It’s mostly just for discussion, most people know the masks were just “security theater” and weren’t really that helpful or necessary, and that if there were real problems much more dramatic measures would have been needed to have been taken
Oh, it’s you again, from the Rowling post. Trying to spark discussion based on shit articles and false premise (“most people know the masks were just “security theater”…”).
You’re forgetting they’re not capable of that… emotionally deranged…ahem…
Being civil with you, and actually having a discussion means they have to humanize you, and they don’t want to do that.
To them, humanizing u means treating you with mutual respect, and they don’t believe you deserve that.
Bc You’re a ‘monster’ monsters can be treated like shit, but acknowledging you as a fellow human being and given common curtesy is not something they feel u deserve.
That is the truth and they won’t admit that because the are hypothetical.
I mean, it would be nice if more people would come to the understanding that there is mutual disagreement: our side believes many people died due to unnecessary stress and fear put on people with overreactions and experimental “vaccines”. So your “misinformation” has killed, and would be something to feel ashamed of, from our perspective, and to feel bad for “your victims”; or at least to acknowledge there’s a lack of consensus and that people are trying to make the best decisions they can under uncertain circumstances.
The debate isn’t happening
I guess, it isn’t really on our side much either, we just know the masks are pretty useless and most people seem to agree by going back to normal without masking in public (in spite of other people sounding the alarm that covid rates and other diseases are still bad and that people should be masking I guess?). So I guess that’s a litmus for how many people actually believe masks work today (doesn’t seem to be much) and how many would have masked without being threatened (probably not as many?).
At least it would be nice if we could “agree to disagree” and don’t require the masks for all places. Just have one place that is mask-free, another that requires them (if desired). I guess I just envisioned this was how both sides could be accommodated. Didn’t totally understand why it had to be one way or the other. I am fine with people wearing masks if they want to; didn’t understand why they also felt the need to force other people to wear masks as well in all spaces. But I guess even this attitude is kind of a concession, and not-masking seems to be more desired by most?
It’s just… we’re used to the old way in the United States. The new zeitgeist is authoritarian and cannot argue, it resorts to censorship, blocking, whatever. The “American way” I’m familiar with believed that disagreement could be overcome with kindness, arguments, and setting good examples, and so on. Today’s crop praised acts of civil disobedience (breaking the law illegally) for racial causes, but do not support it for causes they disagree with. They supported illegal actions against the Nazi regime which was authoritarian, but not their brand of authoritarian measures that others don’t agree with. That raises important questions that should be discussed critically as a philosophy of law: are all people judges of the law? How are legitimate legal wrongs to be made right? Can disagreeing views be accommodated or not?
For example with the masks, a lot of places could have just given people the decision to make if they want them or not. If a person didn’t feel comfortable being around unmasked people, they could not go to that location and attempts could have been made to accommodate them with a separated location. With the mandates at government buildings for example, there was no ability to accommodate people who didn’t want to wear masks, so it was one-sided. The other poster says there were no mandates… I wasn’t aware of that, I thought various federal / government buildings indeed did require masks. Private places certainly did and could be criticized for doing so (they criticize Twitter for its moderation as a private entity, yet do not find the same criticisms we make of private institutions on their mask policies to be acceptable…)
edit: also I guess I am wondering where the non-authoritarian leftists are. I know they’re out there somewhere. The previous anti-authoritarian left was anti-war, but flipped because Trump became anti-war. They were vehemently anti-censorship, quoting Voltaire (which seems to be a misattributed quote allegedly) that they might disagree with what people say, but would “defend their right to say it”. And so on and so forth.
well I mean most people are not masking right now. i do see some people out there with masks though. I think probably most wouldn’t have masked unless it was mandated, and it seems like it shouldn’t have bene
Ok, so are you making the point that when people talk, they can spit everywhere, so obviously then masks would reduce this? Off topic but this is kind of funny, I was already thinking about masking around car and industrial fumes when in cities before “covid”… unfortunately I feel masks wrongly became politicized (not by our side) and instead of just recommend them and allow people to make adult decisions about them, they were tyrannically imposed upon people, confusing people if they were beneficial or not. But anyway, I think I might frame it in a different way: say I have a super infectious disease, like the plague. Would you feel comfortable simply being around someone with plague with a mask on? Wouldn’t quarantine be much safer? So why not just have us advocate for this much safer option of keeping people instead of 6 feet apart, 600 feet apart (lol)?
Unfortunately an N95 mask wouldn’t be effective for fumes, you would need a vapor mask for that. N95 and similar masks are particulate masks, they filter particles out of the air before it reaches your lungs. Yes, people produce aerosoled particulate when they breathe and talk. The viruses are very small and travel on our breath which can be inhaled by others. Watch someone vaping for example, or smoking. That’s how much air people are circulating through their lungs when they breathe, you just can’t see it.
Of course I’d rather not be exposed to you if you have the plague, but if I had to be around you, I’d want both of us wearing the best masks on the market. Complete isolation would have been great, and it would have stopped the pandemic from developing. Unfortunately that’s not realistic for the majority of people. Even if you stayed at home and ordered your groceries to be delivered, someone still has to go to a warehouse, get their truck, go to the grocery store, buy your food, and bring it to you. They’re going to be exposed to other people who also have to do things along the way. A mask provides an additional layer of security.
You saw yourself why voluntary mask usage isn’t adequate. Some people will never do anything they’re told to do. Some people are malicious. Some politicians wanted to make a health crisis into a political demonstration. There’s a bunch of reasons why it required guidelines. People shouldn’t need to be forced to do a lot of things that are for their good and the good of society, but unfortunately that’s not the reality we live in.
Thanks for the info about the masks; yeah, well we are circling towards some productive discussion. Perhaps some posts could be made prepping for wildfire smoke again for those affected by it and about the masks that would enable people to be outside more (I don’t support a mandate there really but you can taste the smoke in your lungs if you’ve been in those kinds of areas)…
Well I guess with the grocery delivery guy, they could be expected to clean everything as they deliver it. This is probably also worth thinking about because probably pandemics (or faking them) will likely “happen” again.
Ehhh, I don’t think people need to be forced. They can be “free” to become sick (or not, as most people are still alive). Those who don’t want to risk things should be accommodated to isolate from the people willing to risk exposure. I feel like this situation should mostly be able to be “win-win”: maskers mask among maskers, unmasked associate among unmasked.
The problem with your logic is that masks are more effective when the sick people wear them, and most effective when both people wear them. So if I have to be somewhere, and you have to be at the same place, me not wearing a mask despite being sick puts you at risk. If it was 100% effective when only the wearer wore the mask then there wouldn’t be an issue. Put yourself at all the risk you want. But when you put other people at risk and refuse to take simple and easy steps to prevent it, then you’ve shown that you’re not empathetic, caring, or smart enough to make your own decisions. It’s the same reason why you can’t drive 150 miles per hour through a residential neighborhood, even if you think the fun of it is worth the risk.
WHERE IS THE FUCKING STUDY
holy shit i hate the “news”
Edit: Oh this is from last year…
It’s mostly just for discussion, most people know the masks were just “security theater” and weren’t really that helpful or necessary, and that if there were real problems much more dramatic measures would have been needed to have been taken
Oh, it’s you again, from the Rowling post. Trying to spark discussion based on shit articles and false premise (“most people know the masks were just “security theater”…”).
Just block and move on.
or we can just talk about it. actual discussions occur some places. sometimes people are able to work things out and come to agreements.
Thank you. ❤️
You’re forgetting they’re not capable of that… emotionally deranged…ahem…
Being civil with you, and actually having a discussion means they have to humanize you, and they don’t want to do that.
To them, humanizing u means treating you with mutual respect, and they don’t believe you deserve that.
Bc You’re a ‘monster’ monsters can be treated like shit, but acknowledging you as a fellow human being and given common curtesy is not something they feel u deserve.
That is the truth and they won’t admit that because the are hypothetical.
It’s nothing if the sort.
People died because of tweaked information like this grandstanding as news and the circle-jerks they spawned. Another one is attempting to spawn here.
Elsewhere, OP pulled the same thing with a trans article.
The debate isn’t happening because it’s a dusted off year-old rigged conversation. Not because people are dehumanizing.
I mean, it would be nice if more people would come to the understanding that there is mutual disagreement: our side believes many people died due to unnecessary stress and fear put on people with overreactions and experimental “vaccines”. So your “misinformation” has killed, and would be something to feel ashamed of, from our perspective, and to feel bad for “your victims”; or at least to acknowledge there’s a lack of consensus and that people are trying to make the best decisions they can under uncertain circumstances.
I guess, it isn’t really on our side much either, we just know the masks are pretty useless and most people seem to agree by going back to normal without masking in public (in spite of other people sounding the alarm that covid rates and other diseases are still bad and that people should be masking I guess?). So I guess that’s a litmus for how many people actually believe masks work today (doesn’t seem to be much) and how many would have masked without being threatened (probably not as many?).
At least it would be nice if we could “agree to disagree” and don’t require the masks for all places. Just have one place that is mask-free, another that requires them (if desired). I guess I just envisioned this was how both sides could be accommodated. Didn’t totally understand why it had to be one way or the other. I am fine with people wearing masks if they want to; didn’t understand why they also felt the need to force other people to wear masks as well in all spaces. But I guess even this attitude is kind of a concession, and not-masking seems to be more desired by most?
It’s just… we’re used to the old way in the United States. The new zeitgeist is authoritarian and cannot argue, it resorts to censorship, blocking, whatever. The “American way” I’m familiar with believed that disagreement could be overcome with kindness, arguments, and setting good examples, and so on. Today’s crop praised acts of civil disobedience (breaking the law illegally) for racial causes, but do not support it for causes they disagree with. They supported illegal actions against the Nazi regime which was authoritarian, but not their brand of authoritarian measures that others don’t agree with. That raises important questions that should be discussed critically as a philosophy of law: are all people judges of the law? How are legitimate legal wrongs to be made right? Can disagreeing views be accommodated or not?
For example with the masks, a lot of places could have just given people the decision to make if they want them or not. If a person didn’t feel comfortable being around unmasked people, they could not go to that location and attempts could have been made to accommodate them with a separated location. With the mandates at government buildings for example, there was no ability to accommodate people who didn’t want to wear masks, so it was one-sided. The other poster says there were no mandates… I wasn’t aware of that, I thought various federal / government buildings indeed did require masks. Private places certainly did and could be criticized for doing so (they criticize Twitter for its moderation as a private entity, yet do not find the same criticisms we make of private institutions on their mask policies to be acceptable…)
edit: also I guess I am wondering where the non-authoritarian leftists are. I know they’re out there somewhere. The previous anti-authoritarian left was anti-war, but flipped because Trump became anti-war. They were vehemently anti-censorship, quoting Voltaire (which seems to be a misattributed quote allegedly) that they might disagree with what people say, but would “defend their right to say it”. And so on and so forth.
well I mean most people are not masking right now. i do see some people out there with masks though. I think probably most wouldn’t have masked unless it was mandated, and it seems like it shouldn’t have bene
Would you rather me wear a mask, or not wear a mask while I spit in your face? If you’d rather me wear a mask, why?
Ok, so are you making the point that when people talk, they can spit everywhere, so obviously then masks would reduce this? Off topic but this is kind of funny, I was already thinking about masking around car and industrial fumes when in cities before “covid”… unfortunately I feel masks wrongly became politicized (not by our side) and instead of just recommend them and allow people to make adult decisions about them, they were tyrannically imposed upon people, confusing people if they were beneficial or not. But anyway, I think I might frame it in a different way: say I have a super infectious disease, like the plague. Would you feel comfortable simply being around someone with plague with a mask on? Wouldn’t quarantine be much safer? So why not just have us advocate for this much safer option of keeping people instead of 6 feet apart, 600 feet apart (lol)?
Unfortunately an N95 mask wouldn’t be effective for fumes, you would need a vapor mask for that. N95 and similar masks are particulate masks, they filter particles out of the air before it reaches your lungs. Yes, people produce aerosoled particulate when they breathe and talk. The viruses are very small and travel on our breath which can be inhaled by others. Watch someone vaping for example, or smoking. That’s how much air people are circulating through their lungs when they breathe, you just can’t see it.
Of course I’d rather not be exposed to you if you have the plague, but if I had to be around you, I’d want both of us wearing the best masks on the market. Complete isolation would have been great, and it would have stopped the pandemic from developing. Unfortunately that’s not realistic for the majority of people. Even if you stayed at home and ordered your groceries to be delivered, someone still has to go to a warehouse, get their truck, go to the grocery store, buy your food, and bring it to you. They’re going to be exposed to other people who also have to do things along the way. A mask provides an additional layer of security.
You saw yourself why voluntary mask usage isn’t adequate. Some people will never do anything they’re told to do. Some people are malicious. Some politicians wanted to make a health crisis into a political demonstration. There’s a bunch of reasons why it required guidelines. People shouldn’t need to be forced to do a lot of things that are for their good and the good of society, but unfortunately that’s not the reality we live in.
Thanks for the info about the masks; yeah, well we are circling towards some productive discussion. Perhaps some posts could be made prepping for wildfire smoke again for those affected by it and about the masks that would enable people to be outside more (I don’t support a mandate there really but you can taste the smoke in your lungs if you’ve been in those kinds of areas)…
Well I guess with the grocery delivery guy, they could be expected to clean everything as they deliver it. This is probably also worth thinking about because probably pandemics (or faking them) will likely “happen” again.
Ehhh, I don’t think people need to be forced. They can be “free” to become sick (or not, as most people are still alive). Those who don’t want to risk things should be accommodated to isolate from the people willing to risk exposure. I feel like this situation should mostly be able to be “win-win”: maskers mask among maskers, unmasked associate among unmasked.
The problem with your logic is that masks are more effective when the sick people wear them, and most effective when both people wear them. So if I have to be somewhere, and you have to be at the same place, me not wearing a mask despite being sick puts you at risk. If it was 100% effective when only the wearer wore the mask then there wouldn’t be an issue. Put yourself at all the risk you want. But when you put other people at risk and refuse to take simple and easy steps to prevent it, then you’ve shown that you’re not empathetic, caring, or smart enough to make your own decisions. It’s the same reason why you can’t drive 150 miles per hour through a residential neighborhood, even if you think the fun of it is worth the risk.