Sue vs Karen should be on PPV

The Dead Kennedys said it best: give me convenience or give me death.

I have a WELL documented history of being vehemently opposed to “anti mask” sentiment on this site- but I agree with what princessmonsertru is saying. It is nuanced- but princess didn’t say we shouldn’t wear masks or shouldn’t have to- just that there is a huge difference between a law and an executive order, and that we should be very careful and thoughtful about the matter. That’s something I can discuss and a reasonable thought to have I think. I do not see the present mask orders as unjust, nor do most constitutional experts- they are prudent, justifiable, not excessive, apolitical inherently, and so far there isn’t over reach- BUT, there is a POTENTIAL danger in allowing decrees “for our own good” and we do have to be mindful of that even if this particular case meets the criteria of appropriate use of power.

A few interesting points I want to make: while I am very supportive of not allowing smoking in buildings open to the public or where is public risk- it’s a bad example because many people, even non smokers, did and still do feel that many anti smoking laws, wether for the public good or not, are violations of private rights. For those very reasons most no smoking laws have loop holes such as allowing certain places like work sites of less than X people to allow smoking in buildings if there is a consensus by all working there to do so.

That is an example of differing views- and while we can’t cater to every possible view point on every issue- American democracy is supposed to do its best to represent and listen to these differing views. As an interesting example- it’s a well documented social phenomenon that there are certain differences in the way different people think- culture and even language effect the way we process the exact same information as someone else. “Western” cultures- particularly Americans- tend to think in strong terms of individualism. “Eastern” cultures- especially “Asian” cultures like those found in south East Asia, China, Japan, Korea... these countries tend towards traditions of community thought. With the family unit or village often being extremely central to the function of social order. Countries and cultures with strong ties or diffusion tend to pick up some or strong leanings towards like minded thinking.

So when Rosalinas or creativedragonbaby, when they say that the individual should think of others- that isn’t “wrong” or poor logic- but it is somewhat counter to the average of “western,” especially American thought. America as an average doesn’t see the “many” as more important than the one in concept. A country like China makes policy based largely on what is best for society or social order, and for the most part; the majority of citizens traditionally think through perceptive filters like this. America traditionally makes broad policy while trying to consider each individual person and their wants as well as needs- while balancing societal factors.

So for example- the now more or less defunct “one child policy” was a Chinese policy meant for the benefit of the many, but at great emotional hardship for many individuals. America by contrast generally avoids taking personal freedoms even where they pose a problem- unless and until those problems become so severe that the majority of Americans are willing to give up those freedoms- and even then traditionally America has tried to avoid it. What is very interesting though- is the hypocrisy we see in how and when that happens.

An example of American Hypocrisy on the matter would be homosexuality or transgenderism. A personal matter of personal freedom that for FAR too long was, and to degrees, still are criminalized, restricted, and persecuted. In these cases Americans often justified the criminalization or banning of these things under guides that they were harmful to society, family, the economy, established institutions. Not a very “American” way of thinking to tell a person they can’t marry another adult capable of informed consent and not under duress or undue influence; or to tell someone they can’t conduct their business in public like anyone else.

Interestingly- the call for “American values” is usually associated with conservatives- who are the same group usually associated with repressing things like gay marriage or legitimacy. And anyone who would be against mask orders or wary of them, who doesn’t support trans or gay rights and legitimacy; is “cherry picking” causes based on personal feelings and NOT under the broader guise of protecting personal freedoms or American freedoms.

But the case of gay rights or even civil rights demonstrates the problem princessmontertru mentions. Civil rights and gay fights and many other shameful repressions in American history were done under the guise of a public good or even- for the good of the repressed. You’ll still find people who say no apologies or considerations are due in the Atlantic slave trade because most African Americans wouldn’t be in America otherwise most likely- so it was “good for them.” We can laugh and call bullshit- but that doesn’t change that history is full of examples where huge numbers of people agreed to do things that were just plain wrong, under justifications of a “greater good.”

So we have to be VERY careful, from an American perspective, about how and when and why we curtail even the SMALLEST freedom in the name of the “greater good” or a persons “own best interest” because we do know these things get abused. We do know that people will mask ulterior agendas as for a larger cause. It is a slippery slope. But where there is significant and measurable danger, where there is the need for quick response, where there is a general consensus on need, and where we have checks and balances and measures are not excessive- such as with masks- we don’t need to fight it. We just need to keep an eye on it. If tomorrow they issued executive orders changing zoning or some such thing not directly related to the matter at hand and temporary- that we fight. For now- wear your mask, try not to go out.

I don't mean to be picky, but I do not believe that civil rights, gay rights, and same-sex marriage are comparable to wearing a mask. With the first three issues listed, we have no list of any sort of identifiable physical harm, whether logically or practically. There is no physical issue with granting people of different skin tones/colors rights as the only "harmful" outcome was that their population rivaled that of the white population. There is no physical issue with granting gay people rights, or at least immunity from legal persecution, because any reasonable study would demonstrate that their legal legitimacy would provide no physical harm to any person within or outside of that category. There is no physical issue with giving two people of the same sex a piece of paper declaring their marital status. But there are demonstrable physical issues with not mandating the wearing of an adequate mask.

Aside from the horror stories that show up about how the virus can inflict total organ failure on some people, it has already been shown to be highly infectious. From an epidemiologic standpoint, its health implications for the very old (and then some) is indisputable, and thus not wearing a mask creates an unacceptable risk. I can compare this to common road laws. You are perfectly allowed to not drive on the right-hand partition of the road, if you are skilled enough to dodge incoming traffic and pedestrians. But who is to say that you are that skilled? You put many people on the left-hand partition in an unacceptable amount of risk with that behavior, so it is wiser to mandate with law that you must drive on the right-hand side.

Could there be other ways of deterring reckless behavior? Perhaps, but if there is any better evidence that doing so would be less effective, please consider the increasingly large amount of people in the U.S. who prefer to not wear a mask in spite of the growing number of cases. We can do everything short of mandating it with law, from distributing free masks to listing all of the health benefits, but you will still have risk-takers who decide that such do not apply to them. With a law, you set down the line for what is inexcusably risky behavior.

Oh no. Please don’t misunderstand. As I state to begin- and as can be seen from numerous engagements on this site- I 100% support wearing masks and the evidence and precedent is clear that not only should we- but that there is not an issue of over reach in issuing orders during a pandemic to force people to.

As for the comparison to civil rights- my point was not that I believe the two are comparable in a direct way- it is that there are and were people who claimed that certain civil rights were against public interest. A more topical example might be how certain people use statistics (ignoring the validity of these numbers or the context for now) such as crime by demographic, to state that certain groups should be more harshly scrutinized or restricted as they pose a higher risk than members of another group by virtue of arbitrary state of being. You have to remember- while I do NOT support the idea homosexuality is a choice- there are still people who believe it is. So relative to perception we can say that to a person making an argument- they will generally see their position as correct. So while I say it is wrong to discriminate by skin tone- someone who believes skin tone indicates genetics and genetics indicate behavioral traits- would not agree.

In simple terms- everyone thinks they’re right. When people were saying that certain ethnic groups, or women, possessed inherent cognitive defects by virtue of being- they thought they were right. Or many did and others didn’t but went with it because it served them. Let’s not over spice the soup though. So- when someone says that all police are racists and that we should kill all police (this is an extreme example of a small minority of society) they think they are right. The danger is that if enough people agree to be wrong- wrong becomes right. Hence the system we have is designed to try and mitigate this phenomenon through checks and balances.

The process is as important or more important than the results. One should not support a thing or a person simply because the result supports what they want to see or suits their agenda. We have to be mindful of precedent. ANY time the government dictates the public behavior- we do need to examine it. We do need to be wary and keep an eye on things. Even if it is something hopefully common sense that most any person would support such as a law against murderers or pedophiles- we still need to give it a close look and really think about it; and not just sit back and let things happen, but keep an eye on them to make sure that we are all above board.

I wasn't trying to suggest that you believe that masks are not mandatory, my problem was only with that specific point of comparison you made. Perhaps I was too aggressive with my wording, but my point was that in the case of masks, I see no moral or social issue with mandating mask usage as doing so brings more benefits than not (and not doing so results in demonstrable harm). The worry about a slippery slope can only come from the people accepting changes that bring no clear benefit, such as decreasing the budget of an incredibly over-funded sector by a negligible amount.

For the point on the American perspective-- yes, American people as a crowd tend to overreact when their personal beliefs are challenged on a federal level. The civil rights movement (and today) show just that. We can't necessarily change that, but I do not believe that this should be protected or held in high regard. If the majority of people show support for a belief that we can demonstrate will bring physical or *very clear* mental harm to any group of people, there is an obligation on the governments' end to ensure that the targeted group is lifted from the spot of the scapegoat without retaliating against any other population under their jurisdiction. Simply requiring wearing a mask is by no means suppression. Any attempt to claim otherwise is mere dishonest leveling.

Just to be clear- we agree that wearing a mask, or mandating the wearing the masks is NOT an attack on freedom and are pertinent, right minded things to do. My point is in the nuance- that we should do it, we should be required to do it, and we should question it to ourselves when it was first ordered- and, any reasonable person would reach the conclusion that it is justified- but the exercise of questioning it is very important. Critical thought is.... lol. Critical to society. Most people coming to a different conclusion on masks (those who aren’t experts with subject matter degrees and experience who have conducted experiments and have solid evidence to the contrary) should still go through the exercise of questioning it- because their answers are wrong and so they can go back and find the flaws in their thinking. That’s my main point on questioning, with the secondary point being that we should question everything- to ourselves- as a sanity check for us and the world.

As for the slippery slope- perception of value is relative. So it can’t be used as an abstract metric- we can speak as objectively as possible, and logically that can be true- but when addressing individual perceptions we can’t sway a person on value where they see none.

There are quite literally- maybe not clinically sociopaths- but people who wouldn’t help another person even if it didn’t harm them. If nothing else than spite or simply because helping another brings them closer to your material or social status and some people just don’t care as much about everyone being happy as they do being able to claim they are someone’s better.

So were we to explain to them, that the value of helping is to make another feel good- they may not see a value there. To the point- a good deal of “altruism” is because it makes the giver feel good- or as a social tool such as status or perception. Often good deeds are selfish in motivation as opposed to selfless.

Plenty of people see value in things like subjugation. There are obvious self serving benefits such as an exploited labor force, a reduction in competition for things like jobs or mates or housing by effectively blocking a large percent of a populous from the same pool- and again- people who believed they were doing women or minorities a “favor” because they were incapable of processing on the same adult level or had other inherent psychological issues which would make it actually harmful TO THEM to participate in certain activities or aspects of society.

That’s all utter finish of course- not scientifically supported and effectively scientifically disproven. But for a time.... such things WERE credible aspects of science, medicine, psychology and so forth. That’s the danger. The danger is that the Nazi headlines believed they were doing good. Stalin and his purges and other acts, Mao and the Great Leap Forward, China and the Uyghurs, Japan and What they did in Korea, its a long list of people who thought they were right and thought they were doing what was best for the greatest good of the greater many. And it almost always starts slow.

Again- I DO NOT think masks are a stepping stone to such abuses or really- any abuses. BUT- my main point with the slippery slope is we do need to ask questions. With masks- those questions have been answered. The information is out there. For right now, with the information we have, they are what should be done. If the information changes- we can change and it is no big deal. But one still must have that initial conversation with ones self and do research on any mandate affecting how they conduct themselves.

And the reality that so called patriots (most have never read the constitution and supporting essays and documents to actually understand it, but are self appointed experts) Miss is- no right, even in America, is completely without limits or constraints. All rights carry with them a responsibility. One of those responsibilities is to extend those same rights to ALL humans which are defined in the constitution as human rights and NOT rights exclusive to Americans- and the constitution isn’t a big document that says you an do whatever you want and can’t be told what to do- most importantly the constitution is flexible and in order to work- it has a responsibility to preserve both itself and the most fundamental human right it contains-

the right to live ones life while securing others rights to do so. Wearing masks most certainly is a measure which is meant to secure the freedom of the masses to conduct their business in public- the alternative being full lockdown- the lesser and proportional construction was chosen.

But a citizen mustn’t take for granted the choice is right. They must view and review until they can align reality to their perceptions. If you find your thoughts to be in sever misalignment with reality- either reality is wrong or you are wrong. Sadly, most people choose to believe that it is reality that is wrong. To be clear- reality is objective fact and not popular consensus. But the logical failings and biases and inherent ailing s from humans mean that we must be extra Dillinger in checking ourselves- but also checking others.

Perhaps No where more so than in a free democracy where the collective thoughts of many are manifest in government and society. I believe in individualism- insect colonies run well and insects are one of earth’s most successful organisms- but I do not aspire to be one for all the simplicity and security it may bring. But we do live with other people on this world- we do need to think about others, and we mustn’t forget that anything that can be done to someone else can be done to us too- so even for the selfish there is logic in thinking of and caring for others. Few people ever thing “it” will be them until and unless it is. This is something we as humans are bad at conceiving. So there is a balancing point between the two extremes of a “savage utopia” and an insect hive- and masks and mask laws come no where near exceeding the reasonable balance. All I am saying is that the civic mind is always questioning.