually been vaccinated due to various reasons and a few others soon to roll up the sleeves as they reside in places like Germany or similar.

Is it "externally considerate" for people to post a lot of information about the jab that paints it in a negative picture or people to be so rigid in their refusal to be vaccinated? I've seen some people in society say that getting jabbed is now an act of solidarity and "community".

I wonder, are there any forum members who actually got vaccinated because they agreed it's the best action for them (rather than coercion) and would they feel comfortable enough to actually say that? Are there forum members who actually after taking the jab thought "I don't see what the fuss is all about?" etc. Given that more and more people will be getting the jab as we go forward, should the psychological view of the jab be changed to a more accomodating one?

Good question. Personally, I was really torn over getting the jab. Ultimately I chose to go through with it because of my home life, sharing a home with my elderly parents. There was no coercion involved, but I really was in a right struggle over the final decision, and I still wonder if I've just entered a genetic russian roulette game in doing this. Time will ultimately tell if I suffer over this decision or not.

There does seem to be a sharp divide between pro and anti vax viewpoints in society, and I've scarcely seen any external consideration being employed either. I'm instinctively a centrist in my thinking, always have been, and so always tend to look impartially at all available info and viewpoints. It's a bit of a quandry, but I think each individual person has their own situation to face, with its own idiosyncratic factors involved. I think you're right, we should be mindful of these factors informing how each of us make our choices.

And, contrary to some rather extreme theorists, I don't think I've taken the mark of the beast in having the jab. I think the C's said there's not a chance of anyone living outside the beast system ultimately, it's a case of "belong or starve", so in a sense I do think we ought to relax a little as a society. Things are tense and polarised enough as they are, and we have a real challenge now as a collective to navigate a potentially devastating future.

The less tension and internal squabbling the better, we're supposed to be sharing the load on here, not adding to the weight we carry. I made my choice, and now time will unfold and I have to live with the consequences, for good or ill. I trust in the members here that each of us will make the correct choice for our own circumstances.

 

[Candice]

Given that more and more people will be getting the jab as we go forward, should the psychological view of the jab be changed to a more accomodating one?

The reason many forum members have expressed countless times on this thread that getting the vaccine is a choice and that the choice should be respected is from my point of view the most externally considerate way to deal with the situation.

Some will refuse the jab to the end.
Some will get it for their jobs.
Some will get it to travel.
Some will get it it for social acceptance.
Some will get it because it’s the easier path.
Some will get it because they genuinely believe it will help them or others.

Why does it matter the reason they got it or refuse to get it? If they want to discuss their reasons, they will. The only issue I see is when we try to force our choice on others.

Surely what we all want is for people to not feel bad or guilty for making this personal decision. I want people to feel comfortable to discuss this topic without judgement. If anything goes wrong, I most definitely want them to feel comfortable to ask for help or guidance.

This is one bump in the road. Being jabbed or not jabbed should not become such a divisive topic.

In terms of being more externally considerate, I especially don’t think the “pure blood” term is helpful. I think it neither expresses consideration for others nor maturity. It promotes division. However I don’t see anything wrong with continuing to discuss the jab and potential issues/health concerns as long as people try to base their discussions on facts and research, not baseless claims.

Surely the objective truth is what we all want to discover and share. Anyone who has taken or might take the jab in the future must be aware of the potential risks, so I don’t see any need to shield them “psychologically” from “negative” information regarding the jabs.

If your own personal “psychological view” has not been accommodating then that is something you can discuss but overall I think the consensus of the forum has been accommodating for all choices.