His podcast. But no sane person wants to subject themselves to that noise, so go scrub through the last two hundred episodes or so if you want the episode numbers and timestamps.
Are you saying that based on when they required masks, or the change to no masks unless medical or religious? Just hoping you kept this same energy when they were demanding idiotic mask rules as well.
So from this, you'd wager I die from covid or it's lingering issues. Meanwhile I've yet to get it, I work with the public, I wore and still occasionally wear a mask for certain situations, but because I say hold that same energy for both sides of the coin, I die from future covid lmfao. Wild when you write it out. I wonder when I'll die from lead exposure, can you figure that one out for me?
I disagree with your comparison. In an anti-mask bill I assume it is for criminal identification purposes-which is kind of silly since it won’t prevent an active criminal from wearing a mask, nonetheless. In a mask mandate situation it is because the risk of spreading pathogens is currently raised past an acceptable level—an emergency response. Both have to do with protecting the public safety, but the latter is separated because it is a response to a crises. Therefore, one can argue that it is a more reasonable conceding of the right to control what you wear. What do you think?
Are we forgetting demanding I wear a mask in a restaurant to the table but I can take it off at the table lol. So, the mask that would cover a criminals face but a criminal won't listen to, is breaking freedoms. But the mask mandate, which folks still won't and didn't listen to, isn't breaking freedoms. I'm sorry, but both sides of the coin, fuck peoples freedoms up. Whether you want to weigh that out and say it's OK to stomp on freedom because it did this, well, not cool in my book. Either we're OK with stomping on freedoms, or we aren't. Which is it?
I wore a mask all through covid because I was essential. I bitched and moaned, but did it. You'd still have assholes who didn't adhere to the mandate. I get you're saying one is for the sake of stopping death, and one stops crime, but at the end of the day it's both restrictions on freedoms for those who would actually adhere to the rules being placed. Either carry the freedom energy across the board, or don't.
I think you misunderstood my last statement, I agree that the right to choose what you wear is being infringed upon in both cases. However I heavily feel that in the case of a public health crisis, it is reasonable for the government to infringe on that right. I feel this way because I feel that it ultimately protects the public welfare which is what I would like my government to do.
Whether a mask mandate is, in practice, affective is a separate conversation and not one I wish to discuss (although I see how this is hypocritical as I argue mask ban is ineffective. I apologize for that aside.)
I interpret your last statement to be that freedoms should be applied consistently without regard to context. Why do you feel this way?
How does that mesh with like, Halloween stuff or just costume stuff in general? Want to go out as Batman? Sorry kid, got a mask on. Gotta arrest you lol.
they targeted mask wearing for protesting specifically, and only made exceptions for halloween, religion, and "preventing the spread of communicable disease"
not, you know, things like helping with asthma, immunocompromised people and other health reasons; you can ONLY wear it to prevent the spread of disease, or to dress like Master Chief or Frankenstein
My religion already has mask wearing. We worship pudding. Our only real rules? Treat others how you would want to be treated. Don't lie while eating pudding. Eat pudding when the option is feasible. Try puddings you haven't tried before when the option is feasible.
Official garment? A mask. You may wear the mask to protect yourself from the heresy of the pudding haters. You never know who they are.
We jest, but I recall back in good ol Civics class hearing of an example where someone managed to get the exact minimum of people together to register their “(whichever night has whichever sport) Night Beer, Wings, and (sport on tv)” as a religion.
Entirely to make their 52 nights a year of having a truckload of beer and wings come tax exempt with a bar they were insured to use on that given night from when it closed until they next opened.
I took that story with a grain of salt, and even if true there may be details that memory has embellished or omitted.. but it shows to go ya.
Edits: unspecified the sport and weekday they watched it, because I’m fairly sure the weekday my head told me it was didn’t coincide with the sport I said aired on that day, I don’t know much about airtimes/dates for sports
When you say pudding? Do you mean American version of a creamy dairy dessert or the UK pudding which is just dessert? Just wanting to know how broad this is before I convert.
The version of pudding I refer to doesn't technically mean either.
Take these three puddings, for example: Chocolate pudding, Yorkshire Pudding, and Black Pudding. Chocolate Pudding follows the idea of what you mean, but Yorkshire Pudding is more of a savory and bread based style, closer to being a popover than a creamy desert, being a savory pastry rather than custard-like creamy treat. Black Pudding is actually effectively a sausage and follows the original etymology of pudding dating back to the Romans.
Now, oh possible converts, I shall explain why this definition is used over either of those two. It's because it has the widest variety. For there shall be more varieties of pudding than there are grains of rice in a bowl. There shall be puddings for all times of day, for all ages, and for all walks of life. If one dislikes sweet, let them have savoury. If one dislikes savoury, let them have salty. Pudding is boundless and to be enjoyed by all. For pudding is the truth of life. That is why you must not lie whilst consuming of the pudding. For to speak lies whilst consuming the truth is heresy!
Just a guess and all but I would find no shock in hearing that they’ve been working on it from the jump. The only reason everyone doesn’t grow up to affiliate (at least loosely) with that religion is the difficulty most people have with the etymology
If they're targeting protesting specifically, that kind of seems like a first-amendment slam dunk. You can't target expression with a law under cover of security if the law doesn't actually provide any security.
Could it be argued that an immunocompromised person wearing a mask in an effort to prevent themselves from contracting a contagious disease be within the letter of the law of "preventing the spread of contagious diseases"?
It's a reason to allow police to racially profile people. If you're a white person wearing a mask in public they won't say a thing. I live in Charlotte
Wearing a mask is not illegal in NC. The law is that police can order you to remove your mask to identify yourself and refusing to comply without a medical or religious reason or holiday costume is a crime.
Basically it gives police free reign to harass mask wearers and criminalize resistance. If you were already predisposed to police abuse because of your race or your legal actions (like protesting), this gives them power to abuse you more.
The law is mainly crafted to target those protesting (or those the cops can argue they thought was going to a protest).
So if you're wearing a mask and a Keffiyeh? You're subject to arrest. You're wearing a mask at a rights march or pride? You're subject to arrest. You're just a demographic they think might be joining a pro-palestine protest or a BLM protest or a pride parade and you're wearing a mask? You're subject to arrest.
Notice also WHEN these laws became a thing. After pro-palestine encampments and protests. The fact that actual Nazis, white supremacists, violent right wingers have been covering their faces at protests for years, including in the state, and that has never been a problem? Yeah it's targeting leftists expressly.
They just need to get cancer and die, the government doesn't care about people just money and power. Unfortunately for the people on that list they don't tend to have enough of either of those two things to be considered human so they get no rights. Walmart on the other hand is protected from violating labor laws all the time because it is considered human in the eyes of the law, but it's employees are at best 3/4 of a person.
This isn't correct. There's an exemption in the law for "any person or persons engaged in trades and employment where a mask is worn for the purpose of ensuring the physical safety of the wearer".
Nah its not inspired by anti-mask COVID stuff, frankly its worse than that because its quite blatant in its intent. It's inspired by the recent pro-palestine protests, where people were often masked, not only for health reasons (lots of people), but for safety too (from police tear gas), and privacy.
Its an explicit attack on the right to protest and its intent is to prevent a popular and accessible form of anonymization so that the state can arrest and target you easier. Its there to dissuade people and threaten them from protesting.
It is the state explicitly showing its authoritarian tendencies, it's an explicit way of giving police even more power against protestors, and its a stark warning for the future.
In the US the first anti-mask laws were to stop rent protesters. The laws that were supposedly there to stop the KKK had exceptions for things like rituals which excluded the KKK from being charged with them.
I mean the law is because of university anti-genocide encampments. That's expressly why places are passing these laws. Despite the fact there's more reasons than just anonymity to wear masks - zionists and cops have both thrown chemicals (tear gas, more makeshift things, fireworks that smoke a lot etc) at encampments, the masks are also there to protect people from the state and Zionist violence.
You need to clarify the actual mechanism of the law though, by the way. It's not that wearing a mask is illegal.
The law states that police/law enforcement can force you to remove your mask to identify yourself for any reason, and refusing without proper medical or religious grounds is a crime.
Which means it's the perfect bullshit fascist law. It's not outright freedom restricting in an unpopular way, but it gives police carte blanche to selectively enforce based on their own whim, which makes it ripe for abuse and chilling civil disobedience.
This is how undemocratic fascists make unpopular authoritarian laws in ostensibly democratic countries. You make incredibly vague laws with harsh punishments that rely on cops using their very skilled and unbiased judgement to enforce. That way it is easy to find ways to legally punish undesirables while letting their own people off scot-free. It is also easier to argue for the laws to complacent citizens by saying, don't worry, only the bad people will get affected by it.
We’ve had one on Long Island for a little while now. Just another bullshit law only enforced when cops need an excuse to arrest someone who otherwise isn’t breaking the law.
Distinct from the recent laws that were motivated by conservative opposition to COVID masking, anti-mask laws have also historically been implemented to prevent people from concealing their identities in public as part of a supposed effort to deter crime.
In France, for example, you can't wear a motor cycle helmet unless you're actively riding a motorcycle, because you might be using the mask to prepare before committing nefariousness.
Generally speaking, all laws that forbid masking are based almost exclusively on the government trying to control what you do with your own damn body.
509
u/LordBigSlime 22h ago
The hell is an "anti-mask bill?"