It's certainly better than "anti-vaxxer" which labels them and buckets them as crazy and makes them dig their heels in further. If the goal is to convince people to get vaccinated, belittling them is not the right approach.
When I was in the process of disassociating from a high demand religion (a decade long process), I was struck with how effective people who insisted on reality were. Reality sounded belittling, but it really wasn't. I see an analogy here with the people insisting against vaccination with zeal and fervor. It is very hard to break through the bubble of cognitive dissonance, and lone/let live or "humor them" approaches frankly are disingenuous.
shrug. Labels are quite effective for concise communication, all negatives aside. Such as your classification of my point as a strawman (which I don't consider it to be), you communicate a precise response with a single word.
strawman is a description of your argument, not you. It doesn't make a judgement about what kind of person you are, and that you have been or always will make bad arguments.
It's very different from calling you Strawman-er, which would be making unfounded assumptions about your general argumentation style and would pre-judge future statements by you.
"Anti-vaccine advocate" is clear. It identifies a set of behaviors that are intellectually dishonest, either claiming hesitancy, outright denying science, or (even worse) economically benefitting by sowing confusion.
When people don't do this, they aren't advocating against vaccination.
My understanding of the strawman fallacy is that the strawman is inaccurate. None is expressed here, simply labeling a phenomenon.
> which would be making unfounded assumptions about your general argumentation style and would pre-judge future statements by you.
After decades of internet discussion, such charity from people holding opposing viewpoints appears to be rare even when explicitly and rigorously adopted.
