6 ms·

I'll take a stab at the 'no shirt, no shoes, no service' one. https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/no-shirt-no-mask-no-service/ https://www.findlaw.

I'll take a stab at the 'no shirt, no shoes, no service' one. https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/no-shirt-no-mask-no-service/ https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/no-shirt-no-... https://www.sporcle.com/blog/2019/12/where-did-no-shirt-no-shoes-no-service-come-from/ https://www.sporcle.com/blog/2019/12/where-did-no-shirt-no-s... Second source there I haven't run down secondary facts on, so take it with a grain of salt. However, the gist is, there is no health regulation mandating no shirt, no shoes, no service, people are totally free to attribute their policies to whoever they want, and for the most part, even if the sign is there, who says it's going to be enforced, and if it is, it's not violating any explicit/implicitly granted rights without relevant case law which I'm not digging into right now. So that policy is more a matter of personal taste in operating a business, whose frequency evolved to a sort of cultural habit. Masks/vaccines, unfortunately are a bit different due to the admittedly dicey history the entire policy sector known as "Public Health" has had in terms of what gets crammed under it's umbrella. Examples: The notorious mistreatment and abuse of mental patients in asylums: Public Health The Tuskegee Syphilis experiments: Public Health Surreptitious DNA collection by intelligence agencies from needles used to vaccinate people in Africa post 2001: Subverted Public Health, but Public Health nevertheless Eugenics: Public Health Adding compounds (gualfenisin) to medicines that have a "recreational use" (dextromorphan), and refusing to sell the unadulterated compound any longer?: Public Health Think about that last one. You're literally introducing a compound to a substance that poisons more readily to get those damn druggies to stop using it. This is not consistent with cultural understandings of the Hippocratic Oath, which when you're dealing with any sort of medicine or medical derived authority, is critical toward maintaining the necessary trust to even convince patients to let you help them. When politics and medical science meet, you get Public Health, and it isn't necessarily the medical science that injects the mistrust, but the political hand that controls what science is put out for public review. Organizations have agendas, and the subtextual agenda can sometimes be enough to dissuade overall credibility in light of having "seen it all before". The fact policymaking flip-flopped as much as it did, and the level of mere appearance of unethical behavior/conflict-of-interest, and loss of impartiality through systemic conflicts of interest between the private sector supplying the public sector with the tools they need to enact their policy justified by science funded by... the private sector... The room for skepticism in a micro-perspective of one person's life, is large enough to comfortably fit a few elephants. I don't expect you to walk away from reading this with a sense of "Oh, that makes sense, that must be it let's fix that"... However, there is so, so much more to where the distrust and controversy comes from than "people just aren't being logically consistent". In fact, people not being so is the starting point for trying to do anything civically. The challenge is trying to get as much mobilized as you feasibly can. The trick comes in, in that you carry with you all the crimes of your policy making edifice past. Atonement and trust building, as it turns out, is hard. Make some sense at least? Or at least shine some light maybe? P.S. This unintentionally veers into a research interest of mine which is the creation of "shadow laws" via the structuring of incentives by policymaking orgs whereby they create enough uncertainty to get organizations to make privately enforced policies to get something done now, without actually having to commit a rule or regulation to paper to have to get erased or repealed later. This exploits the human characteristics of "anticipatory obedience", also known as "you get what I mean?" or "telling someone to do something without outright saying it" It isn't something most people talk about, but whenever I observe management or leadership types, I see it all over the place. I call it "hearing the unspoken parts."

rsj_hn 5y ago
I also remember Minneapolis declaring racism a public health crisis: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/minneapolis-racism-public-health-emergency/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/minneapolis-racism-public-healt... There is no area of public policy where you can turn off your critical thinking faculties and defer your judgements to experts, because every single area of public policy has been politicized. One can say it shouldn't be this way, but that's like insisting on a power vacuum. If you endow any area with political power, it will be taken over by politics.
- salawat 5y ago
  Agreed. I think everyone idealizes public policy as some sort of machine whose principles of action are ultimately traceable. Alas... It's a bunch of humans trying to sort out an answer to problems that don't lend themselves to being "solved" especially when the definition of "solved" is once again, politics. This, seemingly, is why we can't have nice things.
nautilius 5y ago
I’ll not even go into the specific comparisons you made, that are completely unjustified. But we can very simply state that masks are not an experiment performed on unsuspecting people. Surgeons do this for a long, long time. It’s fine. It works. There is no relation whatsoever to the other cases you brought up. Concerning shoes/ shirt /service: sure, that’s not federally mandated. But masks for the most part weren’t either. It’s private companies that choose to have this policy, yet it somehow is now presented as something fundamentally different from other, private, clothing rules? That’s ridiculous. The HUGE difference is, that with COVID, the people not following science, common sense, or decency now actually kill other people. And while I absolutely respect your right to meet with others and infect each other, I absolutely disagree with the assertion that you somehow have the right to kill me or others.
- gavinhoward 5y ago
  > I absolutely disagree with the assertion that you somehow have the right to kill me or others. Prove that they are the ones "killing" others. That's the problem: there are claims with no proof. People who don't want to be infected by others can social distance, right? You can only be infected if you are close enough to someone who is infected. Stay away from those people. Actually, the funny thing is that vaccinated people can still get infected, but they are more likely to be asymptomatic. So they are more likely to be out and about infecting people without knowing it. And that's why I want proof that those who are unvaccinated are spreading the virus. For all we know, it could be the vaccinated.

rsj_hn 5y ago

I also remember Minneapolis declaring racism a public health crisis: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/minneapolis-racism-public-health-emergency/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/minneapolis-racism-public-healt... There is no area of public policy where you can turn off your critical thinking faculties and defer your judgements to experts, because every single area of public policy has been politicized. One can say it shouldn't be this way, but that's like insisting on a power vacuum. If you endow any area with political power, it will be taken over by politics.

salawat 5y ago
Agreed. I think everyone idealizes public policy as some sort of machine whose principles of action are ultimately traceable. Alas... It's a bunch of humans trying to sort out an answer to problems that don't lend themselves to being "solved" especially when the definition of "solved" is once again, politics. This, seemingly, is why we can't have nice things.

nautilius 5y ago

I’ll not even go into the specific comparisons you made, that are completely unjustified. But we can very simply state that masks are not an experiment performed on unsuspecting people. Surgeons do this for a long, long time. It’s fine. It works. There is no relation whatsoever to the other cases you brought up. Concerning shoes/ shirt /service: sure, that’s not federally mandated. But masks for the most part weren’t either. It’s private companies that choose to have this policy, yet it somehow is now presented as something fundamentally different from other, private, clothing rules? That’s ridiculous. The HUGE difference is, that with COVID, the people not following science, common sense, or decency now actually kill other people. And while I absolutely respect your right to meet with others and infect each other, I absolutely disagree with the assertion that you somehow have the right to kill me or others.

gavinhoward 5y ago
> I absolutely disagree with the assertion that you somehow have the right to kill me or others. Prove that they are the ones "killing" others. That's the problem: there are claims with no proof. People who don't want to be infected by others can social distance, right? You can only be infected if you are close enough to someone who is infected. Stay away from those people. Actually, the funny thing is that vaccinated people can still get infected, but they are more likely to be asymptomatic. So they are more likely to be out and about infecting people without knowing it. And that's why I want proof that those who are unvaccinated are spreading the virus. For all we know, it could be the vaccinated.