4 ms·

> When Americans were “resisting authority” by not wearing masks and keeping their businesses opened despite lockdown orders did you feel the same pride in anti

> When Americans were “resisting authority” by not wearing masks and keeping their businesses opened despite lockdown orders did you feel the same pride in anti-authority behavior then? From an outsider's perspective, it's hard to see the people with a militant attitude against basic health and higiene measures as other than narcisist authoritarian fools, who believed their personal whims naturally took priority over anyone's interests and needs. There's a reason why they frequently resorted to attacking and outright assaulting anyone who dared not cater to their demands. It's very hard to see these covid karens portrayed in the same light as the US founding father's revolutionaries or today's protesters. I guess the point is to not be consistent or coherent with these remarks. The goal is cynicism. You see Trump's secret police kidnapping people off the streets in broad daylight and when people dare express concern or opposition then the cynical "but covid" remarks flow in to muddy the waters. No, your ICE agent throwing flashbangs into crowded restaurants while kidnapping US citizens is not Ruby Bridges. Why even pretend?

ericmay 1y ago
The point wasn't really to compare these two situations directly. Personally, (and you can read through my post history if you'd like) I've been a staunch advocate of COVID-19 vaccines (and any vaccine really) and also of wearing masks as appropriate, but those who believed at the time that vaccine mandates were draconian government overreach literally believed they were freedom fighters just as much as those who are out in the streets of LA as the government comes down to do whatever it is that governments do about these various crises and concerns. Neither group is or was fighting for a particularly worthy cause reminiscent of some conjured up spirit of the Founders. Enforce borders, get vaccines. Open borders, don't get vaccines. Yawn.
- motorest 1y ago
  > (...) but those who believed at the time that vaccine mandates were draconian government overreach literally believed they were freedom fighters just as much (...) This is simply not true. At face value that's the literal claims the typical covid karens blurbed, but the common thread was always cynicism towards others in attempts to antagonize and outright assault anyone who didn't complied with their demands. Those who value personal freedom wouldn't assault passer-bys for using masks and practicing social distancing, nor would they single out service workers for the audacity of enforcing basic higiene and safety precautions.
  - ericmay 1y ago
    "Not true" according to who? They sure seemed serious to me. I think you are having difficulty separating your personal opinion of those folks with assessing what they believed and how they acted. You can make the same argument about the rioters in Los Angelas today [1]. "Those who value XYZ wouldn't take ABC action" https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/5340553-los-angeles-looting-anti-ice-protests-trump-national-guard/ https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/5340553-los-angeles...
    - komali2 1y ago
      The point was specifically about people who it's being argued are pro- or anti-authoritarian. In this case, people opposed to mask wearing are being argued as "anti-authoritarian" perhaps in an attempt to accuse those of us that support the LA resistance against ICE as hypocritical. It was argued that those opposed to mask wearing aren't anti-authoritarian because they went out of their way to attack people wearing masks, e.g. by trying to rip masks off their face (this happened to me personally twice in HEB lol). Your point is that this isn't valid because that doesn't indicate their anti authoritarianism-ness or not, and your example is that at the LA protests, looting happened. However, this doesn't work, because the incidence of looting in LA has nothing to do with the overall movement of ejecting ICE. There's crowds and chaos, and some people can thus take advantage of this to loot. It's not ideologically connected at all. Whereas in the mask example, it's a direct ideological and acting thread - the anti-maskers are personally attacking people for wearing masks.
      - ericmay 1y ago
        The OP I was responding to was trying to invoke the spirit of the Founding Fathers to bless the anti-authority, freedom-loving protests going on in Los Angeles. That attempt at moral blessing of the activities of some "anti-authority" behavior can be just as loosely applied to those who are protesting against other perceived anti-authority behavior regardless of whether you personally agree with their cause or not. Getting lost in the muck of who exactly was violent when and whether that specific act of violence is ok because you happen to agree or disagree with the cause is a waste of time.

ericmay 1y ago

The point wasn't really to compare these two situations directly. Personally, (and you can read through my post history if you'd like) I've been a staunch advocate of COVID-19 vaccines (and any vaccine really) and also of wearing masks as appropriate, but those who believed at the time that vaccine mandates were draconian government overreach literally believed they were freedom fighters just as much as those who are out in the streets of LA as the government comes down to do whatever it is that governments do about these various crises and concerns. Neither group is or was fighting for a particularly worthy cause reminiscent of some conjured up spirit of the Founders. Enforce borders, get vaccines. Open borders, don't get vaccines. Yawn.

motorest 1y ago
> (...) but those who believed at the time that vaccine mandates were draconian government overreach literally believed they were freedom fighters just as much (...) This is simply not true. At face value that's the literal claims the typical covid karens blurbed, but the common thread was always cynicism towards others in attempts to antagonize and outright assault anyone who didn't complied with their demands. Those who value personal freedom wouldn't assault passer-bys for using masks and practicing social distancing, nor would they single out service workers for the audacity of enforcing basic higiene and safety precautions.
- ericmay 1y ago
  "Not true" according to who? They sure seemed serious to me. I think you are having difficulty separating your personal opinion of those folks with assessing what they believed and how they acted. You can make the same argument about the rioters in Los Angelas today [1]. "Those who value XYZ wouldn't take ABC action" https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/5340553-los-angeles-looting-anti-ice-protests-trump-national-guard/ https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/5340553-los-angeles...
  - komali2 1y ago
    The point was specifically about people who it's being argued are pro- or anti-authoritarian. In this case, people opposed to mask wearing are being argued as "anti-authoritarian" perhaps in an attempt to accuse those of us that support the LA resistance against ICE as hypocritical. It was argued that those opposed to mask wearing aren't anti-authoritarian because they went out of their way to attack people wearing masks, e.g. by trying to rip masks off their face (this happened to me personally twice in HEB lol). Your point is that this isn't valid because that doesn't indicate their anti authoritarianism-ness or not, and your example is that at the LA protests, looting happened. However, this doesn't work, because the incidence of looting in LA has nothing to do with the overall movement of ejecting ICE. There's crowds and chaos, and some people can thus take advantage of this to loot. It's not ideologically connected at all. Whereas in the mask example, it's a direct ideological and acting thread - the anti-maskers are personally attacking people for wearing masks.
    - ericmay 1y ago
      The OP I was responding to was trying to invoke the spirit of the Founding Fathers to bless the anti-authority, freedom-loving protests going on in Los Angeles. That attempt at moral blessing of the activities of some "anti-authority" behavior can be just as loosely applied to those who are protesting against other perceived anti-authority behavior regardless of whether you personally agree with their cause or not. Getting lost in the muck of who exactly was violent when and whether that specific act of violence is ok because you happen to agree or disagree with the cause is a waste of time.