1107
Banning masks means banning (a subset) of disabled people from public places without great risk to their health
(lemmings.world)
this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2024
1107 points (98.3% liked)
Microblog Memes
6016 readers
4148 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Nice... Using a law that was meant for the Ku Klux Klan to repress democratic routine and freedom. At least that one seems to be targeted at protests and not all every day life. And it contains exemptions. I'm just not sure if "we want to film the faces of everyone who doesn't agree with us" is a valid reason in a democracy. At least not on it's own and if there isn't some good reason to do it.
You're celebrating that, rather than accidentally targeting immunocompromised people, it deliberately targets people exercising their constitutional right to dissent?
Btw, like with abortion, any exemptions a GOP ban has will just be a fig leaf for the complicit media that's not going to be in effect in the vast majority of cases.
??? I'm not celebrating that. I'm saying it's "better" to target immunocompromised people the two times a year they go to a protest, than to target them every day in their daily lives. You could as well also ban them from protecting themselves in the supermarket or in the subway. And make their lives completely miserable. Going to protests happens more rarely, so it has lesser impact. But no. It's totally not good or acceptable either.
It's going to affect immunocompromised people every day of the year regardless, whether it's supposed to or not.
Infectious disease doesn't take a break because the cops "need" to identify "troublemakers" with their Orwellian spying on blameless people.
Besides, making it unsafe for everyone who ever participates in a protest to be around anyone who's immunocompromised is a whole new level of oppression!
I think we're talking at cross purposes... I 100% share your perspective. Same for me: Don't throw sick people under the bus. In fact, don't throw anyone under the bus. Don't cut down on freedom and democracy. Don't turn it into a total surveillance state just because you're a politician and took Orwell as an instruction manual.
Fair enough heh. You have yourself a nice day 🙂
My concern is the application of it. They could see three people in a crowd wearing masks who are legitimately needing to wear a mask and then arrest them saying the crowd was an impromptu protest or illegal gathering and they can then apply that new law to them.
Sure. Wording and implementing a law, applying it, and the original (pretended) idea of what it's going to solve are two things. But if you can slip into an illegal gathering by accident, we have yet another problem and those laws aren't well-defined. I mean that's caprice. And we're supposed to live in a democracy, not depotism. So it's wrong either way.
Clearly not what they were saying. You went out of your way to draw that conclusion.
Not really, no. Read my subsequent response to their poorly thought out reply for more information.
Of course, your reply was very well thought out.
Yes, it was. Now leave me alone before you start your nonsense on me again.
Yeah, that person wasn't smart enough to connect those dots on purpose. It was clearly an accident.