"He's going to get caught, just you wait and see.
'Why is everybody always picking on me?'"
The Coasters, "Charlie Brown," 1959
The unvaccinated feel picked on.
Vaccinations got defined as a matter of identity grievance, not a communicable disease.
They are victims, so they can't be dangerous. Right?
 |
| Sign at a New York restaurant |
A lot of people feel they face prejudice: Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, women, homosexuals, Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Evangelicals, trans, seniors, the obese, and others. There is one new group: The unvaccinated.
Green Bay Packer quarterback Aaron Rodgers is in the news this weekend. He is unvaccinated, having skirted NFL rules to protect the team and league by stating that he "was immunized." He said he didn't lie exactly; he just defined immunity in his own terms. He said his "immunity" consisted of following advice he got from Joe Rogan, which was to be in good shape, to take zinc and ivermectin, and to let your natural immune system protect you.
He tested positive for COVID. He is lashing back at the criticism he is getting for endangering his teammates and others. He said he is the victim of a "witch hunt," and is being put into a "cancel-culture casket."
Look, I'm not some sort of anti-vax, flat-earther. I am somebody who is a critical thinker, you guys know me. I march to my own drum. . ..
I realize I’m in the crosshairs of the woke mob right now. . .. I believe strongly in bodily autonomy and ability to make choices for your body: Not have to acquiesce to some woke culture or crazed group of individuals who say you have to do something.
I hear from readers of this blog who struggle to understand why people have dug in their heels on COVID vaccination. After all, those resisters have almost certainly been vaccinated against smallpox, polio, measles, chicken pox, rubella, hepatitis, and more. Why the resistance here?
Aaron Rodgers and the sign at the restaurant help explain it. The unvaccinated and their enablers are making a category error. Early messaging from Trump changed the category of COVID from one of the many communicable, infectious diseases, in which one's behavior is a matter of injury or death to others, into the category of identity and private choice, like race, religion, and sexual orientation. Trump's early messaging defined COVID as "just the flu" and warned not to let the cure be worse than the disease. Trump defined efforts to control spread as oppression from the dominant group--i.e. the government infectious disease worry-warts. American culture has an existing mental template for this: Prejudice. People on both left and right are alert for discrimination, adverse profiling, aggressions and micro-aggressions. It is an idea out there in the zeitgeist. Victims of prejudice have a language of push-back: "pride," "identity," "autonomy," and "privacy."
A majority of White Americans, and White Evangelicals especially, tell pollsters they feel themselves to be victims of prejudice. They complain the whole culture defines them as racists, as superstitious, as homophobes, as deplorable. They entered the COVID era already unhappy about government affirmative action programs. COVID protocols fell into that frame, bossy government picking on "normal" people like them.
 |
| KDRV-TV-Medford protest supporting un-vaccinated nurses |
Seen as victims, vaccination refusers get an excuse from the patriotic duty of care for fellow Americans. Victims are weak. Weak people aren't predators, selfishly endangering others. We do not see street protests on behalf of spouse batterers and kidnappers, people who are exercising their individual autonomy to endanger others. They are understood to be anti-social and strong, i.e. criminals. But we do see gatherings on behalf of nurses who wish to continue doing their hands-on work on fragile patients while being unvaccinated. They are a different mental category: The unvaccinated nurses are victims, victims of prejudice. How can they be dangerous?
In the song Charlie Brown, we know that the deep voice of "Charlie" is blind to his own guilt when he asks "Why is everybody always picking on me?"
Who's always writing on the wall who's always goofing in the hall?
Who's always throwing spit balls guess who (who me – yea you)?
Aaron Rodgers is blinded by his sense of victimhood: He's the good guy here, being picked on. He was also exhaling up close to others in the huddle calling plays and breathing deep in the locker room. His teammates trusted him. COVID is a communicable disease.
22 comments:
Victim Stance: the single most pathological thinking error for the criminal personality. If the criminal views himself as the victim rather than the perpetrator of a crime, change will not take place. It is an indicator to exclude from treatment as the criminal is too entrenched in their criminality. Why change when they did nothing wrong?
Unfortunately, the effects of the vaccines on preventing the spread of especially the delta variant are not that large and may not last that long. link
I just got my Moderna booster, so it’s not that I’m anti vaccines. But there’s a lot we don’t know.
To Michael T:
That's why we're getting boosters. If everyone had gotten vaccinated when the vaccines first became available, we might not have needed them. It's too bad the far right has turned vaccination into such a political issue.
Joe Rogan if I recall accurately got COVID himself and readily admitted it kicked his butt for a while. His issue and presumably Aaron Rodgers’ issue was with the short-term efficacy and potential long-term effects of the vaccines, with the serial equivocations and prevarications of Dr. Fauci and the CDC contributing to that concern.
Nor did it help that one year ago the President and Vice-President-elect despite the assurances of Dr. Fauci had repeatedly cast doubt on the reliability and safety of the “Trump” vaccine (which they themselves took as soon as it was available). They offered sympathy and understanding to those who feared the “rushed” certification process.
I have deleted two examples of plagiarism from the conservative media posted in the names of other people. It was done by a comment-troll.
I also deleted a post from a thoughtful commenter who asked a question about the troll's comment.
Let's try not feeding the troll.
Who gives a damn about what some football player thinks?
He's just one of the millions who are proving themselves to be ignorant, fearful and self-indulged, hiding behind a "individualism" straw man argument.
He and his teammates are employed under a vaccine mandate and in fact, it's one that has a corollary in that football players are required to wear padding and helmets for safety to themselves and others.
He has been rightly prevented from participating, and by the way he shows even further conceit in that if he really was going to stand up for his "principles" he should quit the game.
Nor did it help that one year ago the President and Vice-President-elect despite the assurances of Dr. Fauci had repeatedly cast doubt on the reliability and safety of the “Trump” vaccine (which they themselves took as soon as it was available).
This is rarely brought up. It's the foundation of the politization of the entire vaccination effort.
Thankfully, we do have the vaccinations available, even if the CDC, WHO, and other agencies, along with the media have sent mixed messages since the beginning.
We are all still waiting to learn why the available vaccines badly affect some people. My wife and I were recipients in January(1st) and February(2nd) 2020 with little or no reaction. Got "booster" in September before boosters were officially offered.
Some friends experienced few if any side effects, while others were hit hard.
Many were not able to get vaccinated due to other medical conditions they were dealing with. Some who were vaccinated still got COVID. Some got COVID before the vaccines were available.
Aware of only one death here in my neighborhood of 100+ people. He was a medical professional who could not get vaccinated since he was undergoing chemo for stage 4 cancer. It was good/bad news for him. He celebrated when his cancer went into remission, but shortly after got COVID, and died within days.
It's not fair to blame the "regressives" for the continued pandemic, especially when that anti-vax" sentiment has representatives from all political factions. Too many of the comments on this blog seem to think that the right is responsible for all the world's ills. There's some personal responsibility that too many fail to admit.
My county here in Central Florida is home to quite a few seniors, as it's a 55+ community of mostly conservatives. Far right, and center right. Don't worry, there are a few center left and far left, too. All in all, more than 85% of the 55+ residents in my county have received both vaccines, and unfortunately, a few of the vaccinated have still contracted COVID and of those, some still succumbed.
There are many studies underway.
Hopefully someday we'll understand better why some still are affected, whether vaccinated or not.
Next up, the flu season!
Mike said, “If everyone had gotten vaccinated when the vaccines first became available, we might not have needed [the boosters].”
The way that the efficacy of the vaccines drops over time is a separate issue that has nothing to do with vaccination rates. No one knows whether or not something like herd immunity is even possible with a virus like Covid.
Please state clearly if anonymous comments are no longer accepted.
Not everyone is in a privileged position to use our names, such as being comfortably retired and independent, a tenured academic, being a man in a dangerous and patriarchal society, being white in a racist society, etc.
Some readers need to consider the real possibility of retaliation for expressing their views publicly. We would like to be included in the conversation, despite our marginalized social position and lack of privilege.
Comment by Peter Sage regarding comments.
I have been getting a flurry--four so far today--of comments that have one or more of the following characteristics:
Contain obscenity
Make personal reference to me or individuals who comment here by name
Are attributed to someone else
Are anonymous and denounce someone
Are plagiarized
I feel a responsibility to people who comment here with a consistent name, e.g. Low Dudgeon, or "Sally," not to allow a troll to comment under their names. That has been happening.
I dislike comments of the kind that are posted here which are supposedly in my name, or the name of a family member, describing our supposed enjoyment of weird or illegal sex practices. I realize that no reader of this blog thinks that I would be the author of a comment celebrating getting blowjobs from Joe Biden, so what's the harm? The harm is ugliness in public discourse. I agreed with an off-line comment from a friend that such comments reflect on him or Trump, not me, but that it was ugly, like a deposit of dog poop where it was unexpected, and I should remove it. I agree.
I will allow anonymous posts, but I need to give them a careful read-through for content, because sometimes they start out useful civic exchange and then I realize it is simply something plagiarized. The plagiarism-from-conservative-media issue creates a problem for people who wish to post anonymously. Let's say you have something conservative or pro-Trumpish or anti-Biden to write and you write carefully and well. IF it is written in your own words, and it doesn't rely on name-calling and mean-spirited comments about Biden drooling, then probably I will let it stay up. But often I realize that it is simply copy-and-paste plagerism from One America Network or Breitbart, which is why it seemed to be informed and the sentence structure is grammatical. But I delete plagiarism.
But what if Breitbart is your source and you think Breitbart said it VERY WELL, and Breitbart's words are now your words, too. Sorry. I am disinclined to publish that. Plagiarism is plagiarism.
But what if you think that Hunter Biden really is an important subject, and you think it needs to be discussed, even if the subject of my blog is vaccination resistance? Sorry, I am disinclined to publish off topic, anonymous posts about how terrible Biden is.
But what if what you write about is ON topic, and pro-Trump but not obscene and not plagiarized, and you want it to be anonymous? I generally will let those be up. But please be aware that those are the ones that look very suspicious and are sometimes swept up with me deleting plagiarized or un-useful troll comments. Being anonymous is a red flag. I look for tone. I look at subjective things. If the tone is civil and respectful, then it will probably get published. If it is snarky and mostly negative, then I probably won't. Who decides what is civil versus snarky? I do. And I try to work quickly. And maybe I get it wrong. The more someone sounds like a troll in content or tone, the more likely it is I will delete it.
The best solution is to write respectfully, as if you have respect for people you disagree with, and want to treat them as a fellow American citizen you would like to persuade.
Peter Sage
Posted by Peter Sage on behalf of "anonymous."
The real cost of President Joe Biden’s Build Back Better agenda could be “more than twice what Pelosi says,” the Wall Street Journal reported. In a Penn Wharton Budget Model released on Thursday, analysts found that Democrats’ spending bill will ultimately cost more than $1.75 trillion over 10 years and will not “reduce the federal deficit.” Instead, the spending bill in its current form could cost $1.87 trillion and raise $1.56 trillion in revenue over 10 years, which is more spending and less in taxes than White House projections. “So the entitlement bill doesn’t come close to paying for itself, and that’s before the House restored a program for four weeks of paid family leave. Penn Wharton estimates that it would reduce economic growth by 0.1% by 2050 and add 2% to the federal debt,” according to the report. Penn Wharton further warned that “if all of the provisions of the bill (except green energy tax cuts) are made permanent” spending would be up to $3.98 trillion, and tax revenue would remain around $1.55 million over 10 years, the report states. “That’s more than twice what the White House is trying to get Americans to believe. Penn Wharton says this level of spending would increase the federal debt 25.2% and reduce GDP 2.8% compared with current law by 2050,” according to the publication.
For those who don’t want their names published, I think it would be way better to post under a pseudonym than under “anonymous”. There may be dozens of people calling themselves “anonymously, but, hopefully, only one with pseudoscience by saying e.g. sweetie pie, big mike,Adonis, or fat boy.
Having multiple anonymouses makes it absolutely impossible to know which one we are hearing from.
I use “Malcolm”. I did not use my last name, but there are lots of folks online who know my last name. I just don’t want a bunch of rude garbage arriving on my computer or telephone, which would be fairly easy for ugly trolls to do, if they knew my last name.
My post disappeared, darn it. In a word, it recommended using a pseudonym, rather than “anonymous”. I won’t repeat all the reasons why that makes sense.
Mike—
Politi”fact” is pure leftist cover and spin. Tell you what—forget me, or them for the moment. Just look up the video clips on YouTube, to get the raw data BEFORE you’re duly instructed about the proper “context”. The transcripts will work fine too. Be honest to yourself.
Dr. Fauci by his own admission fibbed about masks right out of the gate, then about herd immunity, for the supposed public good. Right or wrong, that marks a public health bureaucrat more than a man of science. Now he’s suddenly “rethinking” the lab origin hypothesis.
Mike—
Politi-“fact” is pure politi-spin. Tell you what—forget me, or them, for the moment. Just look up the video coverage of their comments on YouTube, or read the transcripts, BEFORE you read the post hoc partisan reconstruction. Be honest with yourself.
Dr. Fauci by his own admission dissembled first about mask efficacy then herd immunity, for the “public good”. Right or wrong, ethically, that marks a public health bureaucrat more than a man of science. Now he’s “rethinking” the Chinese lab origin hypothesis.
M2inFLA is my current pseudonym, and M2inOR before that. If you know how to use internet resources, you'll easily find me.
That said, I appreciate Peter's daily efforts her. Spent enough time in Oregon, and thankful for my time there. Most of my adult life.
It's too bad that Oregon has gone so far downhill. I could not let anymore of my taxes be wasted.
When 8 moved to Oregon in the 70s, it was quite red. Now it's a disappointing blue.
I've been fortunate to have been able to travel the world, and most of the US. It saddens me to see what Oregon has become.
I see that Peter deleted a comment in which I stated some facts about COVID. Gosh, I hope it didn't offend somebody.
Anyway, in response to Mr. Dudgeon, suffice it to say that viewing unedited versions of Biden's and Harris' remarks about the vaccines makes it obvious they were distrustful of Trump, not of the vaccines.
Mike has left a new comment on your post "The unvaccinated: picked-on victims of prejudice":
Back to the subject at hand, a few pertinent points:
It’s true that anti-vaxxers litter the political spectrum, but most of the disinformation about COVID-19 and the vaccines has come from the Republican Party and i’s right wing noise machine.
The same people who spread lies about the pandemic and the vaccines also like to demonize Dr. Fauci, probably because he contradicted their cult leader with facts. Allegations of his “equivocations and prevarications” reveal a woeful ignorance of how science works. As we learn more about something, information changes.
The claim that Biden and Harris distrusted the COVID-19 vaccines is simply false, as you can see for yourself on PolitiFact. Of course, that won’t satisfy the Fox Noise fans because it isn’t what they want to hear.
The potential long-term effects of the vaccines are far preferable to those of COVID-19. They prevent hospitalization and death.
BY ANDREW C. MCCARTHY, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR
The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill
“The fact that you continue to undermine public confidence in a vaccine, if the vaccine emerges during the Trump administration, I think is unconscionable.”
That was then-Vice President Mike Pence’s rebuke of his opponent, then-Sen. Kamala Harris, in the campaign’s stretch-run, when she was talking down Operation Warp Speed, the Trump administration’s zealous initiative to push across the finish line the vaccines that pharmaceutical companies miraculously managed to produce by late 2020.
Harris had stated that any such effort pushed by then-President Trump was untrustworthy. This was consistent with the Biden campaign theme that the Trump administration had been incompetent in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic — a position that morphed, when President Biden took office, into a claim that the Trump team hadn’t even had a workable plan on vaccine distribution (a claim so patently false that even Anthony Fauci, director of the Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, denied it).
The vice presidential candidates’ debate was Harris’s highest-profile appearance of the campaign. She took the opportunity to explain that she would not get a vaccine pushed by Trump. That is what got the habitually placid Pence’s dander up. He turned to Harris and memorably admonished, “Stop playing politics with people’s lives.”
Don't be disingenuous. This is Harris' actual quote:
"If the public health professionals, if Dr. Fauci, if the doctors tell us that we should take it, I’ll be the first in line to take it. Absolutely. But if Donald Trump tells us that we should take it, I’m not taking it."
It's obvious that Donald Trump is the one she doesn't trust, and for good reason.
Undermining is undermining.
This is the video link that people saw.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/05/politics/kamala-harris-not-trust-trump-vaccine-cnntv/index.html
There is a shortage of critical thinkers among the voting public.
Post a Comment