The Trump Presidency – 2016

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I don't understand what you mean.

Are you claiming people in those parts of the country care more about high school sports than the health and well being of their children?

I think that playing sports is less dangerous for kids than going to school, and the extremely slim number of deaths that would occur amongst kids would be worth the tradeoff for the emotional and mental well being and development of the 50 million instead of asking them to lose an entire year of their lives.

The real question is whether as a society we want to risk the additional spread and deaths in other age groups that will undoubtedly occur, but it's disingenuous to argue that thinking kids should be going to school and playing sports means you don't care about the health and well being of children.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

So, what seems to be going on here is pretty funny.

By way of background: Subject to some very minor exceptions not relevant here, federal sentencing no longer has "parole" as we traditionally think of it. You don't get out of jail early for good behavior. But most sentences come with a term of "supervised release" at the end of them, which pretty much operates like the general conception of parole. So you will be sentenced to, say, 5 years in prison, followed by 2 years of supervised release (report to your probation officer, take drug tests, etc.).

So the President presumably commutes Stone's sentence. And the court then asks the parties the relatively innocuous question of whether the President commuted the supervised release, too, or just the period of active incarceration. That's a pretty reasonable ask. The Probation Officer just needs to know whether this guy is on supervised release or not.

Now, though, the judge suddenly moved the deadline up to tomorrow. And the speculation is that the Trump Administration NEVER ACTUALLY FILED THE COMMUTATION. Which is really funny.

At the end of the day, it is Bill Barr's DOJ, and Stone isn't serving any time, even if they have to just make up paperwork and predate it.

But watching these people fuck up the most ministerial of tasks should give us all some small pleasure in these trying times.

Looks like the commutation covered just about everything

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/13/judg...mmutation.html

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

From the COVID thread to keep that apolitical:



I don't agree.



Except it doesn't show that necessarily. There's a lot of people who believe that we have been in 'cure worse than the disease' territory. That we're reacting in fear to the virus and that reaction is worse than the virus itself, both in terms of the economic cost of the shutdowns, the cultural/societal impact of being willing to change our routines and how that will permanently change us as human beings in certain ways, the basic principle of sacrificing freedom for security, etc.

Some people just don't care, but it's not justified to claim that just because someone doesn't wear a mask means that they don't. The calculation of some people is just different and I've seen it swing both ways on this (i.e. a lot of intolerant dismissal of the economic consequences by pro-restriction folks). The bottom line is we don't get to decide someone doesn't care just because they've come to a different conclusion than we have. No matter how wrong they are, that just doesn't follow.

Ignoring science isn't the same as coming to a different conclusion.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

...(along with "scream in your heart")...

I feel betrayed by the fact that no one has ever created a "shoving forks into your eyeballs" emoji.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

but it's disingenuous to argue that thinking kids should be going to school and playing sports means you don't care about the health and well being of children.

To be clear that's not what I was doing

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Ignoring science isn't the same as coming to a different conclusion.

A lot of people aren't ignoring science. You don't have to ignore science to disagree with some of the requirements. But even if it were, that still that doesn't dispense with the idea that you're still setting up a scenario where we determine in advance what causes people are allowed to protest and which ones they aren't. It's not particularly consistent to claim that and then also say people's freedom isn't under attack.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

A lot of people aren't ignoring science. You don't have to ignore science to disagree with some of the requirements. But even if it were, that still that doesn't dispense with the idea that you're still setting up a scenario where we determine in advance what causes people are allowed to protest and which ones they aren't. It's not particularly consistent to claim that and then also say people's freedom isn't under attack.

We can agree to disagree.

If you don't wear a mask you're an asshole. It is that simple. There is a reason the "no mask" crowd fall under a similar demographic.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Lathum

There is a reason the "no mask" crowd fall under a similar demographic.

Which demographic is that?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Which demographic is that?

Lets just say all the no mask people on my timeline, I see in stores, and I see on twitter are angry middle to older white dudes. Lots of them in red baseball hats. None of my teacher friends, or friends in the medical profession, worried about their freedom.

[NobodyHere]

I would be interested in an actual study that breaks down who is wearing masks and who aren't. Maybe I'll go sit outside my grocery store and see and watch.

[Brian Swartz]

Interestingly I would say close to half - it may even be half - of all those I've seen without masks are women. That doesn't mean it's any more accurate than anyone else's anecdotal observations, but the point is that's all these things are right now. We don't have hard data from a sufficient sample size to make such claims. And I never see red hats in my fairly conservative-leaning area by these people.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Lathum

If you don't wear a mask you're an asshole. It is that simple.

Long as you don't have a problem with people making such blanket assumptions about other groups of people protesting a cause they think is ridiculous, we have no issue here.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

A lot of people aren't ignoring science. You don't have to ignore science to disagree with some of the requirements. But even if it were, that still that doesn't dispense with the idea that you're still setting up a scenario where we determine in advance what causes people are allowed to protest and which ones they aren't. It's not particularly consistent to claim that and then also say people's freedom isn't under attack.

So let's hear some examples where you are putting elderly and highest risk among us at risk for their lives that are equivalent and then maybe we can have a discussion.

Mask wearing is a literal urgent and immediate matter of life and death. I'm interested in hearing, in your BS "Devil's Advocate" way of having nothing at risk but wasting everybody's time on hypotheticals, what other causes reach this level?

[stevew]

Low income whites is the no mask group in my area.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by stevew

Low income whites is the no mask group in my area.

Wonder where they get their news from?

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Interestingly I would say close to half - it may even be half - of all those I've seen without masks are women.

Like this fine lady?

NC Woman Shouts 'Trump 2020' During Mask Tirade At Restaurant: VIDEO

[Brian Swartz]

Where have I talked about hypotheticals at all? This insistence on finding an equality of validity of causes totally ignores the main point, which is that any such assessment is fundamentally misplaced. The issue is who gets to make that determination.

If you want to argue that some outside power (government, general public opinion, whatever) gets to decide what causes are valid and what aren't, then we need to be straight about the fact that is what we are doing and therefore we don't really value that whole freedom idea. We also need to accept that any causes *we* think are valid but other people don't get to be treated the same way.

This isn't a hypothetical. It's a present and real issue right now in our society.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Wonder where they get their news from?

They just know better than the experts.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Your right not to wear a mask in public is superseded by my right not to get infected. Alone or in your own home, do what you wish, but this isn't a case of freedom or tyranny, it's about competing rights and how to balance that.

The exact same thing could be said about mass protests. Every issue of balancing competing rights is about freedom. It's not like that's unique to this situation, and the two concerns are intextricably linked, not distinct from each other.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Butter

Mask wearing is a literal urgent and immediate matter of life and death.

I dont think we can say this with any level of certainty.
And I think that is where the disconnect comes from.

Still I dont own a mask. But I did order one last week and will wear it next time I go into a store. But no immediate plans for that at the moment. It hasnt arrived either.

[cuervo72]

Heh, we could have a million dead and people afterward will be like "well how could we have known?"

What are y'alls opinion on condoms?

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Where have I talked about hypotheticals at all? This insistence on finding an equality of validity of causes totally ignores the main point, which is that any such assessment is fundamentally misplaced. The issue is who gets to make that determination.

If you want to argue that some outside power (government, general public opinion, whatever) gets to decide what causes are valid and what aren't, then we need to be straight about the fact that is what we are doing and therefore we don't really value that whole freedom idea. We also need to accept that any causes *we* think are valid but other people don't get to be treated the same way.

This isn't a hypothetical. It's a present and real issue right now in our society.

What are you even arguing? This makes no sense.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I dont think we can say this with any level of certainty.
And I think that is where the disconnect comes from.

Still I dont own a mask. But I did order one last week and will wear it next time I go into a store. But no immediate plans for that at the moment. It hasnt arrived either.

So, do you think the scientific and medical community is lying about the efficacy of mask wearing? Or you don't care?

[Drake]

I feel triggered that my comment reacting to the phrase "scream in your heart" was deemed political.



ETA: j/k.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by stevew

Low income whites is the no mask group in my area.

Hmm... That would track with my prejudices, but the data here shows the biggest spike in cases has been among Hispanic people on the East side, so that might just be a case of who I see in my every day life. I will say that it shocks me what proportion of non-mask wearing people I see in grocery stores are over the age of 50...

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Butter

So, do you think the scientific and medical community is lying about the efficacy of mask wearing? Or you don't care?

I've been to the bigger city parts of South Carolina a few times recently... Based off that I doubt CU Tiger making it 2-3 people out of 20 in a store wearing a mask will be the tipping point in his neck of the woods. :/

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Butter

What are you even arguing? This makes no sense.

I've said it several times now. I'm not sure how much will be accomplished by saying it again, but people have made two distinct and incorrect claims about those that don't wear masks.

** That this act alone is evidence that they don't care about others. This is refuted by the fact that there's a significant segment of society that legitimately believes the actions we've taken in response to the virus are worse than the virus itself.

** That it's ok for others to protest for a cause they deem worthy, but not ok for those who don't wear masks to protest for a cause they deem worthy. In other words, that we can predetermine what causes are valid to protest and what ones aren't, but that this has nothing to do with freedom and is totally fair, none of which passes the simplest tests of rationality.

Basically the argument being made is special pleading. We put non-mask-wearers in a special category to be singled out for criticism, even though there's really no principled way to do so.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Hmm... That would track with my prejudices, but the data here shows the biggest spike in cases has been among Hispanic people on the East side, so that might just be a case of who I see in my every day life. I will say that it shocks me what proportion of non-mask wearing people I see in grocery stores are over the age of 50...

I feel like the non maskers are the exact prototype of people that would get wiped out. I don’t think my particular county has ever been very infected but we but up against 2 Ohio virus cesspool counties. So really happy to see all the Ohio plates when I need to get groceries.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Basically the argument being made is special pleading. We put non-mask-wearers in a special category to be singled out for criticism, even though there's really no principled way to do so.

Sure there is: What you are defining as their method of protest can literally only serve to extend the conditions they are supposedly protesting against.

[Brian Swartz]

Same issue there; you're telling them how they have to view the situation. From their perspective, it's doing no such thing. They think what's extending the conditions is continued overreach and overreaction and that the consequences of that are worse than just riding it out.

Again, we don't get to decide for them what a valid perspective is, and then say nobody can do that with other forms of protest.

[Edward64]

You provided a lot of links. I'm going to summarize them per below:

Originally Posted by Galaril

(1) What do dueling crises reveal about American exceptionalism?

The gist is Trump, racial tensions

But amid dueling crises — the coronavirus pandemic and the racial reckoning — belief in American exceptionalism has been deeply shaken. A staggering 62 percent of Americans no longer see their country as the “shining city on a hill” that Reagan once imagined, a Yahoo News/YouGov poll revealed. Outside the U.S., Europeans’ trust in America has also deteriorated, according to a European Council on Foreign Relations poll.

(2) Covid-19 Is Destroying the Myth of American Exceptionalism | The Nation

The gist is Trump, socioeconomic decline, and in general, inequality/inequities

One “immigrant” he could not keep out, however, was the coronavirus, which—owing significantly to his acts (or lack of them)—has played havoc with the over-there conceit.

Meanwhile, the socioeconomic level of the country has plummeted as middle-class Americans lose their jobs and begin the long fall into another existence.

(3) https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlo...1ff_story.html

(Behind a paywall so couldn't read it)

(4) https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...lation/613423/

The gist is Trump, EU exclusion of America

Trump’s unwillingness to take the coronavirus pandemic seriously is resulting in a much different kind of wall—one protecting the rest of the world from an endangered America and its citizens.

(5) https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...nalism/611605/

The gist is Trump, pandemic response

“The United States had the advantage of being struck relatively late by the virus, and this gave [us] a priceless chance to copy best practices and avoid the mistakes of others,” he noted. Instead, the United States squandered that advantage on many fronts.

(6) Commentary: American exceptionalism needs a reboot - The Salt Lake Tribune

The gist is Trump, pandemic response, environmental concerns

Today, however, we have become exceptional in another way. Going our own way, with total disregard for the desires and interests of other countries, we eschew multilateralism, whether in trade negotiations or dealing with climate change. We undermine NATO, the World Health Organization and other international institutions that we helped create.

We have even become exceptional among developed nations in our inability to deal with COVID-19.
:
No longer the leader of the free world, we have become the crazy uncle living in the attic.

* * * *

My thoughts:

Honestly, when reading through the articles, I didn't think the top-2 themes are reasons why American Exceptionalism is dead, dying (or we never had it).

The common thread is Trump, pandemic response and, in distant third, internal societal challenges. Trump and pandemic response is going to come and go. Unless Trump wins re-election in 2020 and/or his protege wins in 2024, Trumpism is going to die (albeit) a slow and stubborn death as the younger generation takes over.

I do believe in American Exceptionalism. There is a decline in some areas but there is growth in others. The decline is not because of Trump and inadequate pandemic response, that is way too short term IMO, American Exceptionalism is bigger than that.

The big ones are, in no particular order, below ... and the good news is, other than #4 which I don't see a realistic solution, none of them are inevitable.

1. Being taken over economically and technologically (but not yet militarily) by China and potentially, the challenge from the EU (but they have their own problems)
2. Reduced leadership roles & weakness in galvanizing other countries to do what America thinks should be done (militarily, economically/technologically). This is not just Trump, there has been examples in other Dem/Rep administrations.
3. Internal political schisms, the seemingly lack of political compromise, moderation and move towards more extremist views
4. The debt & deficit
5. Unwillingness to encourage "brain drain" from other countries to the US, unwillingness to compete for "human/intellectual capital" (e.g. skilled workers). This by itself will do wonders for continuing American Exceptionalism by adding skilled immigrants, diversity, increasing population growth (and therefore tax base) etc.

(In my next post, I'll share why I believe in American Exceptionalism)

[Butter]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I've been to the bigger city parts of South Carolina a few times recently... Based off that I doubt CU Tiger making it 2-3 people out of 20 in a store wearing a mask will be the tipping point in his neck of the woods. :/

I was just in South Carolina for a couple of days. I'm aware of the poor compliance in an urban area. I mean, if he's saying he never sees anybody, so it's not necessary, I am apt to believe him knowing what I know of where he lives. But I don't know that's what he's saying.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I've said it several times now. I'm not sure how much will be accomplished by saying it again, but people have made two distinct and incorrect claims about those that don't wear masks.

** That this act alone is evidence that they don't care about others. This is refuted by the fact that there's a significant segment of society that legitimately believes the actions we've taken in response to the virus are worse than the virus itself.

** That it's ok for others to protest for a cause they deem worthy, but not ok for those who don't wear masks to protest for a cause they deem worthy. In other words, that we can predetermine what causes are valid to protest and what ones aren't, but that this has nothing to do with freedom and is totally fair, none of which passes the simplest tests of rationality.

Basically the argument being made is special pleading. We put non-mask-wearers in a special category to be singled out for criticism, even though there's really no principled way to do so.

Protest doesn't mean free license to break the law. If masks are mandatory, sure they can protest, but they can also end up fined or in jail. I don't like that law isn't a legitimate reason to ignore it.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

** That it's ok for others to protest for a cause they deem worthy, but not ok for those who don't wear masks to protest for a cause they deem worthy. In other words, that we can predetermine what causes are valid to protest and what ones aren't, but that this has nothing to do with freedom and is totally fair, none of which passes the simplest tests of rationality.

Basically the argument being made is special pleading. We put non-mask-wearers in a special category to be singled out for criticism, even though there's really no principled way to do so.

There's a plenty principled way to do so.

This is real close to the old "be tolerant of intolerance" argument.

They are basically arguing for the right to spread a deadly disease to others fully without their knowledge or consent. So I feel more than satisfied with my stance in this case that your refusal to take a step to protect others should be ignored and trampled on in the name of public health and safety.

[GrantDawg]

It is exactly like the idiots that protest seat belts. Protest all you want, but you are also paying fines.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Butter

This is real close to the old "be tolerant of intolerance" argument.

Makes sense, inasmuch if you aren't tolerant of intolerance you are definitionally not tolerant at all.

In case there's confusion here, I'm in favor of a national mask mandate and I wear them myself in public even when not required. I believe it's justifed as a temporary measure.

None of that touches the part where we single people out for special criticism though, assume nefarious motives on their part, dismiss their protest cause because we don't agree with them, etc.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Protest doesn't mean free license to break the law.

Right, but this is the first time the law's been brought up in this discussion and at least half the country still doesn't have a mask mandate. Those who break the law should be made to suffer the consequences, but that's not relevant to what I've been talking about.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Makes sense, inasmuch if you aren't tolerant of intolerance you are definitionally not tolerant at all.

In case there's confusion here, I'm in favor of a national mask mandate and I wear them myself in public even when not required. I believe it's justifed as a temporary measure.

None of that touches the part where we single people out for special criticism though, assume nefarious motives on their part, dismiss their protest cause because we don't agree with them, etc.

Should someone who is HIV positive be able to advocate their right to unprotected sex without informing their partner?

[miked]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I've said it several times now. I'm not sure how much will be accomplished by saying it again, but people have made two distinct and incorrect claims about those that don't wear masks.

** That this act alone is evidence that they don't care about others. This is refuted by the fact that there's a significant segment of society that legitimately believes the actions we've taken in response to the virus are worse than the virus itself.

** That it's ok for others to protest for a cause they deem worthy, but not ok for those who don't wear masks to protest for a cause they deem worthy. In other words, that we can predetermine what causes are valid to protest and what ones aren't, but that this has nothing to do with freedom and is totally fair, none of which passes the simplest tests of rationality.

Basically the argument being made is special pleading. We put non-mask-wearers in a special category to be singled out for criticism, even though there's really no principled way to do so.

But that is literally what this is. It is a literal fact that wearing a mask can reduce transmission. It is not a belief, it is not a hypothetical, it is nothing other than fact. These people who refuse to wear masks do not believe the science behind it and believe their personal "freedom" is more important than slowing the passage of the virus. You know why doctors and surgeons wear masks? It's so you don't get fucking sick. If you do not wear a mask, you are actually saying that you do not care about others not getting sick. You can say it is for reason X (freedom), reason Y (stupidity), but it is really that you do not care.

And yes, the same is about protestors and anyone who does not wear one. It is so easy to do and causes the wearer no harm. We do so many other things in society to protect ourselves and others, this is just beyond stupid.

[Brian Swartz]

You should be able to advocate for pretty much anything. Naturally I'm still in favor of that kind of behavior being criminalized and punished accordingly, but that's totally different than saying someone shouldn't be able to advocate for it.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by miked

But that is literally what this is. It is a literal fact that wearing a mask can reduce transmission. It is not a belief, it is not a hypothetical, it is nothing other than fact. These people who refuse to wear masks do not believe the science behind it and believe their personal "freedom" is more important than slowing the passage of the virus.

The second sentence literally contradicts itself. Which of those two points do you want to propose; that they don't believe the science, or that they do but think their freedom is more important? And more importantly, what evidence do you have that this is what all of them think?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

You should be able to advocate for pretty much anything. Naturally I'm still in favor of that kind of behavior being criminalized and punished accordingly, but that's totally different than saying someone shouldn't be able to advocate for it.

So people should be able to advocate for anything free of criticism regardless of how deplorable it may be?

[JPhillips]

Wouldn't this line of thinking make it impossible to criticize groups like NMBLA?

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

From their perspective, it's doing no such thing. They think what's extending the conditions is continued overreach and overreaction and that the consequences of that are worse than just riding it out.

Again, we don't get to decide for them what a valid perspective is, and then say nobody can do that with other forms of protest.

Why can't I say that's not a valid perspective? Anyone who believes that they individually understand everything about covid is objectively an untrustworthy moron and literally the only collective change that not wearing a mask can influence is an extension of these conditions. Not wearing a mask will certainly make an individual feel more physically comfortable, but if that's the crux of this protest let's be honest about it.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Why can't I say that's not a valid perspective?

Because it's fundamental to the very idea of a free and fair society that each person gets to decide that for themselves.

Originally Posted by thesloppy

literally the only collective change that not wearing a mask can influence is an extension of these conditions.

Not true at all. There's the setting of various precedents, the fact that society will unavoidably emerge from the pandemic different than when it went in and the details of that depend on actions we take now, including masks, etc. There's a lot more involved that just the spreading of the virus.

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Wouldn't this line of thinking make it impossible to criticize groups like NMBLA?

No. I have not once said that anybody is free from being criticized; in fact I have at least twice now said that some behavior should be criminalized which goes far beyond mere criticism. Criticism is an equal part of a society that values freedom of expression. I have said it's wrong to criticize them hypocritically and not give them the same space to express themselves that we do to other groups who believe in other causes.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by stevew

Low income whites is the no mask group in my area.

I'm pretty sure it's out of ignorance not neccesarily a Trump thing. (Though one could argue he pulls a lot of the ignorant white vote) There are a lot of low income blacks in the city of st louis not wearing masks. In fact I have said this earlier in this thread my friend who is a police officer in the city said the during the supposed quartentine you would have never known it in the lowest income parts of the city.

My personal anecdotal observations of who doesnt wear the mask around me...
Ignorant rednecks (like you would expect)
20 somethings quite more frequently that any other age group
Dressed up women

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Not true at all. There's the setting of various precedents, the fact that society will unavoidably emerge from the pandemic different than when it went in and the details of that depend on actions we take now, including masks, etc. There's a lot more involved that just the spreading of the virus.

"I am protesting against undefined details" is not a compelling argument for validity. I mean, I get that you're trying to make the most gracious case for the "my freedoms" crowd that can't quite elocute the depths of their feelings, but I think it's worth something that you can't define the threat either.

Disclaimer: I don't wear a mask when I'm outside, and I'm still pretty much avoiding public spaces, so for me personally the prospect of wearing a mask is like 2-4 hours of random errands per week, usually never for more than an hour at a time. I think the seat belt comparison is apt, I simply don't understand how something done so easily & for one's own safety is causing so many people such issues, but my mask regime probably wouldn't meet the standards of a lot of folks either.

....I am also convinced that a significant number of mask-deniers have been so resistant to the idea from the beginning that they're likely unclear on the use/mandate and think they're being told to wear them 24/7, outside and/or in their homes and as a result they are resisting rules that they've invented themselves, which are ironically much stricter than reality.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

No. I have not once said that anybody is free from being criticized; in fact I have at least twice now said that some behavior should be criminalized which goes far beyond mere criticism. Criticism is an equal part of a society that values freedom of expression. I have said it's wrong to criticize them hypocritically and not give them the same space to express themselves that we do to other groups who believe in other causes.

I honestly don't understand what you're getting at here.

[Brian Swartz]

Fair enough. I don't know what to say to that other than I give up explaining it since I've done so I think six times or so across two threads. It boggles my mind that anyone could read what I've written and say that I was against criticism in general, but at least two people did.

It is what it is.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I've said it several times now. I'm not sure how much will be accomplished by saying it again, but people have made two distinct and incorrect claims about those that don't wear masks.

** That this act alone is evidence that they don't care about others. This is refuted by the fact that there's a significant segment of society that legitimately believes the actions we've taken in response to the virus are worse than the virus itself.

** That it's ok for others to protest for a cause they deem worthy, but not ok for those who don't wear masks to protest for a cause they deem worthy. In other words, that we can predetermine what causes are valid to protest and what ones aren't, but that this has nothing to do with freedom and is totally fair, none of which passes the simplest tests of rationality.

Basically the argument being made is special pleading. We put non-mask-wearers in a special category to be singled out for criticism, even though there's really no principled way to do so.

I like how some keep going back to protests like they were some major spreader event when a small segment of the population (less than 1% of any city) were participating. That's not to say 1% of a city doing anything isn't a huge number and we shouldn't be gathering people together in that number for anything (and it's why a lot of us thing putting sports fans together in a stadium is pure folly).

The cases are tracking a lot more closely to the opening up of economies. Because a handful of one-time (or few day event) activities with under 1% of the population are going to look like a rounding error next to an opened up economy with 30-50% of people participating constantly in small-medium sized groups.

But let's keep bringing up these protests that were happening a month, a month and a half ago because we don't like them.

SI