[epistasis]

You're talking about employment where the employer makes much much of off your labor than you will ever receive, and you are powerless to demand your fair share. Yet instead, a safe workplace is the coercive part?

If you don't want to be coerced, you had better not be an employee with wages. Go out there and start your own business.

[refurb]

It’s hilarious to see HN flip from “I dream of a future where no one has to work and fall under the yoke of greedy employers” to “just get injected with this drug and be thankful you have a job; don’t get it and you deserve to starve”.

[epistasis]

The vaccines are the magic future where a small bit of technology prevents disease and death.

> don’t get it and you deserve to starve

It's not by chance that you have to make up ridiculous words and put them in my mouth to attempt to criticize the comment, either in this part where I quoted you, or in the weird assertion about no one having to work.

[acdha]

> The vaccines are the magic future where a small bit of technology prevents disease and death.

That's the part I've found so disappointing about this: a couple of decades of development and we have a massive breakthrough in our ability to rapidly create and update vaccines which precisely target near-arbitrary targets. Seeing what would have been a sci-fi technology when I was a kid being the target of so many conspiracy theories must be incredibly disappointing to all of the actual medical experts who worked so hard on this.

[native_samples]

Those medical experts should look at themselves for why people react this way.

An absolute refusal to accept any legal liability for harms done by the product, whilst simultaneously insisting it's perfectly safe? Check.

Claims that anyone worried about long term effects is a crazy malicious person when Moderna was failing to progress beyond animal trials due to multi-dose toxicity as recently as 2017? Check. [2]

Fanatical insistence on forced vaccination, even when the logical basis for mandates has been invalidated by equal infectiousness? Check. [1]

Constantly shifting claims about effectiveness, invalidated within months yet all presented with absolute confidence? Check.

Insistence that nobody look at the database of injuries and papers which do so should be retracted, despite it existing specifically to be analyzed? Check.

A million different non-vaccine explanations for the sudden spike in public heart attacks, none of which are remotely plausible? Check.

We could go on for many pages of this. The medical/public health establishment has consistently wrecked their own credibility and acted in untrustworthy, suspicion-raising ways. They don't then get to make a sad face and say "but sci fi". Let us know when Pfizer/Moderna can be taken to court for injuries and deaths caused by their sci-fi tech, and interest will grow.

[1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7...

[2] https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/10/moderna-trouble-mrna/

[acdha]

If I wanted antivax propaganda, I could get it myself. You're just copy-and-pasting things you don't understand so I won't be spending time on further replies.

[klipklop]

Even if you think his arguments are silly, it would be more effective to use facts and data to destroy his argument instead of a ad hominem ("you don't understand") attack on his intelligence.

Your approach of dismissing and saying you are taking your ball and going home is not really a convincing counter-argument.

[epistasis]

You are just making up ridiculous claims that don't pass even a basic sniff test, much less ant tiny amount of skeptical inquiry.

I'm not sure why you have been convinced of these falsehoods, or why you think anybody else could be swayed a bit by them.

[native_samples]

Which claim specifically do you think is wrong? They are all correct. Some have citations. You may not like them, but they're correct.

For example if you don't believe the claim about legal immunity, maybe you'll believe CNBC?

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-c...

At any rate, your comment is unsubstantive, which is against the HN rules.

[caeril]

There's been a lot of this, though.

HN used to be firmly anti-FBI/CIA and pro-Assange. Something flipped that around such that the FBI and CIA are Real American Heroes and Assange is some sort of Russian asset. The NSA is still a bit of a bogeyman here, but even that may not hold.

HN is also filled with people who were OccupyWallStreet or AntiWar types who now bloviate endlessly on portfolio management and advocate for the invasion of Iran/Syria/Russia/China/etc.

And don't even get me started on the cypherpunks, the phrack guys, etc. There might be one or two of them left who aren't actively wiping their asses with the CAM or Hacker Manifesto daily.

I suspect that evolving from eating Ramen and reading zines in a communal hackerspace to being paid $400k/yr to analyze the click habits of a billion people changes a person.

The anti-war/free love/hippie/flower power boomers did precisely the same thing, of course. Money and status will always kill lofty ideals. Always.