Not sure there is a way to avoid "redditization" once you reach a critical mass of users. Some places are better at it, some are worse, but essentially any social aggregator is destined for a similar path once yo reach a certain number of active people.

I'm not sure you understand what vaccines are, what they are for, how they work, and what we work to do with them. It's somewhat evident that you are not particularly learned in medicine, and I don't think I have much to gain from exploring those topics with you. As I think is already evident, I don't think you are posting in good faith or would be a worthwhile person to continue conversing with, so I am reaffirming my commitment to not converse with you.

Have a good day.

What?! Did you even read my post? I directly stated that vaccines aren't 100% effective. Of course we want to increase their efficacy, but it is still an incontrovertible fact that vaccines are already effective and useful. I have no problem with acknowledging that vaccines aren't perfect, that there may be adjuvants that would enhance their efficacy safely, and that we will always work to improve current vaccines. I can acknowledge all that and still point out that there is absolutely no doubt that the vaccines of today work.

I didn't finish medical school to be talked down to by an emotionally-overreactive person on the Internet about things I don't even say. This conversation is over.

Eit: after reviewing my post, I guess I can see where you assumed I was saying something else. I apologize for the lack of clarity, but I still have absolutely no interest in continuing a conversation with you.

This is the statement I took issue with:

>So I have doubts about the efficacy of childhood vaccinations. We have just seen people get the measles from people who were vaccinated in their youth. I think people should get their kids vaccinated but we know that vaccinations don't always work perfectly. If I were asked if I felt confident in childhood vaccination in a survey I'd say "no."

You made a comment about adults getting measles directly after saying you had "doubts about the efficacy of childhood vaccinations", the implication being that because some people get a disease after being vaccinated that there is reason to doubt the efficacy of vaccines (possibly at large). There is some ambiguity in the phrase "efficacy of vaccines" that is causing this disconnect.

I was browsing a random reddit thread and found a link here. Had never heard of this place, and it seemed a bit more likable to me than reddit. Might have to stick around a while.

Good luck, buddy!

It's difficult, but definitely doable. You'll be fine as long as you're ready and eager to work, and strive to genuinely get along with people

The efficacy of childhood vaccinations is in absolutely no doubt, and no sane medical professional would tell you otherwise. Immunity works, and population level immunity is a real, meaningful concept. That a vaccination is not a 100% guarantee that a particular person will never get a disease is not a strike against what we mean when we say "vaccines are effective." There aren't very many things in medicine that are ever 100%, and there is no reason to expect that inciting a natural immune response will always lead to complete immunity, particularly when you are dealing with an evolving target as is the case in all vaccinations.

The fluid nature of safety and usage of vaccines is the only possible area of meaningful discussion.

Foreword: I am not explicitly against the death penalty, but am unsure of its place in a modern justice system.

I just wanted to foist one of the common views inevitably expressed in a discussion of the death penalty:

Would it be possible to dramatically increase the standard of evidence/burden required by the state to prove someone was guilty in order to have the death penalty given, and dramatically decrease the time separating conviction and sentence? Would it be reasonable for acts so heinous that there is not even a sliver of chance that the actor could be reformed would be unceremoniously executed and cleaned from the planet, but for the evidence required to be so insurmountable that there is almost no possible means of wrongful conviction?

It seems to me to be something of a compromise, and something I could get behind. I have no reservations with the summary execution if people subdued while shooting up movie theaters/schools/etc. I don't think there is a possibility of reforming them, and I don't want them to twice strain the system by engaging in legal battles. On the same hand, I don't want a person with any chance for exoneration to be executed, a final punishment that cannot be undone (though, truthfully, a life sentence may be similar, as I very much doubt the possibility of returning to normal life after being exonerated 20 or 30 years following your trial.

In truth, I don't have a strong opinion on it, but I am interested in more intellectually capable people sharing theirs.

I get what the author is driving at, that this potential swing in cultural terminology is no doubt an improvement for feminists/activists, but I do have to wonder. Mocking and (in effect) punishing those who do this seems to me to be far less likely to draw someone to your viewpoint, and more likely to push them to hold the opposite.

If you expect your audience to "check their privilege(s)" and be mindful of others, you should probably endeavor to do the same in your own words and actions. This doesn't mean every intrusion into a conversation should be coddled and the intruder be patted on the head for their good intentions, but it does require a modicum of genuine empathy to avoid pushing that person further from your presumed goal.