My daughters day care has 2 fulltime employees and a part timer. The fulltime staff are vaxxed, the part-time person isn't, despite having been eligible for a loooooong time.
Well, guess who got an asymptomatic covid infection, and then went on to spread it to her entire family, including her infant granddaughter. Luckily, the person who infected her got tested and let her know in time for her to not infect all our children.
Get vaccinated. Some people are allergic or may have real medical exemptions. Everyone else who passes on the opportunity are shortsighted and selfish.
I have a 9mo old in day care. Day care keeps these kids constantly sick regardless of C19 - I just spent two nights on Memorial Day weekend in the hospital with my son due to RSV. Anyways, out of curiosity how did C19 end up effecting the infant? I [was] an LEO and my wife is a health care professional so we have both been vaccinated since the beginning of the year, but I still think about my son with everything starting to go back to normal here in the Midwest.
Selfish how? You can still carry and transmit the virus with the vaccine. You would've all still caught it whether she was vaccinated or not. Of course, if you're all vaccinated it doesn't matter either way.
I'm genuinely shocked at how many of my colleagues are in the anti-vaxx club.
Literally half of my team have said they will not get the vaccine when it's available to them. One citing a podcast which talked about how the vaccine causes programmed cell death and the other because "it's all a bit suspicious".
Great guys, intelligent and generally good to be around. I didn't know how to react when I found out.
I wish people wouldn’t conflate not wanting to take this particular vaccine at this particular time with being “anti-vax”.
I am vaccinated. I vaccinate my kids and have done so as recently as a few months ago. I believe in vaccines.
But I’m not ready for this one yet. When it has gone through the same FDA approval process as would be used for any vaccine I will be first in line.
I don’t see why people are so offended by this view. I literally get seen as a crazy person simply for wanting to wait until the same standards have been applied.
> Great guys, intelligent and generally good to be around.
"Great" and "intelligent" only to the extent that you have actually tested their civic maturity and intelligence, you mean. Democracy is in trouble because education has become a narrowing of the understanding, not an expansion of reason and civic principles.
Meanwhile, the pandemic of ignorance is a lucrative resource for ludicrous discourse.
To me, anti-vaxx means someone who is positively against vaccines, as in "vaccines give people X, so people shouldn't get vaccines", where X is some undesirable condition, autism, thrombosis, etc.
Being skeptic, but not against vaccines is not anti-vaxx. If someone says "I don't know if vaccines are safe", I don't think that's an anti-vaxx stance.
In fact, if you don't know about biology or virology, the "I don't know if vaccines are safe" is a totally reasonable stance to have, and not getting a vaccine is also a reasonable decision if you're not sure about the safety.
I personally don't know if COVID vaccines are safe, and I still got it, but I understand that I'm taking a risk by getting the vaccine without understanding it, because I figured the risk of not taking it is higher, but my estimation was relatively uninformed.
I think it's a little unfair to label everyone "anti-vaxx" who are weary of the emergency approved, no long term testing, first time ever, mRNA vaccines. For those people, encourage them to look into the more conventional Johnson and Johnson vaccine. Even then, I wouldn't consider them anti-vaxx until full FDA approval has completed, at least for the J&J vaccine.
I think part of it was the way companies like Apple Google and Facebook have been handling communication online lately. A lot of people are starting to feel like they have to dig if they want to actually hear what experts are saying.
I still don't like how rude Linus is. I'll never like how rude Linus is.
But his explanation of mRNA is nicely done. Hope somebody reading it learns something and realizes they've been lied to. Maybe even gets vaccinated. That'd be worth a mean email or two.
I normally find his replies offputting and yes, rude. I don’t even find this one rude. Exasperated for sure, as much as many of us feel confronting bullshit that’s killed an absurdly large number of people that could have lived longer and kept more of us in isolation longer than we should have been.
I rarely feel this way, but I wish I had the grace and patience and fortitude to express this the way Linus Torvalds did.
It's not always appropriate, but sometimes a verbal kick in the ass is useful. Shame is a powerful motivator. Shame used to keep the majority of racists and morons quiet in public, and slowly they were dying out since it was so hard to find their fellows. We need to make willful ignorance shameful again.
And when you're dealing with things that endanger lives, I have no room for politeness, myself.
The world has always seemed far ruder & far more off-base. In every circumstance. Linus isn't always a good role model for how to behave, but it is enormously relieving sometimes, in a world that feels batshit insane, to hear someone else processing-out-loud their strong reactions.
I haven't got the vaccine as yet, but I've been very recently summoned to get one by the national health body. I think the biggest deciding factor for me is... Doing research - and, tbh, finding time to understand the intricacies of human biology and how particular vaccines work is difficult/time consuming.
The one thing I'll add which has been skirted around and some commenters have 'skirmishly' mentioned is the amount of distrust for authority, which IMO can be well-placed. The amount of deceitfulness conducted by the state on various matters, important and trivial, over the past several decades (though probably for all of human history - but come to light (due to the internet)) has fostered this mistrust. The list of lies or misinformation is extensive; the wars, the bailouts, the disregard for communities, the deportations: the policies; in essence the corruption and ulterior motives of the state is and has been questionable. Thus, the backlash against the vaccine(s) is understandable and I partly feel it within me too.
Also, to make a rational decision you have to have a lot of the main pros and cons, but what we have been supplied with are just extreme incorrect cons and/or extreme & well-placed pros - there has not been any balanced adult 'conversation' (i.e., a balanced cost-benefit assessment geared towards the individual) which in its absence is unscientific and fairly illiberal. That's my 2 cents.
Unpopular opinion: watching people struggle and fail or just plain refuse to engage with covid (wear a mask, socially distance, get a vaccine) has really shaken my faith in democracy. I was worried after Trumps election in 2016. But it's not a one-off phenomenon. People just behave randomly, they don't calculate risk, they don't care about facts, they're not even able to be self interested as far as I can tell. Just noise. Sometimes the noise seems to get louder. But that's all I can see.
Edit: I've never had a comment sink so fast. Cest la vie. I'm sort of glad other people think human civilisation is working. Maybe my depression just has me jaded.
You've got doctors, presumably educated people who actually learned how DNA, RNA, works, telling lawmakers that vaccines cause people to be interfaced with 5G towers, like what, an X-Men techno-virus? I mean WTF, how can professionals be so INSANE? And it's not just this person, there are lots of QAnon idiots spreading this mindvirus all over the net.
It’s not irrational for people who aren’t worried about Covid to not worry about it. I didn’t downvote you and I understand your point of view, but you have to take other people’s perspectives into consideration - to me, Covid is a bad flu and I’m not stressing over something that has a much smaller likelihood of killing me than my weekend skydives do.
Democracy is inherently fragile; it only succeeds when you have a well-educated electorate interested in the good of the country as a whole, and a large enough percentage of the population with enough wealth that such things are maintainable.
Unfortunately for us in the states, the past several decades have been ones of increasing partisan bickering, and a loss of a collective sense of civic duty.
Median incomes have not kept up with the cost of living for close to 50 years, now, putting the squeeze on even having enough time to think about these things.
These things are all bad news. That doesn't mean we're doomed, and I'm not fatalistic. There are lots of people who care, too.
And there is a lot of work to be done to shore up the foundations of our country. When I was younger, I lived in countries that did not have a functional civic apparatus. I do not want to see that here.
I'd love to know how the rest of the world experienced the anti-societal refuseniks of Covid. In America, we've had their ticket for a long time, a persistent extremely vocal segment of society that refuses to get along, that always has very important opinions on other people's business & how to do things, that seems to have created their own social strata on being anti-societal, anti-cooperative, generally just anti-.
It's social programming. These people have been raised by their media, their politicians, their tribe, to be like this, to behave like this, to assume always it's other people, it's other forces that are responsible, that are causing problems. Their dogma is that they are good people, their wants are correct, and others are bad. This isn't "people just behave randomly". This is deliberate. This is overt & obvious, a persistent problem, a persistent anti- everyone else faction of America, that has caused a royal stink my entire life.
We've moved past the "information age" where facts and science and raw data are used to drive decisions, and we're in some kind of "selfish wants" age.
I don't know if it's a problem with democracy though - we've known for a long time now if you let regular folk vote on it a huge number would vote for absolutely zero tax and society would fall apart because of it, but they'd go down chanting how free they are because they're not paying tax.
I wonder if it's a lack of education about critical thinking, or maybe just a few decades of being told we can have whatever we want, making (most/some) people very entitled and self-centred.
I'm locked in a quarantine hotel for 14 days right now (entering Australia) and I'm live vlogging it across social media. I'm getting a TON of comments from people who are outraged that this is a violation of my rights, etc. etc.
It doesn't occur to them that I had to agree to this quarantine long before I could even book a plane ticket, and I personally think it's a very good protective measure and I'm happy about it. Their outrage about what is happening to me is apparently more relevant and important than my own thoughts about what is happening to me.
People seem to think their own personal rights are more important than the rights of society as a whole.
> Unpopular opinion: watching people struggle and fail or just plain refuse to engage with covid (wear a mask, socially distance, get a vaccine) has really shaken my faith in democracy.
As best as I can tell, the reason democratic processes have produced the best government in history isn't because the electorate is making well-reasoned assessment of various policy options.
It's because it provides a relatively quick feedback cycle, and because people can vote according to their interests and the wounds of previous policy will get treated. The way to keep it safe from abuse by far right extremists ("populists") is to have broad-based parties that reflect economic classes and which can provide direct connections between the different parts of the community and the political system.
Parties based on ideology are less capable of compromise so they're less responsive to genuine needs. A business-owners party and a workers party can agree to free trade or protectionism, mandatory public holidays or freedom of contract: the agreement can be believed to be a win for both sites that makes everyone stronger. But, say, a business-libertarian party can only concede it didn't have the power to force both free trade and freedom of contract, and can't call the law they got through an agreement. Ideology is also something that is interesting to fewer people, so they will have narrower bases, more subject to whim and fancy.
Democracy isn't perfect, but is there a better system? It seems like everything that is better than democracy done now is just democracy done better. Do you think it would be better to adopt a Saudi-style absolute monarchy or a PRC-style party state?
>Edit: I've never had a comment sink so fast. Cest la vie. I'm sort of glad other people think human civilisation is working. Maybe my depression just has me jaded.
HN moderation has failed to prevent the platform from being politicized and split up into rightthink and wrongthink, predominantly by allowing political and emotional shitposts that are behind a thin veil of "tech" related topics backed by HN's nebulous "Guidelines." It's just a mirror image of society itself so if things have devolved here for you, I assure you, things out there are much worse than they appear to be. Such is the price of diversity. You're never going to get to the bottom of an agreement on anything, and for every thing you think is going to improve things, others will say how it will make it worse. Good luck.
I want people to be able to calculate risk for themselves rather than have GOVT decide what risks people can and can't take. If one doesn't deem it risky to themselves, perhaps because they are in their 20s and the average age of covid mortality is 80, then it is up to them and it is their personal freedom to choose what to/not do. If you are 90 and have 5 more years left to live, then my all means, stay indoors. Or don't and spend your last years with your family rather than dying alone in some care home that you are locked in and can't leave... Forcing/mandating mask wearing in democratic countries does more damage to democracy.
This will probably get downvoted/flagged but I wanted to say it.
My personal view is that vax vs anti-vax views are shaped by the person's relationship with 'Authority' in the past.
If someone felt that they were mis-treated in the past by the government or by say a university bureaucracy, they are more likely to be anti-vax; because appealing to authority has no meaning or relevance to the way they process and assign weights to the information that they rrceive.
Of course more positive views of 'Authority' will lead to a different, more pro-vax position.
Curious if this matches with what others are seeing.
> My personal view is that vax vs anti-vax views are shaped by the person's relationship with 'Authority' in the past.
If a person excessively distrusts authority, they are vastly more likely to have a poor interaction with authorities. For instance, a person who believes the government is trying to trick everyone into subjugating ourselves to them by getting and using birth certificates and drivers licences is going to have a very poor interaction with the police and perhaps the courts. (I don't mean to say that everyone in some class are Sovereign Citizens, but that at one extreme you have Sovereign Citizens, and you have people who are more or less like them in between them and the person whose mistrust legitimately started from an interaction with authorities.)
I wouldn't want to use those experiences as the basis for concluding that an antivaxxer is antivax because of their previous poor interactions. Both events are caused by the original distrust.
If we know who's had poor runins with the law and we're trying to find the antivaxxers, then yes, I think this is a useful place to look. But it's just a correlation, not an explanation.
Consequently, I want to place much less weight on your reasoning:
>If someone felt that they were mis-treated in the past by the government or by say a university bureaucracy, they are more likely to be anti-vax; because appealing to authority has no meaning or relevance to the way they process and assign weights to the information that they rrceive.
(Also, I'm not convinced of your argument even with these objections resolved. A lot of people seem to distrust the government because they view it as associated with one party, even when their preferred party is in charge. This distrust seems somewhat confected. And in America, distrust of government is a widespread ideology/mindset, even embedded into the culture. Neither of these forms of distrust are rational or understandable (over)reactions to trust-forming interactions.)
That matches what I've seen. An acquaintance of mine who's native was very distrustful of the vaccine and got angry when our state allocated early doses to Indian tribes, saying they were testing it on them (they've since calmed down.) Though on the other hand, a tribal elder I work with was extremely stoked to get the vaccine as soon as possible.
I think politics is a big factor too, honestly. Misinformation flows through echo-chambers and everything becomes partisan.
How dare people be mad at me for kicking pupies! No one is mad at the anti-animal cruelty people! It's censorship and the nanny-state (also PC culture or some bullshit like that).
This is what I dont understand about how people are acting about this. These medical companies are making a fortune from this and there is hard evidence from previous court cases that they dont have our best interests at heart. People wouldn't be taking this vaccine id the media hadn't been lying to then and spreading fear for a whole year. It's all infuriating.
[+] [-] DoreenMichele|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] IvyMike|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] schwartzworld|4 years ago|reply
My daughters day care has 2 fulltime employees and a part timer. The fulltime staff are vaxxed, the part-time person isn't, despite having been eligible for a loooooong time.
Well, guess who got an asymptomatic covid infection, and then went on to spread it to her entire family, including her infant granddaughter. Luckily, the person who infected her got tested and let her know in time for her to not infect all our children.
Get vaccinated. Some people are allergic or may have real medical exemptions. Everyone else who passes on the opportunity are shortsighted and selfish.
[+] [-] scrapcode|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] russian-hacker|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] betwixthewires|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] apatheticonion|4 years ago|reply
Literally half of my team have said they will not get the vaccine when it's available to them. One citing a podcast which talked about how the vaccine causes programmed cell death and the other because "it's all a bit suspicious".
Great guys, intelligent and generally good to be around. I didn't know how to react when I found out.
[+] [-] Negitivefrags|4 years ago|reply
I am vaccinated. I vaccinate my kids and have done so as recently as a few months ago. I believe in vaccines.
But I’m not ready for this one yet. When it has gone through the same FDA approval process as would be used for any vaccine I will be first in line.
I don’t see why people are so offended by this view. I literally get seen as a crazy person simply for wanting to wait until the same standards have been applied.
[+] [-] heresie-dabord|4 years ago|reply
"Great" and "intelligent" only to the extent that you have actually tested their civic maturity and intelligence, you mean. Democracy is in trouble because education has become a narrowing of the understanding, not an expansion of reason and civic principles.
Meanwhile, the pandemic of ignorance is a lucrative resource for ludicrous discourse.
[+] [-] young_unixer|4 years ago|reply
To me, anti-vaxx means someone who is positively against vaccines, as in "vaccines give people X, so people shouldn't get vaccines", where X is some undesirable condition, autism, thrombosis, etc.
Being skeptic, but not against vaccines is not anti-vaxx. If someone says "I don't know if vaccines are safe", I don't think that's an anti-vaxx stance.
In fact, if you don't know about biology or virology, the "I don't know if vaccines are safe" is a totally reasonable stance to have, and not getting a vaccine is also a reasonable decision if you're not sure about the safety.
I personally don't know if COVID vaccines are safe, and I still got it, but I understand that I'm taking a risk by getting the vaccine without understanding it, because I figured the risk of not taking it is higher, but my estimation was relatively uninformed.
[+] [-] nomel|4 years ago|reply
I think it's a little unfair to label everyone "anti-vaxx" who are weary of the emergency approved, no long term testing, first time ever, mRNA vaccines. For those people, encourage them to look into the more conventional Johnson and Johnson vaccine. Even then, I wouldn't consider them anti-vaxx until full FDA approval has completed, at least for the J&J vaccine.
[+] [-] swiley|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ivraatiems|4 years ago|reply
But his explanation of mRNA is nicely done. Hope somebody reading it learns something and realizes they've been lied to. Maybe even gets vaccinated. That'd be worth a mean email or two.
[+] [-] eyelidlessness|4 years ago|reply
I rarely feel this way, but I wish I had the grace and patience and fortitude to express this the way Linus Torvalds did.
[+] [-] burnte|4 years ago|reply
And when you're dealing with things that endanger lives, I have no room for politeness, myself.
[+] [-] flowerlad|4 years ago|reply
He must be doing something right, because 30 years after its first release Linux isn't just thriving, it is dominating the world.
And on the side he also managed to release another little something which we now know as git.
There is no personal invective in his message. He only attacked the message, not the messenger.
[+] [-] selcuka|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rektide|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beprogrammed|4 years ago|reply
I feel it's actually less rude and more just straight facts.
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] tandr|4 years ago|reply
In general, or you can point exact wording in his letter which you consider "rude", sorry?
[+] [-] systemvoltage|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] princevegeta89|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] normalasnorfolk|4 years ago|reply
The one thing I'll add which has been skirted around and some commenters have 'skirmishly' mentioned is the amount of distrust for authority, which IMO can be well-placed. The amount of deceitfulness conducted by the state on various matters, important and trivial, over the past several decades (though probably for all of human history - but come to light (due to the internet)) has fostered this mistrust. The list of lies or misinformation is extensive; the wars, the bailouts, the disregard for communities, the deportations: the policies; in essence the corruption and ulterior motives of the state is and has been questionable. Thus, the backlash against the vaccine(s) is understandable and I partly feel it within me too.
Also, to make a rational decision you have to have a lot of the main pros and cons, but what we have been supplied with are just extreme incorrect cons and/or extreme & well-placed pros - there has not been any balanced adult 'conversation' (i.e., a balanced cost-benefit assessment geared towards the individual) which in its absence is unscientific and fairly illiberal. That's my 2 cents.
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] LatteLazy|4 years ago|reply
Edit: I've never had a comment sink so fast. Cest la vie. I'm sort of glad other people think human civilisation is working. Maybe my depression just has me jaded.
[+] [-] cromwellian|4 years ago|reply
https://fox8.com/news/coronavirus/cleveland-doctor-tells-ohi...
[+] [-] rcurry|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Baeocystin|4 years ago|reply
Democracy is inherently fragile; it only succeeds when you have a well-educated electorate interested in the good of the country as a whole, and a large enough percentage of the population with enough wealth that such things are maintainable.
Unfortunately for us in the states, the past several decades have been ones of increasing partisan bickering, and a loss of a collective sense of civic duty.
Median incomes have not kept up with the cost of living for close to 50 years, now, putting the squeeze on even having enough time to think about these things.
The zeitgeist on the internet isn't helping, and I think Sort by Controversial ( https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-controversial/ ) is less fictional by the day.
These things are all bad news. That doesn't mean we're doomed, and I'm not fatalistic. There are lots of people who care, too.
And there is a lot of work to be done to shore up the foundations of our country. When I was younger, I lived in countries that did not have a functional civic apparatus. I do not want to see that here.
[+] [-] rektide|4 years ago|reply
It's social programming. These people have been raised by their media, their politicians, their tribe, to be like this, to behave like this, to assume always it's other people, it's other forces that are responsible, that are causing problems. Their dogma is that they are good people, their wants are correct, and others are bad. This isn't "people just behave randomly". This is deliberate. This is overt & obvious, a persistent problem, a persistent anti- everyone else faction of America, that has caused a royal stink my entire life.
[+] [-] grecy|4 years ago|reply
We've moved past the "information age" where facts and science and raw data are used to drive decisions, and we're in some kind of "selfish wants" age.
I don't know if it's a problem with democracy though - we've known for a long time now if you let regular folk vote on it a huge number would vote for absolutely zero tax and society would fall apart because of it, but they'd go down chanting how free they are because they're not paying tax.
I wonder if it's a lack of education about critical thinking, or maybe just a few decades of being told we can have whatever we want, making (most/some) people very entitled and self-centred.
I'm locked in a quarantine hotel for 14 days right now (entering Australia) and I'm live vlogging it across social media. I'm getting a TON of comments from people who are outraged that this is a violation of my rights, etc. etc. It doesn't occur to them that I had to agree to this quarantine long before I could even book a plane ticket, and I personally think it's a very good protective measure and I'm happy about it. Their outrage about what is happening to me is apparently more relevant and important than my own thoughts about what is happening to me.
People seem to think their own personal rights are more important than the rights of society as a whole.
[+] [-] squiggleblaz|4 years ago|reply
As best as I can tell, the reason democratic processes have produced the best government in history isn't because the electorate is making well-reasoned assessment of various policy options.
It's because it provides a relatively quick feedback cycle, and because people can vote according to their interests and the wounds of previous policy will get treated. The way to keep it safe from abuse by far right extremists ("populists") is to have broad-based parties that reflect economic classes and which can provide direct connections between the different parts of the community and the political system.
Parties based on ideology are less capable of compromise so they're less responsive to genuine needs. A business-owners party and a workers party can agree to free trade or protectionism, mandatory public holidays or freedom of contract: the agreement can be believed to be a win for both sites that makes everyone stronger. But, say, a business-libertarian party can only concede it didn't have the power to force both free trade and freedom of contract, and can't call the law they got through an agreement. Ideology is also something that is interesting to fewer people, so they will have narrower bases, more subject to whim and fancy.
Democracy isn't perfect, but is there a better system? It seems like everything that is better than democracy done now is just democracy done better. Do you think it would be better to adopt a Saudi-style absolute monarchy or a PRC-style party state?
[+] [-] lvs|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] deadite|4 years ago|reply
HN moderation has failed to prevent the platform from being politicized and split up into rightthink and wrongthink, predominantly by allowing political and emotional shitposts that are behind a thin veil of "tech" related topics backed by HN's nebulous "Guidelines." It's just a mirror image of society itself so if things have devolved here for you, I assure you, things out there are much worse than they appear to be. Such is the price of diversity. You're never going to get to the bottom of an agreement on anything, and for every thing you think is going to improve things, others will say how it will make it worse. Good luck.
[+] [-] nvoid|4 years ago|reply
This will probably get downvoted/flagged but I wanted to say it.
[+] [-] beprogrammed|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shrubble|4 years ago|reply
If someone felt that they were mis-treated in the past by the government or by say a university bureaucracy, they are more likely to be anti-vax; because appealing to authority has no meaning or relevance to the way they process and assign weights to the information that they rrceive.
Of course more positive views of 'Authority' will lead to a different, more pro-vax position.
Curious if this matches with what others are seeing.
[+] [-] squiggleblaz|4 years ago|reply
If a person excessively distrusts authority, they are vastly more likely to have a poor interaction with authorities. For instance, a person who believes the government is trying to trick everyone into subjugating ourselves to them by getting and using birth certificates and drivers licences is going to have a very poor interaction with the police and perhaps the courts. (I don't mean to say that everyone in some class are Sovereign Citizens, but that at one extreme you have Sovereign Citizens, and you have people who are more or less like them in between them and the person whose mistrust legitimately started from an interaction with authorities.)
I wouldn't want to use those experiences as the basis for concluding that an antivaxxer is antivax because of their previous poor interactions. Both events are caused by the original distrust.
If we know who's had poor runins with the law and we're trying to find the antivaxxers, then yes, I think this is a useful place to look. But it's just a correlation, not an explanation.
Consequently, I want to place much less weight on your reasoning:
>If someone felt that they were mis-treated in the past by the government or by say a university bureaucracy, they are more likely to be anti-vax; because appealing to authority has no meaning or relevance to the way they process and assign weights to the information that they rrceive.
(Also, I'm not convinced of your argument even with these objections resolved. A lot of people seem to distrust the government because they view it as associated with one party, even when their preferred party is in charge. This distrust seems somewhat confected. And in America, distrust of government is a widespread ideology/mindset, even embedded into the culture. Neither of these forms of distrust are rational or understandable (over)reactions to trust-forming interactions.)
[+] [-] sterlind|4 years ago|reply
I think politics is a big factor too, honestly. Misinformation flows through echo-chambers and everything becomes partisan.
[+] [-] ipspam|4 years ago|reply
The sanitary, risk adverse nature of the modern world genuinely repulses me.
I want to kill this overprotective beaurocracy in its cradle.
It seems stupid, and it is. But it's the only vote I get. I'm playing my hand. Disaster Socialism needs to be DOA next crisis.
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] gigatexal|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mehta_rohan|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] panny|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] adgjlsfhk1|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] siloamx|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ghoward|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ghthor|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] markiyan|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] archsurface|4 years ago|reply