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
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