Unfortunately I Can’t Use This Advice Myself. If I Try To Empathize And See Their Point Of View It

Unfortunately I can’t use this advice myself. If I try to empathize and see their point of view it is more likely I’ll become an antivaxxer myself at least temporarily despite knowing the science. I need that barrier in my mind. Also, I’m bad at talking to people

So how do you change an anti-vaxxer's mind, anyway?

First, understand that sometimes, the answer is simply: you can't. Some people are very firmly entrenched in anti-vax narratives, and will become extremely aggressive in response to challenges.

Second, understand that in this case, saying nothing is better than saying the wrong thing. Becoming hostile, or expressing judgment (no matter how well-deserved) is likely to entrench them more into these conspiracies than it is to make them see reason, making them less likely to be receptive to even gentle challenges in future.

Third, understand that change isn't something that happens after a single conversation. It takes repeated discussions, and a lot of building up trust, to start making people change their minds.

So, then, how do you change an anti-vaxxer's mind?

First step: understand why anti-vaxxers feel this way. This can be summed up in one word: fear. Irrational fear, but fear nonetheless. There are a lot of reasons they may have gotten to this point. They may be deeply distrustful of physicians due to past experiences. People of color in the United States are very prone to vaccine hesitancy and refusal, not because of conservative views, but because of the racist history of the medical institution- in particular, the atrocity known as the Tuskegee experiments. Some, particularly those in the United States, are very prone to distrusting the medical-industrial complex, and extend that skepticism to vaccinations as well. Some may have encountered misinformation, such as the infamous Wakefield farce, which convinced them that children were in danger of being autistic (which is still heavily stigmatized) if they became vaccinated. There are also other reasons, but these are the most common.

And how do we deal with other fears people have? Empathy.

How to have an empathetic conversation about this issue:

First, you need to do just that: have a conversation. Ask open-ended questions, and listen to the answers no matter how much they anger or upset you. The most important and most simple: "what are your reasons for not trusting vaccines?" Other good questions are, "why do you feel this way?" "Are you interested in receiving information about vaccines from me?" "How can I help you work through these difficult feelings?" You need to then tailor your conversation according to how they respond.

You need to build trust with the person you are talking to. If you are in a position of privilege over them, particular if you are white and they are black, you cannot attempt to speak over their concerns about bias in the medical community. This also includes disabled people who no longer trust doctors to have their best interests at heart. Empathize with their concerns, don't erase them, and then segue into the facts. "This is an unfortunate reality, and should never have happened to you. May I share a counterpoint about (specific issue), with the understanding that this does not erase the systemic biases in the medical community?" It is worth noting that breakdowns in trust in the doctor-patient relationship are a key factor that leads to the development of antivax attitudes. This person already feels they can't trust their doctors or the government, and they have, in desperation, turned to a community of other afraid people to be heard. If you remember this, you will have a chance here to gain their trust and be an ambassador for vaccination.

Another way of building trust is to emphasize to them that your goals are aligned. They want what is best for them and their kids, even if they are misguided, and so do you. One rhetorical strategy (that is, incidentally, also used by lawyers in jury trials) is to ascribe positive traits to this person, and then challenge them to live up to it. "I know you love little Tommy very much, and want him to be healthy. I want him to be, too. I am sure, since you care for him deeply, you will look into this issue thoroughly."

That last point is also key. You need to start small, as counterintuitive as it might seem. Don't come right out and say for them and their children to get vaccinated; they need to make that decision by themself. Instead, say that you have information about vaccines that you would like to share with them. It is especially good if you have something saved for a particular claim they made. If, for example, they believed the Wakefield study, there are many refutations out there you can show them. If they are concerned about mercury, you can explain that the kind of mercury in vaccines isn't the "bad" mercury that we find in tuna- and even if it was, there is less mercury in the vaccines than there is in tunafish. Keep it focused, and keep it neutral; one claim at a time.

It is very likely that they will respond to you with a study of their own. Read it carefully before responding. "I noticed that the Wakefield paper has since been retracted. Here is a peer-reviewed study that reaches a different conclusion; it seems worth examining."

You need to show that you are actively listening to what they have to say, and that you appreciate them talking to you. "Thank you for trusting me to talk about this." "Thank you for showing open-mindedness." No vague-posting about anti-vaxxers, no eye-rolling, and no distractions while talking to them.

Another key for showing empathy is to make sure you acknowledge the root of each claim. You don't need to repeat it like a parrot- but for example, using the mercury example above, "it is understandable that you fear mercury! Normally, it is a dangerous substance. Thankfully, there are different kinds of mercury, and the one that can make you sick, methylmercury isn't the same as ethylmercury, which is the one found in vaccines."

Don't start right with debunking myths; always begin with an affirming statement ("that must be scary" or "I know there is a lot of information out there; you must be overwhelmed trying to sort through everything!") before pivoting to correcting misinformation.

Keeping your tone positive in nature is also very helpful. You don't have to be shooting rainbows from your mouth/keyboard, but positive statements help build trust and make people more receptive.

Remember that debunking myths is only one part of what you are seeking to do here. If the person you are talking to starts to feel like you only want to hear their thoughts so you can correct them, they will stop sharing them. No one likes to talk with someone who only wants to be right, even if they ARE right!

Unfortunately, these steps may not work. Sometimes, despite your best efforts, the person won't be receptive. That's okay. Simply tell them again that you are here if they have questions, and you wish for the best for them and their children. Let them come to you if they change their mind.

And please remember, above all else: while these are important conversations, you are never obligated to accept verbal abuse. You have a right to have your boundaries respected just as much as they do. If the person you are talking to name-calls, uses bigoted language, mocks you, wishes bad things on you, etc, it is okay to walk away. Maybe they'll be ready to hear it one day, maybe not, but you don't need to set yourself on fire to keep anyone warm here.

I hope that this guide helps you if you are interested in discussing vaccine hesitancy and refusal! Please let me know if you need anything clarified.

More Posts from Doublerainbowjay and Others

4 weeks ago

What I was taught growing up: Wild edible plants and animals were just so naturally abundant that the indigenous people of my area, namely western Washington state, didn't have to develop agriculture and could just easily forage/hunt for all their needs.

The first pebble in what would become a landslide: Native peoples practiced intentional fire, which kept the trees from growing over the camas praire.

The next: PNW native peoples intentionally planted and cultivated forest gardens, and we can still see the increase in biodiversity where these gardens were today.

The next: We have an oak prairie savanna ecosystem that was intentionally maintained via intentional fire (which they were banned from doing for like, 100 years and we're just now starting to do again), and this ecosystem is disappearing as Douglas firs spread, invasive species take over, and land is turned into European-style agricultural systems.

The Land Slide: Actually, the native peoples had a complex agricultural and food processing system that allowed them to meet all their needs throughout the year, including storing food for the long, wet, dark winter. They collected a wide variety of plant foods (along with the salmon, deer, and other animals they hunted), from seaweeds to roots to berries, and they also managed these food systems via not only burning, but pruning, weeding, planting, digging/tilling, selectively harvesting root crops so that smaller ones were left behind to grow and the biggest were left to reseed, and careful harvesting at particular times for each species that both ensured their perennial (!) crops would continue thriving and that harvest occurred at the best time for the best quality food. American settlers were willfully ignorant of the complex agricultural system, because being thus allowed them to claim the land wasn't being used. Native peoples were actively managing the ecosystem to produce their food, in a sustainable manner that increased biodiversity, thus benefiting not only themselves but other species as well.

So that's cool. If you want to read more, I suggest "Ancient Pathways, Ancestral Knowledge: Ethnobotany and Ecological Wisdom of Indigenous Peoples of Northwestern North America" by Nancy J. Turner

2 weeks ago

Buses are a public health nightmare. Poor ventilation, people coughing, people vaping, one time I caught some jerk huffing inhalants. It’s like they’re trying to get you sick.

I know I sound like your mom but you kids need to stop fucking vaping

1 week ago

This is a joke because of course the c-suite will never fire themselves. They are kind of like the lord of the manor. The employees are like serfs. Nothing ever changes. Oh and there’s one person a step up from the rank and file that actually organizes and keeps the place running, the supervisor, corresponding to the steward. Meanwhile the lord does little but he owns the joint, and can’t be gotten rid of unless the peasants revolt.

Unfortunately they seem to hate minorities of various kinds more than lords exploiting everyone.

Hey Corporations!

Hey Corporations!

And more corporate stuff.


Tags
1 month ago
Reblog This It Takes 4 Seconds.

reblog this it takes 4 seconds.


Tags
2 weeks ago

Yeah! I would love to see a complete deconstruction of hp lovecraft. Keeping the surface features like shoggoths, mi-go, deep ones etc, but inverting the tone, and pointing out that he was a xenophobic racist and based all his work on that. Seriously, read the parts where he talks about human beings of color, women (and even poor whites), it’s disgusting. He’s an unreliable narrator of the worst kind. Why should anyone trust him to describe other intelligent beings?

Different does not mean evil. Imagine a crew of all his aliens (except maybe the elder things), revealed to be friendly once you get to know them. With a black (human) woman as captain just to spit in the old bigot’s face.

Concept: Star Trek style quasi-utopian deep space drama, except all of the ship’s non-human crew members are really obviously based on particular sci-fi horror tropes.

The chief physician is an amorphous mass of tentacles and teeth that’s infested the entire medical bay, transforming it into a quivering nightmare of meat and viscera. It speaks with a conspicuously posh accent; the human crew members affectionately call it “Doc”.

The head of security is a lurking, probably humanoid something-or-other that’s mostly imperceptible in the visual spectrum, save as a faintly shimmering distortion in the air. Her lack of visibility is treated as a running gag, with the most frequent bits involving a. other crew members not realising she’s in the room until she speaks up, and b. her making reference to various unlikely anatomic features which, of course, the audience cannot see.

The ship’s computer is a blatantly rampant AI that speaks in a chorus of voices. It tends to talk in cryptic, pseudo-religious metaphors which contrast to humorous effect with the mundanity of the topic at hand, and sometimes wanders off on rambling philosophical tangents that require whoever it’s speaking with to remind it to get to the point. You can tell when it’s paying attention to a particular part of the ship because the lighting turns blood red.

The lead science officer is just a huge fucking spider.

(The captain is an apparently ordinary – albeit extremely photogenic – human. We don’t find out what their real deal is until the season finale; what’s revealed firmly establishes them as the freakiest one of the lot!)

3 weeks ago

I don’t really have a choice since I can’t drive or afford a car. It’s bike or bus for me, ride shares are too expensive. But honestly I like bike riding anyway.

Bike Propaganda By Me

Bike propaganda by me


Tags
2 weeks ago

Buses do not have good ventilation. Coughing without a mask or spraying toxic aerosols everywhere is not good for other people.

I know I sound like your mom but you kids need to stop fucking vaping


Tags
3 weeks ago

Does anyone want to start a school based on a minority faith? Which would expose their Christian-normative hypocrisy. Watch them get up in arms about anything Muslim (even though that’s Abrahamic and conservative), Neopagan, or other ones. How would they feel about a Buddhist school made by Asian-Americans?

The Supreme Court is about to let religion ruin public education
Mother Jones
Two recent cases suggest that the era of secular schools is coming to an end.

In modern America, religious education is offered in private schools or in a homeschooling setting. Public education, by contrast, is secular, because the government is not in the business of sponsoring religious indoctrination. But in two cases the Supreme Court heard over roughly the last week, the justices appear ready to throw out public education as we know it and usher in a new era where tax dollars flow to religious schools and religion can dictate what is taught in public classrooms. When the decisions come down, public education may change forever. On Tuesday, the justices heard arguments in Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, a case over whether Oklahoma must fund a religious charter school that carries out religious instruction and hosts religious activities, including mass. Rather than consider this an affront to the separation of church and state, four Republican-appointed justices appeared outraged at the idea that a state would fund a charter school focused on language immersion or the arts but not one focused on religious instruction. Without ever acknowledging that the the First Amendment’s establishment clause (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”) prohibits government-sponsored religion, several expressed palpable anger that allowing only secular charter schools was a form of anti-religious discrimination. “All the religious school is saying is ‘Don’t exclude us on account of our religion,’” Justice Brett Kavanaugh said. “If you go and apply to be a charter school and you’re an environmental studies school, or you’re a science-based school, or you’re a Chinese immersion school, or you’re a English grammar-focused school, you can get in. And then you come in and you say, ‘Oh, we’re a religious school.’ It’s like, ‘Oh, no, can’t do that, that’s too much.’ That’s scary.” He continued: “You can’t treat religious people and religious institutions and religious speech as second-class in the United States… And when you have a program that’s open to all comers except religion… that seems like rank discrimination against religion.” [ ... ] This case alone will be a bombshell if the court mandates that states begin funding religious schools through their charter school programs. But this term, the Supreme Court is poised to deliver a one-two punch. Last week, the court heard arguments in Mahmoud v. Taylor, in which it considered whether religious parents could opt their kids out of lessons that did not conform with their beliefs. Again, the GOP-appointed majority appeared ready to side with the plaintiffs and allow religious parents to pull kids from the classroom when material they object to is taught—a policy that threatens to create a backdoor through which religious parents have veto power over elements of the curriculum and classroom discussion.  In any school that cannot accommodate children leaving the classroom and being provided alternate materials, the religious preferences of a minority seem destined to dictate the curriculum for all. The likely result is the wide elimination of LGBTQ content. Teachers may fear answering a question about a gay politician, for example, or even displaying a picture of their same-sex partner on their desk. If the justices decide in the next few months to allow religious opt-outs in public schools and the creation of religious charter schools, it’s hard to see how public education will not change profoundly. In many districts, together the decisions would likely mean the only publicly-funded school options would be either explicitly religious or circumscribed by the religious preferences of certain parents.


Tags
1 week ago

I might add that at least some of this is experienced by anyone in a marginalized group of any kind. Being oppressed is stressful, and telling someone to “challenge thoughts” about real and present dangers is gaslighting.

As an Autistic Person, I spent years trying to overcome my anxiety, only to realise that I was an autistic person in a non-autistic world....

As An Autistic Person, I Spent Years Trying To Overcome My Anxiety, Only To Realise That I Was An Autistic
As An Autistic Person, I Spent Years Trying To Overcome My Anxiety, Only To Realise That I Was An Autistic
As An Autistic Person, I Spent Years Trying To Overcome My Anxiety, Only To Realise That I Was An Autistic
As An Autistic Person, I Spent Years Trying To Overcome My Anxiety, Only To Realise That I Was An Autistic
As An Autistic Person, I Spent Years Trying To Overcome My Anxiety, Only To Realise That I Was An Autistic
As An Autistic Person, I Spent Years Trying To Overcome My Anxiety, Only To Realise That I Was An Autistic
As An Autistic Person, I Spent Years Trying To Overcome My Anxiety, Only To Realise That I Was An Autistic
As An Autistic Person, I Spent Years Trying To Overcome My Anxiety, Only To Realise That I Was An Autistic
As An Autistic Person, I Spent Years Trying To Overcome My Anxiety, Only To Realise That I Was An Autistic

Neurodivergent_lou


Tags
1 month ago

I have some thoughts about the whole trans athletes ban bs.

When I played soccer in school we often scrimmaged against and with actual boys twice my size (I was under 5' and about 105lbs at the time) and we even had a co-ed varsity team. Never ONCE did I or any of the girls complain or think it was unfair. The girls on the co-ed varsity team were incredible and completely equal in ability to the best of the boys. (If not better imo) They won many games. I remember watching those girls play with great admiration. I am now trans-nonbinary and it amazes me how quickly transphobes will accept and parrot the lie that women and girls are inferior in every way to men if it means trans people will suffer. The girls on our team were fucking TOUGH and would have thrown a FIT had you insinuated that to them! "ANYTHING YOU CAN DO, I CAN DO BETTER!" Until trans people are involved, apparently. Then suddenly they're poor, pitiful victims who just can’t be expected to compete with “men”. GET A GRIP, LADIES!

**I have been corrected by a friend who was also on the team at the time (and the coach's daughter)** Our soccer team was completely co-ed until our sophomore year of high school when the girls team was established. I started in 7th grade and don't remember ever hearing any complaints.

I was not personally very good at soccer but neither were some of the boys. Your assigned sex at birth plays NO part in your athletic ability! Just let people play sports! I find it especially telling that they even separate sports like CHESS on the basis of gender and want to ban trans people from that, as well. It's not just athletic ability transphobes believe sex assigned at birth gives you an unfair advantage or disadvantage to, but intelligence too! The internalized misogyny is so sad and pathetic.

I grew up with commercials like this. So many people who also grew up with this message and were taught to embrace that "fuck you energy" in sports and life are now crying about how "unfair" it is that they may have to play against a trans person??? BOO fucking HOO, princess!

Loading...
End of content
No more pages to load
  • doublerainbowjay
    doublerainbowjay reblogged this · 1 month ago
  • kadeisa102020surviver
    kadeisa102020surviver liked this · 4 months ago
  • apollo11fangirl
    apollo11fangirl liked this · 6 months ago
  • a-happy-little-frog
    a-happy-little-frog liked this · 7 months ago
  • dragon-robot
    dragon-robot liked this · 7 months ago
  • martencat
    martencat reblogged this · 8 months ago
  • martencat
    martencat liked this · 8 months ago
  • lokprincess
    lokprincess liked this · 8 months ago
  • an-aroallo-space
    an-aroallo-space reblogged this · 8 months ago
  • literarytrashpanda
    literarytrashpanda liked this · 8 months ago
  • mattressdemon
    mattressdemon liked this · 8 months ago
  • lacks-lyricism
    lacks-lyricism liked this · 8 months ago
  • confusedelk
    confusedelk reblogged this · 8 months ago
  • catoperated
    catoperated reblogged this · 8 months ago
  • poorlydisguisedraccoon
    poorlydisguisedraccoon reblogged this · 8 months ago
  • underboobe
    underboobe reblogged this · 8 months ago
  • darthlordcommie
    darthlordcommie reblogged this · 8 months ago
  • scribblerpidgeon
    scribblerpidgeon reblogged this · 8 months ago
  • scribblerpidgeon
    scribblerpidgeon liked this · 8 months ago
  • rimetin
    rimetin liked this · 8 months ago
  • blackasthenight666
    blackasthenight666 reblogged this · 8 months ago
  • blackasthenight666
    blackasthenight666 liked this · 8 months ago
  • four-leaf-loco
    four-leaf-loco liked this · 8 months ago
  • irishbeings
    irishbeings liked this · 8 months ago
  • likorys-shimenawa
    likorys-shimenawa reblogged this · 8 months ago
  • likorys-shimenawa
    likorys-shimenawa liked this · 8 months ago
  • qrow-deserves-better
    qrow-deserves-better liked this · 8 months ago
  • sparksnflame
    sparksnflame liked this · 8 months ago
  • aftonfamily
    aftonfamily liked this · 8 months ago
  • dogwithhumanteeth
    dogwithhumanteeth liked this · 8 months ago
  • wishuponastarion
    wishuponastarion liked this · 8 months ago
  • a-real-magical-girl
    a-real-magical-girl reblogged this · 8 months ago
  • a-real-magical-girl
    a-real-magical-girl liked this · 8 months ago
  • panda-thedemigod
    panda-thedemigod liked this · 8 months ago
  • unspoken-and-wild
    unspoken-and-wild liked this · 8 months ago
  • autistichalsin
    autistichalsin reblogged this · 8 months ago
  • ask-an-epidemiologist
    ask-an-epidemiologist reblogged this · 8 months ago

24 posts

Explore Tumblr Blog
Search Through Tumblr Tags