MyBrainHurts

Unsure if social media is dying but in no way would I consider it a replacement for meeting real humans offline.

Hell, if there's less social media, maybe people finally go and meet more people and while with those people, stay off their phones.

For whomever was crazy enough to read this far... op blocked so no need for politeness.

op finally admits there's a cost. And spending money with minimal return unlike on nurses or aging infrastructure seems a dumb way to spend our limited health dollars. (does he maybe legit not know we already have pop level data and if we're going to go targeted, only hitting school kids would be ridiculous?)

And relying on Canada to be governed well forever is self evidently fucking stupid.

Okay, so now we're back to interviews and actually pulling resources out of the medical system in an attempt to increase friction and maybe move a handful of folks? This seems like a piss poor allocation of resources. Consider that the immunization schedule is generally chosen to be the most advantageous in terms of seasonality etc, so to keep maximum efficacy you'd need government employees (who are expensive) in a communities all across this giant province. So, in a world without infinite money, that means we either don't get extra nurses, support staff or whatever else we need, or we redirect them from useful front line work.

But to the larger one:

vaccination should become mandatory,

Nope, absolutely not. I may agree with the vaccine schedule now but I cannot ever imagine supporting a government actually going and making its choice of vaccines mandatory. If you have even a casual understanding of history or you've been paying any attention to global politics for the last decade, it should be apparent that the government you want to win will not always win. And just because I trust our government now does not mean it will always be so and powers like mandatory vaccination are very hard to take away.

It kind of works in the opposite direction in this case as he's an anti vaxxer but would you want a nut like RFK being able to compel you to take medicine you didn't trust?

That is fantastic, no notes.

Lol, okay, what is your meaningful friction that is meaningful but not just a checkmark but also not an interview?

And come on,

Yes, it should be eventually made mandatory

Brings us right back to the beginning:

"So, look Indigenous and other marginalized folks... I know we've had some less than great history about mandatory government programs. And yes, childhood education is essential, but if you don't agree to this mandatory medical program we will not allow your child in school."

Yeah, I love the notion but good goddamn, that cereal is way above my pay grade.

I think it takes a wild leap to say that the guy who compared being friends and unable to date as smelling wine but not being allowed to drink it, what he really wants is the soulful bond of a romantic relationship in an asexual manner. That's just a completely wild interpretation supported by nothing other than, I dunno, wanting it to be the case?

It just has to be something more than not showing up or just saying “no thanks” without any extra information.

It really seems like you're trying to pivot now from this:

that bureaucracy is what I mean with friction that defines what opting out means. Being invited to immunization and having ease to refuse is still opt in to me.

Where the goal was to create friction.

If your position now is that the friction in opting out is actually just recording "why are you opting out" then that's a pretty silly definition of creating friction . You either have friction with a burdensome process that involves government spending, employees and processes or not.

It really seems like you started talking without really knowing how the system works and have now gone into "okay, I don't actually want a mandatory system, which was what the article was about and now instead I'd just like some more actionable data." Which, fine but that is absolutely not making it a mandatory system, nor is is a substantial departure from what we have.

After agreeing that mandatory vaccination probably wasn't going to work, you then wanted an opt out system, which is what we have, so you wanted it to be harder to opt out and now it's gone to "okay, you need to tick an extra box and then we'll act on that data down the road."

Sorry, was responding to someone else and realized I'd forgotten about this over the weekend.

But yeah, if you've met an anti vaxxer, you'd know yet another form or whatever isn't really the friction that's going to get them to vaccinate. Right now, you're proposing setting up some sort of, I dunno, interview process where we figure out how much trauma or marginalization allows someone to exempt themselves. (Is being Jewish and having family members who were experimented on enough? How about being Black but in Canada? Or having relatives from any number of autocratic regimes where government trust is not really a thing? And then how are we going to check this?)

This proposal is at a time when we don't have enough nurses or doctors and you want to spend a silly amount of money on adding more bureaucracy to make things slightly more difficult for a group that already went through way harsher just a few years ago? Really? And then spend however much more to lose in court?

I get that not everyone thinks through the rammifications and anti-vaxxer = bad so punish them but this doesn't seem particularly practical or beneficial no matter how laudable the goal of more vaccinations is.

Exactly! "Hey, being a friend is great but not great enough that I value it if you won't sleep with me!" And worse, the guy seems to know she's in a bad place and is just "yeah, sure, but what about me??? I wanna sleep with her, she knows this and hasn't acted on it so either lemme bang or gtfo, fuck your mental state.")

Also, love the picture.

Maybe but I think you either really want this guy to be the good guy here or you're not reading particularly critically. This guy makes an actual analogy of friendship as "like only being allowed to smell a fine wine instead of drinking it." which is pretty gross, like the point of friendship is actually dating or nothing. (No one buys a wine to smell it, whereas most normal people can just be friends of whatever gender to be friends.)

And this isn't a case of "she just doesn't know how I feel!" as he states at the beginning she knows, so she is un interested or not in the right space.

And yeah, "You’re the one equating taking a girl out on a date with having sex." because what most dating is about is a platonic hand holding?

I get I'm online and this place skews young, male and not particularly social but this is fairly goshdarn creepy. Like, is this guy unable to function around interesting women who have partners? Or is it just that this woman has the audacity to be single while he's single and RIGHT HERE and they're already friends so clearly she owes him? Ugh.

Edit: I don't think Lemmy has enough women for a vibrant NiceGuys community but if you're still on reddit, you should give r/NiceGuys a whirl. It's kind of full of this self pitying "but I'm her friend, surely she should want to date me" kinda creepiness.

What a terrible article. Just good goddamn.