Being harrasses by anti vaxers

[B W]

I am a 63 year old man from Ontario Canada... I live on a farm community located in the Thousand Islands on a small remote hobby Farm... for more than a decade I have been a member of a small community of hippie type people talking to each other on a couple of old school message boards...

2 years ago small group of us started our own website called treefortforums.net... it is non-commercial in that we pay the fees out of our own pocket and I myself use it to keep from being lonely... I don't have a lot in my life as I am committed to caring for a 27-year-old handicapped child

Since the pandemic a couple of members have taken to being on the antivax Warpath to the point where they harass Mock and ridicule any person who disagrees with them to the point where I've had to leave the site several times to save my own sanity... they post link after link after link of some very obviously faulty information as well as blatant lies... any attempt to stop this Behavior has not worked and believe me I have tried everything from fighting back to ignoring to complaining to the mod team several of which I believe are also likely anti-vaxxers

I actually found this website by searching a link provided by the anti-vaxxers of some phony information that was posted

So... I am not here to scoop members but I have run out of ideas and decided that I might be able to find help off the website on websites such as this so if you can spare some time my screen name on treefortforums.net is rollingalong ... this definitely would be suited to anyone who feels like being a keyboard Warrior for an hour or so LOL thank you in advance and stay safe

 

[Ann K]

I have tried everything from fighting back to ignoring to complaining to the mod team several of which I believe are also likely anti-vaxxers

My sympathies. You are certainly not the only one. Politics and pandemics have isolated and divided many of us. I have no solution for your particular case, except advise you to try to limit your interactions to those people who agree with you, or at least those who are not coming out as the enemy of both common sense and civility. If these few harass you, I suspect others of the group may feel the same about them, so be choosy about your friends even though you may have to trim the number somewhat. I don't think you would find it easy to change their minds. I have hated having to ask friends if they're vaccinated if they come to the door, but I'm not at an age to be careless about my health.

Welcome to the group, and although there may be a couple of anti-science people here, you'll find that most of us are a lot more sensible.

 

[econ41]

any attempt to stop this Behavior has not worked and believe me I have tried everything from fighting back to ignoring to complaining to the mod team several of which I believe are also likely anti-vaxxers

Welcome to the forum. I'm sorry to hear about your problem. I doubt there is an easy solution. Just one thought with a couple of possible outcomes:
Who "owns" the website? In at least two perspectives. First who agreed to set it up? Is it "theirs" in that sense? Was "ownership" ever defined or is it implicit? >> So is there any possibility for agreement among the "owners" as to standards? You may not be able to stop the debate of the AV topic but should be able to control the unacceptable behaviour. But it looks like there are no suitable and explicit rules for the Moderators to follow. And - who chose the Mods? On what criteria? Do you even have rules? If you don't it will be hard to post hoc install some because the "bad behavers" will spot why you are doing it and dig in.

Then, second, and the hard-line option. Who owns the domain? Can you simply shut it down? Possible after due warning about debating standards?

Just a couple of suggestions for thought.

 

[Mendel]

bringing in "keyboard warriors" isn't likely to help, these people have stopped listening to anything that doesn't fit their world view.

In your position, I'd contact the mod team, and ask for a) an anti-vax subforum/board be created, and b) for all anti-vax messages to be moved there (with the help of user reports). This policy should keep other areas of the board mostly clear of the anti-vax proselytizing.

 

[deirdre]

Can you just block these few members?

How do I ignore another member?

If there are particular members that are bothering you and you do not wish to see their posts or receive Private Messages from them, then you can add these members to your 'Ignore List'.
In the top right of the forum, click your Username. A dropdown menu will appear and from here you need to select 'User Settings'. On the page that appears, click 'Account' and scroll to the bottom. In the text area next to 'Ignore List', enter the Usernames of users that you want to Ignore.

If these are people you know in real life, i would find a new forum or group to post on. There are a million groups and forums you can join. I am part of 2 FB groups dedicated to topics i am interested in, both have No Politics rules. It's quite nice.

And obviously stop paying your share for the forum.

https://www.treefortforums.net/help?q=block+member&btnSearch=&titleandtext=1&match=any

or start your own No-Politics group

How do I create a new group?

As a registered member, you can create your own Group (providing the administrator allows this). Go to the Groups page and on the module that is displayed, click the '+ Create Group' button. On the page that follows, you have a variety of options to tailor your group to the way you need it. If the administrator has added Group Categories, you will be able to specify which category your group is part of. Complete the title and description for your group and then select the type. There are three types of groups available:

• Public - Open to all. There is no restriction on who can join or who can post messages to it.
• Invite Only - Members will require an invitation to join the group. Invitations can only be sent by the group owner or forum moderators and administrators.
• Moderated - Open to everyone but messages are moderated before they appear. They are moderated by the group owner and the site moderators and administrators.

You are also able to set permissions on who can see and post in your group.

https://www.treefortforums.net/help#group_overview/group_create_new

 

[Mechanik]

Unfortunately, neither you nor other members of Metabunk are going to make any difference in that particular forum. That one is as bad as many of the threads on Reddit.

I'm with @deirdre: ignore/block the abusers or start a new Moderated thread where you can enforce some order on the discussion. Take a look at some of the controversial threads here on MB and see how it's done in a professional and respectful manner.

 

[deirdre]

Take a look at some of the controversial threads here on MB and see how it's done in a professional and respectful manner.

oh please. we mock and ridicule anti-vaxxers (and people who disagree with us) constantly on MB now. what's good for the goose....

 

[Landru]

oh please. we mock and ridicule anti-vaxxers (and people who disagree with us) constantly on MB now. what's good for the goose....

Have you been on those sites? It is not comparable. Nor is it on pro vaccine sites that do not have a politeness policy that is enforced.

 

[deirdre]

Have you been on those sites? It is not comparable.

personal mocking may not be comparable, but that's only because antivaxxers don't come here. I realize many feel that "passive-aggressive" insults calling people stupid are somehow more 'polite' then coming right out and calling people an idiot.. but to me it's the same insult.

 

[obiwanbenobi]

@B W I'm sorry for the troubles but some of us older people have been through a version of this long time ago when the early internet started up and then AOL came along several years later and people of all kinds arrived and we now call this modern era of the internet Eternal September.

It's different, it's difficult, at times you want to leave because it is so mean and disgusting.

I've had to walk away from some places because of how bad they got. I've had to do that in real-world places too when my own sense of right and wrong didn't match enough and it was better for me to find a more peaceful place to be.

Now I stick mainly to a few gardening groups and a few other places which seem to have some moderators which keep at least the very uncivil from taking over, but that can still be tough at times. PM me if you'd like to know where those places are. That's all I can offer at this point.

As far as anti-vaxxers go, it's been a tough haul and living with people like that is not what I'd ever thought would happen but here it is. Reality is sometimes different than what you hoped. I'm not particularly good at coping. I have to bite back some things I'd otherwise say.

 

[Mythic Suns]

I honestly feel like the anti-vaxxers have more control than they claim they do and sadly cause more damage than they think they do.

In their mind if everyone stopped getting vaccinated and left conventional medicine behind there would magically be less autism and illness in the world.

This utopian sounding goal is the reason people buy into it, but the fact that reality contradicts it means that those who fall for it run the risk of getting some serious illnesses and, if they do escape the rabbit hole, will also have to come to terms with the fact that they may well have contributed to the spread of a deadly disease.

Those who don't escape the rabbit hole don't come out scot free either; to be an anti-vaxxer you have to see the world as an Orwellian hellscape which I can tell you, as someone who did this only briefly, is not good for anyone's mental health and can be a route to suicidal tendencies. The world's not perfect by any means but it's also not as bad as Anti Vaxxers, or Conspiracy Theorists as a whole, like to believe.

The other unfortunate effect of the anti-vaxxers is more indirect; there are situations where people who are pro-vax but a bit ignorant will go after people who can't take any vaccine due to their allergies and shame them for supposedly being anti-vax. This, rather annoyingly, reinforces the defence of the anti-vaxxers who can then point fingers and generalise that all pro-vaxxers are just like the more ignorant ones.

So what's the solution? I'm probably not the right person to ask but I can say that it relates to more people having an understanding of medical science, psychology, the way the world works, and the ability to recognise logical flaws in any argument an anti-vaxxer may use. I realise that sounds like a bit of a big ask but I have found that on a lot of occasions you don't need a full understanding of these subjects.

 

[scombrid]

Local lawyer just posted a link to anti vaccine disinformation on Natural News to a local surfing forum. He is trolling the "prog demoshits".

 

[econ41]

So what's the solution? I'm probably not the right person to ask but I can say that it relates to more people having an understanding of medical science, psychology, the way the world works, and the ability to recognise logical flaws in any argument an anti-vaxxer may use. I realise that sounds like a bit of a big ask but I have found that on a lot of occasions you don't need a full understanding of these subjects.

Logical flaws are nearly always the key issue. The fatal error of reasoning in most conspiracy theory claims. There is a "Catch 22" situation however. The fatal error of logic is usually at the foundation of the argument. A matter of fundamental principle. BUT - the "catch" - it is usually not recognised because both sides of the argument tend to be persons who prefer to focus on technical details.

Two examples. The base reasoning of most anti-vax claims is faulty. The claim is based on alleged harm resulting from vaccines. Stated in many different ways. Let's look at the principle in a simplified example. A population of 100 persons is exposed to an illness. The probability is that if none were vaccinated 50 out of the hundred would catch the illness. If all were vaccinated let's say 10 still catch the illness - possibly in a weakened state. BUT there is a downside risk that one in a hundred could suffer side effects.

The anti-vaxer says "protect the one" - unconditionally. Which means ensuring that 50 catch the illness. Save 1 at cost to 50.

And the logic doesn't change if the disease is fatal - just the severity of impacts and emotive assessment.
The anti-vaxer says "Kill 50 to save 1". Bad odds by any measure. And the real numbers are a lot safer on the pro-vax side.
The foundation logic is fatally flawed independent of the debate of details.

Second example. The Hulsey claim for 9/11 WTC7 collapses. He claims he has proved that fire could not cause collapse. That one is simpler to explain. He is making a "Global Negative" claim. And it is NOT possible to prove such a claim in the WTC7 setting. Stated simply - if there are 26 possible mechanisms for collapse and Hulsey disproves A, B, F, Q the real event could still be C or D or E etc etc.
The foundation logic is fatally flawed independent of the debate of details. (To "prove a global negative" the claimant MUST falsify the affirmatively framed version of every alternate.)

BUT - follow the debate of both those topics over many years.
(And here is the"Catch 22") The two fatal errors were/have been/still are repeatedly identified in both areas of debate. And almost universally ignored. The debate goes into detail ignoring the fatal flaw in the foundation of the logic.

(And I can explain both those assertions with fuller rigour. And I haven't even mentioned the psychological pathology of obsessive false beliefs. )
You are correct when you suggest:

you don't need a full understanding of these subjects.

And remember, anti-vax is the only conspiracy theory that has a de-facto goal of ensuring more illnesses and deaths. It is, by definition, a malicious movement. Even if SOME of the gullible followers cannot think clearly and dont understand why.

 

[Ann K]

Second example. The Hulsey claim for 9/11 WTC7 collapses. He claims he has proved that fire could not cause collapse. That one is simpler to explain. He is making a "Global Negative" claim. And it is NOT possible to prove such a claim in the WTC7 setting. Stated simply - if there are 26 possible mechanisms for collapse and Hulsey disproves A, B, F, Q the real event could still be C or D or E etc etc.
The foundation logic is fatally flawed independent of the debate of details. (To "prove a global negative" the claimant MUST falsify the affirmatively framed version of every alternate.)

Even that approach of falsifying each one is flawed, in that the true mechanism may be number 27, the one that nobody has thought of yet. In one of the Sherlock Holmes stories if everything else has been eliminated then whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. But since nobody can be sure of that "everything else", it remains entertaining fiction but terrible logic.

 

[econ41]

Even that approach of falsifying each one is flawed,

Sure. Actually it is "not complete" rather than "flawed". It wasn't intended to be fully rigorous - hence my "disclaimer":

And I can explain both those assertions with fuller rigour.

My purpose was to highlight the common failure of "left-brained argument about details" which ignores overriding fatal errors at the foundation of the arguments.

Your observation is correct when you say:

in that the true mechanism may be number 27, the one that nobody has thought of yet.

When presenting my fuller explanation that is the second point. As an adherent to "scentific method" I usually avoid claims of "impossible" but in the WTC7 scenario it is not even plausible to identify all the alternate scenarios. I didn't need that detail to support my comment to @Mythic Suns.
Thanks for your correct observation.

 

[deirdre]

BUT there is a downside risk that one in a hundred could suffer side effects.

The anti-vaxer says "protect the one" -

i don't know of ANY vaccines or medicines that have a severe enough side effect to warrant "protection" from anti-vaxxers 1 out of every hundred. If it was 1 out of a hundred, most everyone would be anti-vaxxers! you should up your number.

even smallpox vaccine was way lower than your rate (and they still eradicated smallpox because they felt that rate was so high)

Article:

Rarely, people have had very bad reactions to the vaccine. In the past, between 14 and 52 people out of every 1 million people vaccinated for the first time experienced potentially life-threatening reactions.

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/smallpox/vaccine-basics/vaccination-effects.html

 

[econ41]

i don't know of ANY vaccines or medicines that have a severe enough side effect to warrant "protection" from anti-vaxxers 1 out of every hundred. If it was 1 out of a hundred, most everyone would be anti-vaxxers!

Yes, we can agree on that reality. BUT....

you should up your number.

Maybe if I was engaged in a detailed discussion but it wasn't my purpose on this occasion. Hence my disclaimer:

The anti-vaxer says "Kill 50 to save 1". Bad odds by any measure. And the real numbers are a lot safer on the pro-vax side.

given that my primary focus was on demonstrating errors of foundation logic that get overlooked. As shown by my repeated comment:

The foundation logic is fatally flawed independent of the debate of details.

 

[deirdre]

BUT....

But nothing, just say "1 in 10,000" next time. easy peasy.