4 ms·
>On top of this, people protesting were almost exclusively outdoors whereas there are tons of stores, bars, etc in sturgis that people went in. The inside/outs
by slg 6y ago
>On top of this, people protesting were almost exclusively outdoors whereas there are tons of stores, bars, etc in sturgis that people went in.
The inside/outside dynamic is not the only part of the location that matters for the dangers these events present. The big protests mainly occurred in big cities and were mainly attended by locals. The Sturgis rally happens in the middle of nowhere, people come from all over, and then head back home to places that are generally more rural. Sturgis is therefore much more likely to spread the virus to people and places who wouldn't have had much exposure otherwise.
Also we can't have this conversation while ignoring the false equivalency of these two events. There is a fundamental difference in the urgency of attending a protest versus attending the Sturgis rally. If they both presented the exact same danger to the population, Sturgis would still be a more egregious gathering due to being an entertainment event. We are in the middle of a pandemic. We can cut down on these large entertainment gatherings whether it is Sturgis or Coachella.
- dmurray 6y agoAre you arguing that the protests are more valuable because they are a political event, or because they are a political event that you agree with? I'm interested in whether you would make the same argument in favour of, say, a Trump campaign rally.
- slg 6y agoProtests are a political call to action. A political rally is more a celebration of a specific political personality. Those two also do not have the same level of urgency. I am currently against holding any large political rally regardless of the candidate. I am open to protests from the right if they are willing to conduct them in a manner similar to how the recent protests from the left have been conducted.
- LiNeXT 6y ago> There is a fundamental difference in the urgency of attending a protest versus attending the Sturgis rally. The constitution deliberately makes no such distinction.
- slg 6y agoHow is that relevant? No one is talking about the Constitution. Neither I nor the parent comments I responded to ever mentioned that Strugis rally should have been shutdown by the government. We can criticize something or point out that it shouldn't have happened without us needing to have the Supreme Court weigh in. From a moral perspective, getting people killed in order to have some fun is less defensible than getting people killed in support of civil rights. I wouldn't think that is a controversial statement.
- LiNeXT 6y ago> How is that relevant? The relevance is obvious.
- wtallis 6y agoHow are the first amendment protections on the right to protest not an explicit distinction?
- LiNeXT 6y ago"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." These are enumerations, not distinctions. One person's right to protest is not of any more importance than another's right to associate freely at a motorcycle rally.
- apple4ever 6y ago> There is a fundamental difference in the urgency of attending a protest versus attending the Sturgis rally. That's irrelevant. The virus doesn't care about the urgency. If both presented the exact same danger to the population, they should be handled exactly the same. Otherwise we are not arguing science but politics.
- slg 6y agoThe virus doesn't care about urgency, but people do. Some things in life can't be put on hold for the virus while some things can. Some dangerous activities are still worth doing because they are important. Some relatively safe activities are not worth doing because they are so unimportant. The Sturgis rally is on the long list of things we can skip for a year because its importance does not justify the risks involved.