3 ms·

There's no "holocaust" in my post, please don't tar me with that brush. Apartheid, "separateness" in Afrikaans, seems entirely appropriate here. Except that t

There's no "holocaust" in my post, please don't tar me with that brush. Apartheid, "separateness" in Afrikaans, seems entirely appropriate here. Except that there won't be vaccinated bars and non-vaccinated bars, there will just be vaccinated bars, those who refuse to show a vaccine passport will just have to go sit in the park or something. For the record, I'm fully vaccinated, but if/when bars start demanding vaccine passports in the UK, I stop going to bars.

nindalf 5y ago
Don’t play semantic games. “I was just using an Afrikaans word” is a sorry excuse. We know exactly what that word means and what specific historical crimes it refers to. You are trying to evoke the memory of those crimes to make this situation look unjust. It’s exactly that behaviour that I’m requesting you not engage in. > they will have to go sit in a park Seems fine to me. That’s hardly the worst thing that could happen. If you’re already vaccinated, like nearly everyone aged 30+ in the UK is and refuse to open an app on your phone to show that … I can only hope that you’re in a small minority. I guess most people just want to get on with it, rather than sticking to some principle. Im not even sure what the principle is here. Hardly anyone will be negatively affected by this mandate because nearly everyone is vaccinated. > i stop going to bars Cool. Parks are better for your health anyway. Good day.
- jjgreen 5y ago
  Well it seems we won't agree on the substantive point, but in case you're interested, that principle is a hostility to ID cards and demands from the state to provide them in various circumstances. And refused entry to a bar I wouldn't dream of going to the park, I head home with two bottles of decent white wine. Good day to you too.
- dbsmith83 5y ago
  @jjgreen (can't reply another layer of nesting) > that principle is a hostility to ID cards and demands from the state to provide them in various circumstances Can't a bartender legally obligate you to show your id to prove you are old enough to drink? Your argument makes no sense.
  - jjgreen 5y ago
    They may refuse to serve me if I appear to be under 18 and refuse to show proof of age. I do not appear to be under 18 and have only once or twice in my life been asked for proof of age, in each case I declined, chuckled, and moved on the next pub.
    - nindalf 5y ago
      Hahaha. What do you do when you’re travelling past international borders and they ask you for a passport? Do you chuckle them too? Or let me guess, you don’t travel out of England at all so you can avoid the tyranny of passport checkers? Or do you do the sane thing and show your passport? So then you concede that in certain cases at least the State has a compelling interest in verifying a person’s papers.
      - jjgreen 5y ago
        I was responding to a question about bars, not about international travel. I have no objection to showing a passport at a national boundary, I do object to doing so to buy some eggs or a glass of wine; don't you see those things as being different?
        nindalf 5y ago
        I don't see them as being different. I'll show ID when I'm asked in both places. You seem to think they're different somehow. In both cases the State is enforcing a rule for the good of society (keeping out Undesirables(TM), restricting access to alcohol from children). I think both of these are reasonable, and I'm happy to comply. You will only comply with one of these seemingly, and I can't see why. Btw, it's beneath you to try an innocent "some eggs". We know exactly what Tesco is going to card someone for, and it's not eggs.
        jjgreen 5y ago
        Then we understand each other completely.
- hanselot 5y ago
  In a place where the term nazi is branded on anything right of the extreme left views, I find your current position incredibly satisfying. Oh, so you are the authority on hyperbole? What about the stats that indicate the African American population make up the largest demographic among unvaccinated in New York, and suddenly the comparison seems not so far fetched.
anigbrowl 5y ago
Apartheid was a system of separation based on essential personal characteristics. Vaccination-admission requirements would lead to separation based on behavioral choice, probability of disease transmission, and liability risk. It seems like an inappropriate and needlessly emotive choice.
systemvoltage 5y ago
I disagree with you but upvoted for the first point about using hyperbole to further one's point. That's not acceptable and undermines those atrocities and their weight. Both sides are doing it - left considers the entire right-wing populace as 'Fascists'. The right considers the entire left-wing populace as 'Communists' and along with it comes calling out atrocities, historical turning points, etc to further their agenda.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

nindalf 5y ago

Don’t play semantic games. “I was just using an Afrikaans word” is a sorry excuse. We know exactly what that word means and what specific historical crimes it refers to. You are trying to evoke the memory of those crimes to make this situation look unjust. It’s exactly that behaviour that I’m requesting you not engage in. > they will have to go sit in a park Seems fine to me. That’s hardly the worst thing that could happen. If you’re already vaccinated, like nearly everyone aged 30+ in the UK is and refuse to open an app on your phone to show that … I can only hope that you’re in a small minority. I guess most people just want to get on with it, rather than sticking to some principle. Im not even sure what the principle is here. Hardly anyone will be negatively affected by this mandate because nearly everyone is vaccinated. > i stop going to bars Cool. Parks are better for your health anyway. Good day.

jjgreen 5y ago
Well it seems we won't agree on the substantive point, but in case you're interested, that principle is a hostility to ID cards and demands from the state to provide them in various circumstances. And refused entry to a bar I wouldn't dream of going to the park, I head home with two bottles of decent white wine. Good day to you too.
dbsmith83 5y ago
@jjgreen (can't reply another layer of nesting) > that principle is a hostility to ID cards and demands from the state to provide them in various circumstances Can't a bartender legally obligate you to show your id to prove you are old enough to drink? Your argument makes no sense.
- jjgreen 5y ago
  They may refuse to serve me if I appear to be under 18 and refuse to show proof of age. I do not appear to be under 18 and have only once or twice in my life been asked for proof of age, in each case I declined, chuckled, and moved on the next pub.
  - nindalf 5y ago
    Hahaha. What do you do when you’re travelling past international borders and they ask you for a passport? Do you chuckle them too? Or let me guess, you don’t travel out of England at all so you can avoid the tyranny of passport checkers? Or do you do the sane thing and show your passport? So then you concede that in certain cases at least the State has a compelling interest in verifying a person’s papers.
    - jjgreen 5y ago
      I was responding to a question about bars, not about international travel. I have no objection to showing a passport at a national boundary, I do object to doing so to buy some eggs or a glass of wine; don't you see those things as being different?
      - nindalf 5y ago
        I don't see them as being different. I'll show ID when I'm asked in both places. You seem to think they're different somehow. In both cases the State is enforcing a rule for the good of society (keeping out Undesirables(TM), restricting access to alcohol from children). I think both of these are reasonable, and I'm happy to comply. You will only comply with one of these seemingly, and I can't see why. Btw, it's beneath you to try an innocent "some eggs". We know exactly what Tesco is going to card someone for, and it's not eggs.
        jjgreen 5y ago
        Then we understand each other completely.
hanselot 5y ago
In a place where the term nazi is branded on anything right of the extreme left views, I find your current position incredibly satisfying. Oh, so you are the authority on hyperbole? What about the stats that indicate the African American population make up the largest demographic among unvaccinated in New York, and suddenly the comparison seems not so far fetched.

anigbrowl 5y ago

Apartheid was a system of separation based on essential personal characteristics. Vaccination-admission requirements would lead to separation based on behavioral choice, probability of disease transmission, and liability risk. It seems like an inappropriate and needlessly emotive choice.

systemvoltage 5y ago

I disagree with you but upvoted for the first point about using hyperbole to further one's point. That's not acceptable and undermines those atrocities and their weight. Both sides are doing it - left considers the entire right-wing populace as 'Fascists'. The right considers the entire left-wing populace as 'Communists' and along with it comes calling out atrocities, historical turning points, etc to further their agenda.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]