Quote:
Originally Posted by LektorAJ
This reminds me of the "third person" vs "first person" political demands idea - that demands presented in the third person can sound reasonable even if they would sound unreasonable in the first person.
"We need to mask up to protect people who are not vaccinated" sounds reasonable.
"I don't want to get vaccinated so wear a mask to protect me" doesn't.
It took me a minute to figure out what you meant, as those are both presented in the first person (I/we). You mean doing things
to protect folks in the third person (people who are not vaccinated), rather than the first (me).
I agree that this sounds less selfish, but a large part of that is the choice issue. In the second one, you are presenting it as "I don't want to get vaccinated," but it would be much more compelling if you had a reason you
couldn't get vaccinated. So which of these sounds more reasonable, or is it a wash?
"We need to mask up to protect people who can't get vaccinated for one health reason or another."
"I would love to get the vaccine, but I have a severe allergy to polyethylene glycol and polysorbate, and all of the vaccines contain one or the other. So please wear a mask to protect me until they approve a vaccine I can take or we reach herd immunity."