4 ms·

> (...) but those who believed at the time that vaccine mandates were draconian government overreach literally believed they were freedom fighters just as much

> (...) 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.
ryandrake 1y ago
It was a massive country-wide persecution complex. The antimaskers loved to act like they were being persecuted, as if they were freedom fighters, defending themselves against oppression. Yet, they were the ones out there attacking everyone else who were just trying to be cooperative. And for what? Just to be performatively contrary to the mainstream. COVID's legacy is a massive, sustained, consequence-free civil disobedience campaign, but instead of being organized in service of a goal, it’s just vague anger, belligerence, and contrariness for the sake of contrariness.

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.

ryandrake 1y ago

It was a massive country-wide persecution complex. The antimaskers loved to act like they were being persecuted, as if they were freedom fighters, defending themselves against oppression. Yet, they were the ones out there attacking everyone else who were just trying to be cooperative. And for what? Just to be performatively contrary to the mainstream. COVID's legacy is a massive, sustained, consequence-free civil disobedience campaign, but instead of being organized in service of a goal, it’s just vague anger, belligerence, and contrariness for the sake of contrariness.