From the article (bold added):

watch as the malleability of language distorts it from facilitating clear thought and expression and transforms it into a misframed bog of quicksand so subtle that you fail to notice that you are drowning.

.

the point is to erect a semantic smokescreen and weaponize language into politics. it becomes a tool to obscure rather than reveal and to slant rather than facilitate discourse.

.

it is precisely this loss that is the point of the combination of “anti vaccine” with “anti vaccine mandates.”

the goal is to take a claim (my body, my choice) that they cannot refute or rebut in any valid fashion (especially without directly contradicting other beliefs and being revealed as engaging in special pleading) and sidestep/invalidate it by tying it, through false equivalence, to a view they believe they CAN rebut. “oh, you’re anti-vaccine and thus, anti-science.”

they seek to take a popular view and make it unpopular by tying it to an unpopular concept to which it does not truly map.

.

i find the risk reward good on many vaccines including MMR and other longstanding childhood jabs. i do so because they are effective and safe as evidenced by decades of data and testing. they went though 6-10 years of testing before release and have been closely monitored since.

vaccines like the swine flu in 1976 were yanked off the market for fewer than 100 cases of guillan barre. this is WHY we have a history of trusting vaccines as safe.

.

even the flu vaccine, which seems to have little or no meaningful efficacy or protection against hospitalization or death, is, at least, safe. complications are low. i think it’s a silly shot to get and mostly a marketing scam, but also a fairly harmless one.

.

but covid vaccines are clearly non-sterilizing and do not stop contraction, carriage, or spread of the virus. they likely make it worse. leaky vaccines have all manner of well documented problems. they also have a side effect profile multiple orders of magnitude worse than any other ever on the US market.

.

this clearly puts them into a category different from the others.

all medical decisions are risk/reward decisions and the balance is VERY different here. small wonder they want to obfuscate the language and again use overbroad groupings to claim it is safe because other vaccines are safe. they seek to hide their own sins behind the halo of others virtues.

.

yet the subtle twisting of language and definitions has allowed EXACTLY this same construction to be used as the foundation of vaccine arguments and as 5 minutes on twitter will show you, this argument is broadly made and widely accepted.

.

[embedded tweet] I’ve had my third jab. All Pfizer. And I strongly recommend everybody to do the same. I’ve also seen how well vaccine passports work. I don’t believe in mandatory vaccination but if you don’t get jabbed you need to realise there are consequences on where you can go.

.

even those who THINK they are seeking nuance and outwardly claim to be “anti mandate” are “pro-jim crow laws” that are really not that different. we’re just arguing about what the penalty for the crime is.

.

these definitions are weapons of mass deception and they are aimed at us.

their sole purpose is to prevent meaningful discourse and to advantage political positions. it’s propaganda written into the linguistic source code to prevent the ability to properly image and assess concepts.

have none of it.

call things by their names and do not be moved.

create real definitions:

“anti-vaxxer”: a term of vilification used to discredit anyone seeking to pursue risk/benefit analysis in vaccine choice or claiming the right to bodily integrity and personal choice and to silence debate. the side of science. the side of liberty.