So... because it works, we should do it? Forcibly vaccinating all the children would work too. It would work better, in fact. So why the enthusiasm for shame... and where would it stop? The Gizmodo writer falls all over himself by the end of the column:
Let me be clear that I'm not advocating that individuals on street corners be shamed for not vaccinating their kids.... I'm arguing that we need to do something much more radical and difficult: we need to support a culture that shames its members for not vaccinating their kids — and by extension, for endangering their communities.So shame, but only from a distance? No one should individually feel it? This seems like a recommendation of precision generality.
But changing our culture means taking aim at the powerful and those profiting from the anti-vaccination movement.Yeah, let's be sure only to hurt the big bad corporations. Make that happen. Why would shame work on the profit-makers? That's where shame doesn't work.
We also must also [sic] draw a distinction between shame and humiliation... I don't want to advocate humiliating or bullying individuals. Shame is about regulating social norms, not screaming at powerless people on Twitter.It's absurd to think you could get a shame culture rolling and then make sure it doesn't do any of the bad things you can already foresee!
पोस्ट्स
७१ टिप्पण्या:
But changing our culture means taking aim at the powerful and those profiting from the anti-vaccination movement.
If you shame someone who could evoke sympathy from being shamed you risk being shamed for shaming those who should not be shamed.
Progressive logic.
You'll wear yourself out if you fash yourself so about it.
Shame is powerful. It is what made the non-violent civil rights movement work. The problem is that it only works with thosw capable of feeling shame.
"Let me be clear that I'm not advocating that individuals on street corners be shamed for not vaccinating their kids.... I'm arguing that we need to do something much more radical and difficult: we need to support a culture that shames its members for not vaccinating their kids — and by extension, for endangering their communities."
I can understand the preference for the culture to do the shaming (regardless of subject) rather than the individual: doing it in person could get someone punched in the face.
Also: replace 'anti-vaccination' with 'abortion' and see if the writer stands by his formulation.
I am Laslo.
Shame is also the tactic of the gay rights movement and the gender police.
It seems weird that people are starting to question the use of shame when it is being used in a case opposed by leftist elites, when those same leftist elites have been using it on the rest of us for decades.
The enumerated bubble comments under the picture of Jenny McCarthy are pretty funny, but also show how quickly "shame" (even when not practiced on "street corners") can turn into something more ruthless for anyone, regardless of celebrity status, especially with social media.
Who exactly is profiting from the anti-vax movement? A friend off mine had a child around the same time I did, and she tried to sell me on the anti-vax idiocy, which of course she picked up from leftist websites. One of her arguments was that the evil pharmaceutical companies companies were too concerned about profits to care if their vaccines were safe. I think this article be the most archetypal example of progressive idiots needing to coach everything they do in terms of opposing The Evil Corporations.
Folks assume there is a left/right aspect to this vaccine debate. I'm doubting that.
(Jennie McCarthy supported Clinton)
That's why god gave us pudenda (L pudor, shame).
Folks assume there is a left/right aspect to this vaccine debate
There is. The vast majority of those not vaccinating their children are lefty elitists. The clusters are located almost exclusively in deep blue communities.
"those profiting from the anti-vaccination movement. "
That would be the trial lawyers and the left is not about to harm allies.
The hard left and the BigL Libertarians comprise almost the entire anti-vaxx movement. The Clinotns almost killed off the entire vaccine industry with their idiotic attempt to remove any profit in 1993.
Well, not in so many words. The panel of doctors and economists issuing a report on vaccines last week was too polite to mention the former First Lady by name. But they identify as a fundamental cause of the problem the fact that the government purchases 55% of the childhood vaccine market at forced discount prices. The result has been "declining financial incentives to develop and produce vaccines."
The root of this government role goes back to August 1993, when Congress passed Mrs. Clinton's Vaccines for Children program. A dream of Hillary's friends at the Children's Defense Fund, her vaccines plan was to use federal power to ensure universal immunization. So the government agreed to purchase a third of the national vaccine supply (the Clintons had pushed for 100%) at a forced discount of half price, then distribute it to doctors to deliver to the poor and the un- and under-insured.
She didn't mention that when she waded into the debate about vaccination. It will come up, though.
As I remember it, the theory was that the mercury in the vax was causing autism and that big pharma didn't want you to know this. The lawyers had dreams of a settlement that would dwarf that of the tobacco companies......Republicans who care more about profits than people lined up behind big pharma and helped to suppress the truth. Democrats, who are always fighting for the little guy, lined up with the trial lawyers on this issue.......A somewhat different narrative is now emerging. You've got to admire the ability of Democrats to rewrite history ion real time.
shaming worked for most of our history, until the 1960s when the libertines didn't want to be shamed anymore. Now it's making a comeback?
Can we also aim some at folks content to be on the dole.
Shame is merely social coercion and mob rule.
Social coercion is what was used to keep gays in the closet, women in the kitchen and blacks in the back of the bus, by attacking dissenters from the status quo as weirdos.
The left uses it routinely against todays dissenters. It is the tactic of bigots, used to avoid having to use reason and persuasion to win arguments.
Reason magazine has been saying much the same about shame over the vaccination thing.
http://reason.com/blog/2015/02/04/shame-and-shun-anti-vaccine-parents
Madonna raped me in the Nineties and I am not ashamed.
She had just received a fresh vagina transplant from a recently-deceased petite sixteen-year-old, so I'm not sure if she raped me or the deceased sixteen-year-old raped me, probably both.
Then Madonna forcibly made me put a cucumber in her ass. Her ass was still her original ass, and had some mileage on it, but I was powerless to stop it.
Afterward I took a long hot shower -- and, yes, I cried a bit.
This is the first time I have told this to anyone but Scarlett Johannson.
I didn't really want to tell her, but I had to explain why her wanting me to put a cucumber in her ass gave me trepidation. But I did it, anyway: it is important to be sensitive to the other's needs.
I am Laslo.
Every time I screw up and read a Laslo post I swear I'll never do it again.
I miss the damned cockroach.
I would like to shame my youngest sister, for ignoring her own education and subjecting her kids to a creationist science curriculum. But I suppose that would be wrong of me.
Anti-vaxxers are chlorine in the gene pool.
rhhardin said...That's why god gave us pudenda (L pudor, shame).
German - die Scham:
shame, vulva, pudenda, private parts
Shaming works, unless we're talking shaming sluts. That's sexist and/or something or other.
Gahrie said...
"Every time I screw up and read a Laslo post I swear I'll never do it again."
I will give you lots of opportunities: you'll no doubt screw up again.
It is my way.
I am Laslo.
Loose sexual morals also have significant societal consequences and contribute to the spread of disease.
In fact, STDs have killed many thousands of times more Americans in the last 30 years than measles and polio.
So we should bring back and encourage slut shaming?
We should stigmatize the homosexual lifestyle?
Vaccines are part of a risk management protocol.
regulating social norms
It's a religion. So much for separation of Church and State. It was never a practical expectation. So, it's not "freedom from religion", but rather freedom from someone else's religion. It always was. Despite the protests of "secular" proponents.
I wonder if vaccine advocates analyze the probable outcomes of each vaccine formula independently, or do they blindly place their faith in expert opinion, or do they simply follow the herd (i.e. popular opinion and motion).
Do you think shame would work on Obama and co. for ignoring our laws he promised to uphold, and inviting all sorts of illegals and their accompanying diseases to cross the border and infect our citizens?
How about updated education via pediatricians & parents.
A pediatrician answered all of my concerns with HPV vaccine, which has nothing to do with thinking it would make my daughter sexually active. The doctor treated my questions with concern and ancknowledged the pros and cons.
A little charity can go somewhere.
The fact is there is already a large majority of parents who do vaccinate. I read from the Christian Science Monitor, that 95% of all children eventually are vaccinated with 48 states having some sort of exemption clause.
"Some groups also object to vaccinations on religious grounds. Overall, about 95 percent of US kids eventually get vaccinated, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Buzz/2015/0203/Vaccine-uproar-Driven-by-partisan-politics-video
pretty good!
Jason:
Promiscuous couples, and anyone who engages in rectal intercourse, especially male homosexuals, should be be inoculated with one of two HPV vaccines, and probably a smorgasbord of other vaccines in order to avoid being trampled by the herd, and their own dysfunctional choices.
Althouse may be biased, but shaming doesn't necessarily entail the abandonment of reason. Most people agree that there's a perfectly good reason to make sure that those who would spread disease to vaccine-naive infants or cancer patients feel nothing but shame or revulsion for their despicable, in no way morally justifiable acts.
But why overly indulge emotive personality disordered talk with a lawyer? The application of tort law to these atrocities is a perfectly decent way to address the situation, and ripe for discussion on a supposedly specialized blog.
Re the left/right thing:
The Seattle Times had an interactive tool showing vaccination exemption rates at various schools around the Puget Sound region, as well as the reasoning (medical, religious, personal objection). Interestingly, "personal objection" represents the vast, vast majority of the exemptions.
The Waldorf School in Seattle reported to the state that 39.5% of their students had claimed exemption.
I'm sure that that's just a hotbed of right wing religious fanantics.
:)
But why overly indulge emotive personality disordered talk with a lawyer?
I don't understand that sentence. Way too hard for my limited brain.
I wonder if vaccine advocates analyze the probable outcomes of each vaccine formula independently, or do they blindly place their faith in expert opinion, or do they simply follow the herd (i.e. popular opinion and motion).
There's nothing blind about any of it, you talebearer. With no other medication do people obsess endlessly about formulations. The thimerosal issue is moot and was shown to be a nonsensical distraction anyway, and the safety data is available not only through VAERS - (in spreadsheet form! what other such data do you get in form that raw?!) - but in better summaries and studies, and the vaccine court and its completely unburdened judgements are available to anyone who does want to push either a legitimate claim or the usual nonsense. And what an entrepreneurial bunch of nonsense it is! $0.75 of every vaccine is devoted to funding the tribunal, so payout awards are available for anyone crafty enough to take advantage of the lower standard of evidence Congress has allowed since, in the midst of another vaccine hoax-scare (DPT), it took to creating the system.
I saw a map that showed vaccine resistance clusters heavily where Democrats have their strongest numbers.
It is a left/right things. The left does it and accuses the right of fomenting it.
Shame may feel like the wrong thing to do, but that which it is designed to encourage, is a very good thing. Remorse.
The purpose of shame is to engender (sincere) remorse in the person whose conduct is being shamed. Remorse is proof that the unacceptable conduct is understood, and is not to be repeated.
So, yes, let's encourage appropriate shame.
Living on the government dole, when you COULD be pulling your own way. Shame on you! The list is endless.
That's because only right-wing pols are pandering to it. They wouldn't do so if there weren't an opportunity for their side.
John Stewart's skewering of NJ Fat Bastard's turn-around between this and ebola was funny. There really is no one as shameless in U.S. politics today than that glutton.
It is individual Mothers that need to release the misguided Mothering instinct. That will take big time education. Shaming them just makes them dig in to save their child drom you and start a profound counter-shaming of you for failure to protect your children...How Shameful you are.
Except John Stewart and Maher indulged this lunacy, not so long ago
Except John Stewart and Maher indulged this lunacy, not so long ago
Hey, everybody! Let's have a rational and reasonable discussion of issues on merit, not emotion. Because emotions are biased.
Making the right decision: Benjamin Franklin’s son dies of smallpox in 1736
The conventional goal is to maximize posterior probability of survival. However, an increasingly popular goal is to also maximize posterior probability of quality of life (e.g. disability, aesthetics, religious or moral beliefs). The decision tree enables people to evaluate both choices with a structured, reproducible process. The alternative is an ad hoc process that may misidentify or misrepresent the optimal decision with a given set of criteria and estimates. And with suitable weighting, unknown or unconfirmed outcomes can be methodically analyzed.
Oh, so we're living in 1736, now?
The advance made by Jenner's cowpox vaccine at sometime thereafter was the legitimate starting point for comparison, if I'm not mistaken. But why engage facts when someone can polemicize the language of the scientific method without actually making an argument to apply it to?
" The thimerosal issue is moot and was shown to be a nonsensical distraction anyway,"
Actually, there might be a reverse effect. There was a series of cases of infection of the spinal cord in epidural steroid injections in Massachusetts several years ago. Contamination of the steroid solution was thought to be the cause and the absence of thimerosol, which was added to prevent such contamination in multiuse vials, may have been the cause.
Your comment about "right-wing pols are pandering to it." is, as usual, nonsense.
The advance made by Jenner's cowpox vaccine at sometime thereafter was the legitimate starting point for comparison, if I'm not mistaken.
That point is mooed, Ritmo. Scott Walker is the left's new "cowpox."
Speaking of unashamed: when I was with Alyssa Milano in the late Nineties she liked us to enact her rape fantasies.
The most common one was where I would come to the door dressed as a Police Officer, responding to her complaint about a stalker; of course she answered the door in a robe and nothing else.
"I'm sorry, officer," she would say, you got here before I could get dressed."
"Safety of the Public is my first priority," I would respond. "And you can call me Officer Laslo."
"Well, Officer Laslo, there is this creepy guy who keeps calling me and making all kinds of lewd suggestions."
"Like what, miss?"
"Like he wanted to pull off my clothing and kiss my breasts."
"Like this?" I asked, pulling off her robe and kissing her naked breasts.
"Just like that, Officer Laslo."
"And then what would he say?"
"He would... well, he would describe -- in great detail -- how I was going to suck his cock."
"Can you describe some of what he said?"
"It would be easier to show you," Alyssa said, then proceeded to unzip my pants and fellate me in tantalizing ways.
"He IS a dangerous one, this man," I moaned.
"And that's not all of it: he'd then throw me on the bed and fuck me."
"I took her hand, led her to the bedroom, and tossed her to the bed. "Like this?" I asked.
"Just like that!" she replied.
As we had sex she said "And then he said he'd put his night-stick up my ass."
"Umm: so this stranger has a night-stick?"
"Yes, he does."
"Why would a civilian have a night-stick?"
"I'm not sure, he never explained it to me."
"But it doesn't make any sense, him just happening to have a night-stick with him."
"I'm just saying what he said."
"Maybe he wanted you to think he was a cop, perhaps?"
"I don't know, maybe: he just said he'd put his night-stick up my ass."
"Now if this fellow is stalking you AND impersonating a police officer it is getting VERY serious."
"Well, OK. Anyway, Officer Laslo, he would say how he would gently move the night-stick back-and-forth, back-and-forth..."
"This seems especially risky to me, him impersonating a police officer. Are you sure he didn't say 'broom-stick' instead, or 'thick wooden dowel? Maybe he is a carpenter..."
"Maybe we can just move on from the night-stick..."
"Now, there has been a guy going around the area putting cucumbers in women's asses: are you sure that it might not be him?"
"I don't have any cucumbers in the house..."
"We have reason to believe that he brings his own."
"OK, OK: how about you use the night-stick as a cucumber, and we continue this report."
"I'm not sure that would be admissible in a court of law."
"Maybe we should just play 'Firefighter' instead, OK?"
I am Laslo.
RIght Michael. Because the burden of proof is not on the person making the claim, as you are, of nonsense. Instead, I'm just supposed to assume on faith that those right-wing pols are pandering to left-wing nutters. It's not out of the realm of possibility, just would benefit from evidence, which it strikes me that at least when it comes to the science of this, you're not opposed to. But political claims also benefit from evidence, despite some people's aversion to that sort of thing.
Right wingers sure do see a coalescence with the vaccine nuttery. While generally the ones I've heard from here and elsewhere have been sensible, I just saw Alex Jones' "Info Wars' site make a predictable play for the vaccine nutcase crowd. He is not a left-winger. He is a right-wing extreme libertarian of the variety that appeals to that section of both extreme left and right wing nutters who prefer to see conspiracy in everything.
As for the thimerosal issue, your observation is noted. I just thought it was interesting to learn lately that the metabolized form of mercury (ehtylmercury) that it represents is not even as toxic as the other forms, to which we're regularly exposed, are. Simply eating fish in the quantities that crunchy conservationists like to do so at their fancy sushi bars exposes people to more of the actually damaging form of mercury (methyl mercury) than a vaccine ever would.
If you want to put my kids at risk of contracting measles you should at least have enough conviction to survive me making fun of you for it.
Whether you call it frank discussion or shaming, we need more of it. Anti-vaxers, creationist home schoolers, gay guys in chaps on parade, pro-abortionists and anti-abortionists, feminists, antifeminsts-I say bring it on. Shame is societal moderation of behavior.
In many instances, Shaming may be preferable to having the State force you to do something, because ultimately that force can be used to destroy or end your life.
Shaming doesn't work on people who have no empathy for others, which is why Althouse and her followers are constantly befuddled by the entire concept.
Folks assume there is a left/right aspect to this vaccine debate
For some people, everything is a left/right issue.
@Ritmo: I was exposed to both ethyl and methyl mercury in a past life (also her propyl, butyl, and futile cousins). I'm living proof that no damage results.
Oh, I wouldn't be so sure of that.
Apparently we're now above asking chemists to actually measure amounts of exposure, though? Everything toxic has a dose. It's like saying you wouldn't starve or become severely hypoglycemic because you ate one sugar grain.
You can't vaccinate against Laslo.
I am Laslo.
As much of an far right extremist does one have to be in order to view Alex Jones as a lefty liberal libtard?
R+B is shameless
Shaming doesn't work on people who have no empathy for others, which is why Althouse and her followers are constantly befuddled by the entire concept.
Folks assume there is a left/right aspect to this vaccine debate
For some people, everything is a left/right issue.
That has to be one of the most ironic comments I've seen on this blog.
Well, I don't feel ashamed for stupid reasons, Phil Pi. But then, if it weren't for stupidity, you wouldn't have a reason to do or feel anything.
Disconnecting brain from morals is where all the problems start.
Phil, out of curiosity, who dictates your morals on modern issues - like vaccines, for instance? Because it's obvious that you think no morality can be decided outside of the Old Hebrew Book of Fairy Tales, and I'm not sure The Bible had much to say about vaccination. So, what does someone like yourself, you hates modern morality, have to say about that? Which chapters and verses do you rely upon for deciding what's right or wrong… or do you search a biblical metaphor instead? Just curious.
How does someone who never updates their ethics beyond two-thousand year old texts get their morality? So much civilization has occurred since then, that it would seem a daunting thing to rely on. But I'm sure you've got all the answers. Just like God did. Or does.
Rhythm and Balls:
The analytical methods have not changed. The estimates of unknown or poorly known quantities have. The relationship between different aspects may be better understood. Although, there is still a propensity to assume independence and other simplifications.
That said, the conclusion in the article is that based on a given criteria, known circumstances, and a set of assumptions, that a specific vaccine maximized the posterior probability of survival with respect to certain other alternatives. It does not remark on quality of living or other considerations which may influence individual decisions; but, the decision tree can incorporate those factors.
Anyway, induced immunity via vaccines is not a magical solution. It is part of a risk management protocol and is selectively administered based on risk profiles.
Sociologists see social shaming as a legitimate social tool, to shape society, and to strengthen it. Then the political scientists got a hold of it.
The only selective "risk profile" considered n.n. is the immunosuppressed or non-immunocompetent. This is a small percentage of the population - perhaps less than 5% and definitely less than 10%. Both they and the infants not-yet-vaccinated rely on the decreased incidence through herd immunity (i.e. mass vaccination - the presumption that everyone else gets it) to avoid getting sick and more likely than others dying or being morbidly stricken.
Any other consideration than that is both immoral and anti-medical nonsense. And obviously unconventional.
"Why would shame work on the profit-makers? That's where shame doesn't work."
So why does McDonalds put apple slices in their kids meals? Why did they stop using beef tallow to cook their fries? Certainly not to increase profits by the look of things.
@Rhythm and Balls
And of course if Christianity had never existed then we would have arrived at the same Western Civ version of morality that Rhythm and Balls assumes should be universal even though such an assumption is Euro-Centric bigotry.
Check your privilege.
"So why does McDonalds put apple slices in their kids meals? Why did they stop using beef tallow to cook their fries? Certainly not to increase profits by the look of things."
I think it was in response to public opinion. They want to be popular with people and to avert govt regulation. These adjustments are to maintain profits. They might be mistaken, however, but they are not out of feeling ashamed! Give me a break.
So I shake my finger and sternly say, "You didn't do what you were told because you thought it might permanently harm your child. You should be ashamed of yourself!"
Like that?
I'm just trying to get a feel for how this shaming thing works.
"I think it was in response to public opinion."
Strike "public" and write "editorial." They are afraid of the media-regulator combine.
The public not so much.
And in fact "the public" has not shown much enthusiasm for either the new french fries or the apple slices, according to what I read.
"I think it was in response to public opinion. They want to be popular with people and to avert govt regulation. These adjustments are to maintain profits. They might be mistaken, however, but they are not out of feeling ashamed! Give me a break."
I don't think they were mistaken. My kids devour the apple slices and fries. Burgers and nuggets tend to have significant leftovers. Above all, the allure of toys is more likely to inspire the "I want McDonalds!" whine than anything about the food.
And they ought to be ashamed, but they won't be. Limousine liberals don't mind gutting public schools as long as they can send their own kids to private schools. Why should they mind risking the lives of someone else's kid? Why do you think they would care?
No Ralph. It's an assumption of reason and compassion - which nearly all people have the capacity for. So stop sarcastically pretending that the basest version of Christianity is required for people to be decent. It's not. And neither is a fixation on its most anachronistic texts.
tim in vermont said...
I saw a map that showed vaccine resistance clusters heavily where Democrats have their strongest numbers.
From the link below:
'I talked to a public health official and asked him what's the best way to anticipate where there might be higher than normal rates of vaccine noncompliance, and he said take a map and put a pin wherever there's a Whole Foods. I sort of laughed, and he said, "No, really, I'm not joking." It's those communities with the Prius driving, composting, organic food-eating people.'
http://news.sciencemag.org/2011/01/why-prius-driving-composting-set-fears-vaccines?ref=hp
My shaming of unwed mothers has done little to stop girls getting pregnant out of wedlock.
One should be shamedonly for shameful things. Like spreading proven lies about vaccines and thus putting people at risk, because you are too lazy or too entitled to do a little research when your error is pointed out.
(You should not be shamed for wearing a shirt people you never met dislike.)
Remember when Gizmodo was all about cool new Tech? Yeah it's been a long time. Thanks Gawker Media.
Science should be proved using scientific methods. Shaming is unscientific. The pope shaming Galileo didn't prove the sun revolves around the earth.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा