FB Arguments, who's right? Should I have bothered?

[Narz]

Ok so a girl I know (knew years ago) posted this article on FB.

http://bellejar.ca/2015/02/05/vaccines-dont-cause-autism-but-thats-not-the-point-stop-being-ableist/

It immediately made me think of the "Parents" thread here on CFC & specifically the morality of bringing "damaged" children into the world & the meaning of "damaged"

I thought it was a pretty crappy article but whatever, I barely know this girl, I considered blocking her stuff off my wall & also considered responding but decided to do neither cause what's the point? Arguing on CFC is stimulating & you can be outrageous & not have to worry about actual friends/coworkers/clients/family actually reading it, FB I usually just block stupid stuff rather than get into it with folks.

So anyway, 24 hours later or so I scan the "thread" and it's become heated.

First commenter says

"I used to work with autistic kids and adults. Many of them can't communicate with the outside world and will, in all probability live lives that are much more constrained than your average human. The medical community calls autism a disease for a reason, the reason being that it's not fun to have and makes it difficult to live a "normal" life. The fact that you would post an article saying "stop saying autism is a tragedy" pretty much ignores the reality under which many people with autism face, imho. I don't hate autistic people in any way shape or form, but people who don't want to have autistic children are just looking out for their children's futures."

Someone starts arguing with him & then he really gets them going with this reply :

"If a parent doesn't want their children to take thalidomide or be beaten with a baseball bat, are they being ableist?"

Everyone else : "OMG you're saying austism is like getting hit with a bat, you nut!"

Admittedly the guy was totally reaction seeking with the baseball bat comment.

Girl who posted article :

"Woah, aaand... unfriended. I honesty barely remember meeting this guy...."

Ok this pissed me off. My old friend from childhood posts stupid right-wing stuff sometimes but I'm not going to unfriend him because of it (just block his feed). And, perhaps because of negative childhood experience with people being two-faced in different crowds I really don't like the whole "Hey, this guy sucks" just to fit in with her reactionary hippie PC friends.

So I jump into the fray, whether I should have or not, I'm not sure. Some background, I knew this girl about 4 or 5 years ago & haven't seen her since, she lived in a communal house where I used to hang out sometimes when I lived in Western Mass. I'll likely never see her again & don't know any of her friends.

Actually expressing strong opinions & being argumentative is something I really question in myself. On one hand I feel like it's my duty to argue against obnoxious people who are trying to shame others (in this case parents who don't want their kids to be autistic), also I aim to support those who may feel their viewpoints are universally disproved of (which is possible in a closed circle of self-selected people). On the other hand, why bother even investing the emotional energy. Much simply just to block or unfriend the person who's beliefs I find annoying.

How do you handle such a situation?

Anyway, here's my reaction comment, surely to get me unfriended but I just didn't feel like holding back.

Narz : "Unfriended for having a different viewpoint? You can unfriend me as well. Being a parent of a kid with no problems is hard enough. To those who can devote their whole lives (not just 18 years) to care for a child with a severe handicap, whether emotional or physical, I commend them (I met a woman with a 20-something daughter with Down's syndrome who provided her care & I was in awe) but to cast judgement on parents for not wanting their kids to have to deal with autism is just obnoxious. ****, I can't help but suspect most of those doing the judging don't actually have children. Its easy to judge when you have no responsibility. Ok some of these parents may have chosen their words poorly (yeaa, now someone can create a clickbait article about it for those addicted to be outraged), their child who they poured their heart into is withdrawing from them into themselves, I think they can be forgiven for not choosing the exact right words. I should hope none of you have to experience such a thing. And then to add insult to injury these parents now are meant to feel ashamed to admit they feel like their child is huge burden lest people judge you (and probably tell them stupid everyday like, "its God's will" or "it's a blessing in disguise" or "don't be ableist"). "I don't want my child to be autistic" does not equal "I hate autistic people". I wouldn't want my daughter to suffer severe depression because I know what its like. Does that experience have gifts it offers? Sure. But I sure as **** wouldn't want my kid going thru it if I can help that."

Am I totally wrong & they're right? Are they wrong & I'm right? Either way is it worth my time? Am I adding any value to any of them or any spectators or should I better use my time elsewhere?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Honest question: Have any anti-vaccine commenters shown up? (I'd be surprised if they haven't)

My current social media arguments are happening on YouTube, which I find much less stressful since it ultimately doesn't matter once the thread gets too convoluted to follow. Pretty much the only thing I ever post on Facebook is "thank you" when someone wishes me "Happy Birthday".

 

[Smote]

Well, FB is usually an isolated community of people you know. It's common for them to share opinions with you. I know only one anti-vaccer personally, I believe. She has aspergers and believed vaccines caused it. Haven't talked to her for a couple years.

I get annoyed at people that are unquestioningly intolerant of apparent intolerance, as well. A lot of the time, perceived intolerance isn't actual intolerance, but rather, someone's inability to use language in a way that doesn't imply negative judgements (or choice in a way to provoke reactions). Sometimes it's also just statements of fact, spoken without judgement. It violates my sense of fairness when people presume guilt on little evidence, and then act on it in a way that prevents any evidence to the contrary. It seems like an elaborate ego-affirming belief-confirmation mechanic.

Granted, some people seem to want to have a community of people that agree with them, rather than a community of people seeking every angle of a discussion, to best seek the truth of a matter. This is likely because they struggle with keeping their emotions in check, when faced with disagreement, but still need to express themselves. The solution is to only associate with people that agree with them, which leads to the obvious problems of echo chambers/groupthink. However, this doesn't seem to be a concern, since it's seemingly more about emotional validation than about seeking the truth.

As far as wrong or right, I dunno. I doubt you're going to convince someone that they ought to have views from all sides for their facebook page, when they seem to want only responses that make them feel emotionally safe. It seems like you're judging that their FB page shouldn't be an echo chamber, when they might just want an echo chamber.

Of course, they also usually don't seem to recognize this in themselves. They usually just "don't want ****s posting on their FB page." The intolerance for those with different ideas (unless it's a religion) accompanied by tolerance for those with different biologies, seems strange and arbitrary to me too.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

I'm bothered by some of the moms in the article. Seeing the 'light' or 'soul' disappear from their children's eyes sounds serious, in all honesty. Almost dangerous for the child to have such a mom. I wouldn't want children being taken away for not being vaccinated, but the mental condition of some parents probably should be checked.

edit: I agree with your FB post.

 

[Hygro]

"You have to vaccinate your kids but you're not allowed to hope it prevents disease and disability."

 

[sophie]

FB arguments are something to be avoided at all costs. Trust me, you don't want to go down that rabbit hole. I don't care how stupid your friend is being; it can only end poorly.

 

[Hygro]

I concur with Owen.

Narz, outside the context of facebook, I think your message was spot on.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The question isn't "give me autism or give me death". The question is "give me no proven chance of autism or give me a vanishingly small chance of death". Both sides of this vaccination debate are making hysterical arguments and should be ignored, on facebook and everywhere else. The vast vast majority are getting vaccinated, and that will continue to be true, despite the hysterics on both sides.

 

[Tee Kay]

The question isn't "give me autism or give me death". The question is "give me no proven chance of autism or give me a vanishingly small chance of death". Both sides of this vaccination debate are making hysterical arguments and should be ignored, on facebook and everywhere else. The vast vast majority are getting vaccinated, and that will continue to be true, despite the hysterics on both sides.

No, it won't continued to be true, if falsehoods and misinformation is allowed to spread rampant.

Guess what, if enough people don't vaccinate then the chance of death won't be "vanishingly small" anymore.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

No, it won't continued to be true, if falsehoods and misinformation is allowed to spread rampant.

Guess what, if enough people don't vaccinate then the chance of death won't be "vanishingly small" anymore.

Speaking of misinformation, the chance of death was very very small before there was any vaccine at all when every kid in America was getting measles, so it sure as hell won't get very big now. Meanwhile, we don't have to worry about it, because the anti-vaccination fad has already peaked, so this 'horrifying' outbreak of a hundred cases of a disease with a one in thousands mortality rate is about as bad as it is likely to get.

 

[bhavv]

Please Narz stop taking facebook seriously. Deal with the fact that most people you make friends with are going to be idiots and write stupid stuff, such as openly expressing their desires to want to wipe every theist off the face of the planet with nukes (ok well, that one is just me).

 

[nc-1701]

Narz, this is a question I run into every once in awhile myself. The majority of my Facebook friends land in semi-rational land or at least pretend too. For those that don't I waiver between trolling them and just blocking them. Without going into maximum details here are three situations where I landed on three different choices:

1) Fiance of a very good friend from undergrad, nutty far right 'Obama is a secret Muslim' beliefs that she'd regularly spray on Facebook. Eventually she shared some rant about Obama hating America because he was pictured reading a book by Fareed Zakaria the Muslim America hater(tm). So I just slammed her and said he was a better reporter and American than she was etc. and she defriended me.
2) Friend of my Moms posted nutty Israeli propaganda all summer straight, with about 2-3 holocaust articles/day. Finally the Gaza war ended so she just started posting about that girl who got kidnapped at UVa, then it was all about the Rolling Stone Uva rape thing, then it was slutwalk this slutwalk that. So I defriended her.
3) This girl who is now the ex of a good friend of mine shares all kinds of super nutty SJW stuff constantly (like 10+ articles a day) and all of it is the most ignorant crap ever. This reminds me I should go check out if she has any vaccine stuff to say. Add on her pretty significant racism and the flame wars she would have with anyone who disgareed with her on her comments and I ended up just hiding her feed. But I kept her as a friend so I could go check on it for lulz sometimes.

Personally I think your response was very good, though perhaps a waste of energy on your part. All in all I try to be tolerant of even the nuttier FB posts I see, but I can't always. What bothers me the most are the super high volume posters who just pump out nutty stuff constantly. I also try to be more tolerant of posted articles since I know they aren't exactly the sharer's words...

Also in your specific case the "ableism" trope makes me sick, I can't stand it and I hope it dies.

The question isn't "give me autism or give me death". The question is "give me no proven chance of autism or give me a vanishingly small chance of death". Both sides of this vaccination debate are making hysterical arguments and should be ignored, on facebook and everywhere else. The vast vast majority are getting vaccinated, and that will continue to be true, despite the hysterics on both sides.

I'm just quoting this since there's no like button. Hysteria is a beautiful yet terrifying thing. Also notice everybody's forgotten about the cops murdering black people and seizing assets so we can talk about this nonsense instead.

 

[warpus]

or should I better use my time elsewhere?

Probably.

I mean, the article that was posted was written by a person who claims that saying: "vaccines don't cause autism" is discriminating against disabled people.

This premise is so idiotic, the logic so absurd, that you might as well be arguing with a potato. Whoever thought the article was insightful and/or interesting enough to share on facebook must be incredibly daft. Your time would be better spent talking to actual people.

 

[Smote]

Probably.

I mean, the article that was posted was written by a person who claims that saying: "vaccines don't cause autism" is discriminating against disabled people.

This premise is so idiotic, the logic so absurd, that you might as well be arguing with a potato. Whoever thought the article was insightful and/or interesting enough to share on facebook must be incredibly daft. Your time would be better spent talking to actual people.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Probably.

I mean, the article that was posted was written by a person who claims that saying: "vaccines don't cause autism" is discriminating against disabled people.

This premise is so idiotic, the logic so absurd, that you might as well be arguing with a potato. Whoever thought the article was insightful and/or interesting enough to share on facebook must be incredibly daft. Your time would be better spent talking to actual people.

Good thing you are anonymous. Twitter is blowing up over your blatant potatoism.

Equal rights for vegetables now!!!

 

[cardgame]

This kind of stuff is why I haven't logged into FB for over a year. I have it on my phone for if people message me and stuff, but screw going to it.

 

[BvBPL]

Am I totally wrong & they're right? Are they wrong & I'm right? Either way is it worth my time? Am I adding any value to any of them or any spectators or should I better use my time elsewhere?

You are likely wrong as you appear to have exceeded the folkways on Facebook.

There is a continuum of how permissible the expression of contrary opinions is on social media. This runs between Linked In at one point and, say, this site at the other with Facebook somewhere in between.

On Linked In, the expression of opinions contrary to a party is undesirable and unwelcome. That site is a professional networking site that is geared towards commercial interaction. Contrary opinions on hot subjects is anathema to its purpose.

On this site, the very purpose, among others, is to engage in discussion on controversial topics. By posting an opinion you implicitly consent to others expressing contrary opinions.

Facebook occupies a intermediate position. People may post merely to express an opinion without wanting to engage with a contrary opinion, or as a means to elicit alternate opinions. Only through a contextual examination of the post, the posters, and their relationship can one determine what degree of engagement is appropriate.

Here, you stepped in on a conversation where the blood was already running hot, where the girl already expressed a disinterest in hearing a contrary opinion, and where you do not have the sort of relationship with this girl that permits you license to directly step into this stuff.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Here, you stepped in on a conversation where the blood was already running hot, where the girl already expressed a disinterest in hearing a contrary opinion, and where you do not have the sort of relationship with this girl that permits you license to directly step into this stuff.

If something shows up on my wall/feed then its open season.

It's pretty easy to make a FB post visible only to one's echo chamber of choice. I suggest that she take that route from now on instead of spamming everyone on her contact list with controversial topics.

 

[cardgame]

>vaccines and autism

>controversial

 

[Flying Pig]

Probably.

I mean, the article that was posted was written by a person who claims that saying: "vaccines don't cause autism" is discriminating against disabled people.

This premise is so idiotic, the logic so absurd, that you might as well be arguing with a potato. Whoever thought the article was insightful and/or interesting enough to share on facebook must be incredibly daft. Your time would be better spent talking to actual people.

I have to admit that I thought the article had a good point. The danger is that we cross from saying 'it's hard to have a disability' into 'disabled people aren't real people'. I think at times we on CFC strayed a bit close to that line in the parents thread, but the comments that the article was addressing definitely did. At some point, the conversation stopped being 'don't worry, Mrs Brown, this vaccine won't make your son's legs drop off' and started becoming more like 'don't worry, Mrs Brown, this vaccine won't turn him brown'.

That said, facebook arguments are nearly always ridiculous. Though at what point in CFC membership do other members become 'friends', and at that point is there really a difference any more?