Interesting, but not surprising, that the "we're such good people" commenters didn't get it. One of my posts at work questioning the legality of the mandate noted that the oft-cited Jacobsen v. Mass only upheld a state law as did as did the infamous Buck v. Bell (of, "3 generations of imbeciles is enough" notoriety). I noted the only relevant Supreme Court precedent was Korematsu v. US because it upheld a federal executive order targeting innocent-until-proven-guilty citizens for social hygiene. THOSE are the laws they're defending. It's Jim Crow all the way down with these people.
Oh, and somebody please tell the maskers that, since they're vaxxed, they're not at risk from hospitalization or death, so the only thing they do by wearing a mask is protect the unvaxxed that they hate so much. Best thing they could do to push their own agenda is quit wearing masks to make the rest of us suffer the consequences of our own actions.
It's darkly amusing to see all the people -- people I know personally -- who have been inveighing against Big Pharma and the American medical system for decades*, suddenly all nodding along any time a Pfizer exec or a man in a white lab coat from the government tells them to do something.
(* price of insulin, price of epi pens, health "insurance", anti-woman bias, animal testing, etc. etc. et f***ing cetera)
If you haven’t seen it, your article reminds me of an exchange I had with Em’s Rule in the comments at my first post (https://margaretannaalice.substack.com/p/a-primer-for-the-propagandized). She recommends paradoxical interventions involving taking the opponent’s position to such an extreme that they will see the ludicrousy. I think this is an ingenious tactic but argued that it would likely fail with Covidians because for them, you cannot go too far. Your experiment appears to have proven me right.
Interesting, but not surprising, that the "we're such good people" commenters didn't get it. One of my posts at work questioning the legality of the mandate noted that the oft-cited Jacobsen v. Mass only upheld a state law as did as did the infamous Buck v. Bell (of, "3 generations of imbeciles is enough" notoriety). I noted the only relevant Supreme Court precedent was Korematsu v. US because it upheld a federal executive order targeting innocent-until-proven-guilty citizens for social hygiene. THOSE are the laws they're defending. It's Jim Crow all the way down with these people.
Oh, and somebody please tell the maskers that, since they're vaxxed, they're not at risk from hospitalization or death, so the only thing they do by wearing a mask is protect the unvaxxed that they hate so much. Best thing they could do to push their own agenda is quit wearing masks to make the rest of us suffer the consequences of our own actions.
It's darkly amusing to see all the people -- people I know personally -- who have been inveighing against Big Pharma and the American medical system for decades*, suddenly all nodding along any time a Pfizer exec or a man in a white lab coat from the government tells them to do something.
(* price of insulin, price of epi pens, health "insurance", anti-woman bias, animal testing, etc. etc. et f***ing cetera)
It's becoming more dark and less amusing.
If you haven’t seen it, your article reminds me of an exchange I had with Em’s Rule in the comments at my first post (https://margaretannaalice.substack.com/p/a-primer-for-the-propagandized). She recommends paradoxical interventions involving taking the opponent’s position to such an extreme that they will see the ludicrousy. I think this is an ingenious tactic but argued that it would likely fail with Covidians because for them, you cannot go too far. Your experiment appears to have proven me right.
🤦♀️
But don't worry -- the pro-camps number plummets to just 36% of independent voters!
🤣😣😥
That's a very conflicted set of emojis. Very 2022!
*lol* Too true, Chris.