"That said, others have rightly pointed out that “unvaxxed” is not accurate, either, as it implies the vaccination has been “undone” rather than “not done.”"
i find this framing odd and probably specious.
why would one say that?
"uncircumcised" does not imply "once circumcised and later had foreskin restored."
unrepentant does not imply repentant but no longer so.
i see no real basis for that interpretation. what un based construction works that way?
that feels like overwrought semantic tail chasing to me.
is literally anyone making a presumption that one can de-vaccinate?
the fun part about "unvaccinated" as our inclusive term is that if they keep moving the goalposts on what "fully vaccinated" means, more and more people will keep finding themselves in our group.
this is a jarring, awakening experience.
for so many here on PR, a demand for a third shot is the bridge too far that jolts them to understanding the situation.
get this and it will work and you get your life back.
then it doesn't and you don't.
now take more or you'll be "unvaxxed."
it breaks credulity.
i like the inclusiveness of them being forced into this label (even if it lacks precision).
*lol* I accede all your points and will revert to using ”unvaxxed” or “unvaccinated” (the latter when I’m trying to persuade a believer to pause, listen, and think), if for no other reason than it’s easier than the clumsy and potentially offensive alternatives.
"That said, others have rightly pointed out that “unvaxxed” is not accurate, either, as it implies the vaccination has been “undone” rather than “not done.”"
i find this framing odd and probably specious.
why would one say that?
"uncircumcised" does not imply "once circumcised and later had foreskin restored."
unrepentant does not imply repentant but no longer so.
i see no real basis for that interpretation. what un based construction works that way?
One of my commenters (https://margaretannaalice.substack.com/p/letter-to-a-colluder-stop-enabling/comments#comment-3175739) wrote a *lengthy* cease-and-desist document (http://werex.org/cease-and-desist-notice-of-libel/) related to this topic, but the gist is:
“People are either *vaccinated* or they are *not-vaccinated*, and once vaccinated, in practice, they cannot be *unvaccinated*.”
Semantics, I know, but I see his point, particularly given the power of language to shape perception.
that feels like overwrought semantic tail chasing to me.
is literally anyone making a presumption that one can de-vaccinate?
the fun part about "unvaccinated" as our inclusive term is that if they keep moving the goalposts on what "fully vaccinated" means, more and more people will keep finding themselves in our group.
this is a jarring, awakening experience.
for so many here on PR, a demand for a third shot is the bridge too far that jolts them to understanding the situation.
get this and it will work and you get your life back.
then it doesn't and you don't.
now take more or you'll be "unvaxxed."
it breaks credulity.
i like the inclusiveness of them being forced into this label (even if it lacks precision).
*lol* I accede all your points and will revert to using ”unvaxxed” or “unvaccinated” (the latter when I’m trying to persuade a believer to pause, listen, and think), if for no other reason than it’s easier than the clumsy and potentially offensive alternatives.