In regards to folk who just can't bear to wear masks in doors.
By - Mir_man
Just to ease some confusion (a confusion I too got caught in) - this meme is addressing *masks* (last year's battle lines), not *mandatory vaccines* that are today's battle lines.
Wow… nice straw man
They said all of those things and more when seat belt laws went into effect.
Exactly... I know people who said this.
Heck, I know some old guy who still says this. Lol he is vaccinated though.
I think the guys portrayed in this comic accurately reflect this sub now.
Right. This tells us more about you then it does about us.
Except when my seatbelt malfunctions and chokes me I can sue the manufacture.
Except when I don’t wear my seat belt I can still go to the grocery store
Seatbelts save lives but seatbelt laws are nothing but a way to steal your money and trick you into thinking it’s about your safety. The law has ZERO to do with keeping the public safe.
If you get a seatbelt ticket and refuse to pay it, you’ll have to show up for court. If you don’t show up for court the cops will come and arrest you and throw you in jail with real criminals. If you resist the arrest there’s a chance you could be shot and killed. And this was all in the guise of keeping you safe. Not paying your seatbelt ticket is more dangerous than not wearing a seatbelt ever was.
Except when people get launched:
>Drivers and front-seat passengers are at a five times greater risk of dying in a car accident if the rear passengers are not wearing seat belts, according to a study conducted at the University of Tokyo.
>The study, published in this week's issue of The Lancet, examined more than 100,000 front-seat occupants involved in car-to-car crashes between 1995 and 1999 in Japan. In all cases there were at least two passengers in the rear seat.
>The most dramatic effect was seen in head-on collisions. In these types of accidents, the lack of rear seat-belt use increased the risk of dying for the driver by 600 percent: For the front passenger, death risk increased more than 700 percent.
>The study's authors estimate the total number of deaths could have been reduced by almost 80 percent if rear passengers had been wearing seat belts.
This does not include ejections, either.
You guys are my people. It literally has to do with YOUR safety. No one else’s. Same application. Only this time, if you don’t wear your seatbelt you can’t work.
Check the downvotes before you say "this sub is my people"
Seatbelts are for my safety, you are correct. Seatbelt laws are not.
It is about your safety though. If you die you can't be exploited by the capitalists for profit or pay taxes to the government.
True. It’s for protection of future profits.
Way to put a negative spin on your fellow Americans staying alive. You don’t know what was the largest motivation of the politician who supported the original 1968 law.
Yup. The downvotes show the indoctrination is real
Nothing I said was untrue. People just don’t like to hear it.
I'm not wearing my seatbelt for anyone else. Wearing it isn't caring, at least not caring about anyone other than myself.
As someone who has worn masks every time I go out, got vaccinated at my earliest opportunity, who thinks these things *should* be mandated, and as someone who has had his life saved by a seat belt and thinks not wearing one even for a short drive is really stupid, I still think mandating seat belt wearing is bullshit.
Yes I believe it is negligence to allow a minor or any other person who cannot under other circumstances consent to ride in your car unbuckled.
With those necessary caveats out of the way;
You have every right to be stupid in a way that affects only yourself. Wearing a seat belt has no effect on your likelihood to cause a car crash and hurt others.
If you are in a car with others who are not wearing seat belts then you can not ride along, this is how consent works in almost every other situation. If you want them to buckle up then ask them to. The fact that this argument usually only comes up after about 7 volleys of "you're just stupid if you don't wear one" goes to show that no one really makes this argument in good faith either.
The real reason this law exists is for the same reason cops can search your car because they "smelled weed", to give a catch all reason to pull over/ticket/search anyone at any time.
> The real reason this law exists is for the same reason cops can search your car because they "smelled weed", to give a catch all reason to pull over/ticket/search anyone at any time.
Wrong. The real reason is keeping you alive so you can continue to be exploited by the capitalists for profit and keep paying taxes to the government.
>The real reason this law exists is for the same reason cops can search your car because they "smelled weed", to give a catch all reason to pull over/ticket/search anyone at any time.
This is a good point. I don’t agree that is the real reason for seatbelts but you’re 100% right it is commonly used as a pretext for cops pulling people over who they have no business pulling over.
Wrong. When you are not wearing a seatbelt, if you crash at high speed and go through the windshield, you become a deadly projectile that can kill other people. At 60+ miles an hour there's not much difference between being smashed in the face by a 150lb log and a 150lb idiot flying loose out the front of the other vehicle. No one is trying to nanny you. They're trying to save the lives of people who aren't involved in your decision to not wear a seat belt, similar to when people don't wear a mask.
Not to mention if they are in a "t-bone" crash, they could be launched into their passengers. I had a friend die as a passenger in an accident when the driver didn't wear the seatbelt. Apparently heads hitting together at tens of miles per hour isn't good.
That's a very good reason to buckle your seat belt, but not a good reason to pull people over and ticket them for not doing so. You should tell your friend they're being a dumbass and refuse to drive until they're buckled, otherwise you've mutually consented to them being unbuckled.
Yes it is.
If I want to be a dumbass and have a no seat belt party with my consenting adult friends then that's between us.
If I'm driving alone and want to wear no seat belt that's between me and myself.
Frankly it's not if you're on public roads.
If you want to do it on private land, be my guest.
On public roads you should not be allowed to do things that (potentially) inconvenience or harm others that have to use that same road that we all own. Whether I wear my seat belt or not has an almost zero chance of affecting you. Why do you care? No one is going to give me a ticket for eating lead paint chips on a public road are they?
Why is it in the public interest that I be disallowed this specific thing on a public road or anywhere?
If I want to be a dumbass with my own body, in a way that has a negligible chance to affect any other person (or person who hasn't consented to that risk, in the case of friends in the car) why should a cop be allowed to stop me and give me a ticket (taking my time and money from me) just for being stupid?
It's less about nannying me and more about having an excuse to pull over and harass "suspicious persons", and more ticket income for the PD.
Do you have any stats on how many times someone has been ejected so violently through the windshield that they've struck another person outside the car? I suspect it's almost nonexistent with or without a seatbelt.
Searching on google I can't find a story of a single case where that has happened. I'm not saying that it hasn't happened or couldn't happen, just that it's extremely unlikely.
Yes, government should not mandate people use seatbelts, nor helmets.
If people want to be morons and risk their lives, they can do that. Government fines don’t need to be a part of it. You really think a $100 fine will motivate someone over risk of death?
Okay but in countries with socialised healthcare it's the taxpayers that have to pay the medical bills when people get injured (more than they would have otherwise) because they didn't use their seatbelt
USA doesn’t have socialized healthcare, not a problem.
If we were able to finally move over, the gov can also pass laws saying socialized healthcare doesn’t cover accidents if you weren’t wearing a seatbelt. Same with vaccines and ICU care. Government has the right to choose how they give out the tax money.
Let people take the risks if they want to.
Helmets, okay sure, but safety belts protect more than just the wearer. A body becomes a wrecking ball during crashes and can easily injure or kill other passengers.
I can't remember last time I had a passenger.
Can I get a pass?
You can fly through the windshield and kill others, so no.
Don't be an idiot. Go talk to your local fire department and get back to me. My brother in law has witnessed enough of these.
If someone else feels unsafe, they can simply ask that person to wear the seatbelt. If the person refuses, they can choose not to drive with the other person.
Cops and fines don’t make a difference in this interaction at all. Government mandates have zero place here.
You're not considering other drivers on the road. Without a seatbelt you can easily be thrown from your car injuring or killing others. Seatbelts are really a no brainer. They don't do any harm to wear and they save lives on a daily basis. It's selfish and stupid to intentionally not wear one and if government fines help dummies do the right thing then I'm fine with it.
Again, threat of government fines does nothing in comparison to literal death. If someone isn’t going to wear a seatbelt, fines that cops don’t even have time to force won’t change anything.
When wearing a seatbelt is made a requirement (law) it is then taught to all new drivers, raising a generation of drivers that mostly adhere to the rule bc that's what they were taught. It becomes automatic and they know it's something they should do and anyone not wearing a seatbelt after driver's Ed does so willfully. Saying government fines do nothing is false and not supported by the evidence or the psychology. Your logic could be applied to speeding and it doesn't fit. 99% of people adhere to speed limits because they won't want a ticket and they know it's the right thing to do. Why else would anyone adhere to school speed limits that are crazy slow?
> Your logic could be applied to speeding and it doesn't fit. 99% of people adhere to speed limits because they won't want a ticket and they know it's the right thing to do.
Small historical side note:
At one point in South Carolina, in a push to increase seat belt use compliance, police were given the authority to stop people to give them a "thank you for wearing your seat belt" citation.
At which point, police could stop anyone who was not wearing their seat belts, and could stop anyone who *was* wearing their seat belts. With all post-police-stop rights of police, allegedly.
The program did not last very long.
* government can make it a requirement that school teach and really push the importance of seat belts, just like they already do today. It would do the same thing.
* Speed traps are common, and it’s easy to check someone’s speed without close examination. Cops aren’t staring into fast moving cars to check if everyone had a seat belt on.
Again, if death won’t motivate you, a small fine won’t either. People wear seat belts because its sensible and it’s importance is passed down from driver to driver, not because it’s required by the government.
Most people speed anyways, by the way. Every person I’ve ever driven with speeds. Speed limits don’t stop people from doing what they want. Daddy government isn’t successful here either.
> You're not considering other drivers on the road. Without a seatbelt you can easily be thrown from your car injuring or killing others.
Yes, others in the car, not others in general.
The government already does make it a requirement that the school teaches about seat belts bc the school teaches the "rules of the road". Ya now the laws. Those things that have consequences if you break them, including fines and jail time. All laws must have consequences if they are broken.
I agree speed traps are predatory and wrong but bringing them up doesn't address what I said. Also, it's clear you can't hear reason and logic if it doesn't fit into your opinions so I'm done with this chain.
Lmfao, just because I don’t share the same view of this doesn’t mean I’m not using “reason and logic.” It’s obvious you aren’t willing to seriously consider anything I’m saying.
Get over yourself.
Fauci admitted that masks were not effective.
> "The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through material. It might, however, provide some slight benefit in keep out gross droplets if someone coughs or sneezes on you."
> He added: "I do not recommend that you wear a mask, particularly since you are going to a very low risk location."
From your own article, dumbass
>Fauci wrote: "Masks are really for infected people to prevent them from spreading infection to people who are not infected rather than protecting uninfected people from acquiring infection.
You know people can spread the virus without realizing they're infected, right?
Do you understand why nurses and doctors have worn masks around patients for many decades? Did you think it was a fashion statement?
Are you fuckin retarded bro
tRuST tHe SsCiEnCe but only select which science you trust?
FEBRURARY 2020. ARE U HIGH ON CRACK COCAINE BRUV. MEDICAL ADVICE CHANGES AS THE TIME CHANGES AND NEW STUDIES ARE CONDUCTED. FAUCI TOO HAS CHANGED HIS STANCE ON THIS AND AS OF NOW DOES NOT HOLD THIS TAKE.
WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO POINT TO SOMETHING HE SAID IN FEBRUARY OF 2020
Actually in that instance Fauci lied to every single American
You seem upset, melty.
if you were, say, a newly hired music teacher who had just started a band with a group of your coworkers in february 2020, and then a month later the band had to go on immediate hiatus and not play any gigs for over a year, and you then had to spend 15 months teaching guitar and piano lessons over zoom, which imo is marginally less effective than no lessons at all, and the reason it was such a severe impact was because of dongos like you spreading garbage like that, well
first, i'd suspect that you'd stolen my skin and were wearing it as a costume, invasion of the body snatchers style, but second, i bet you'd be pretty fucking upset too
The top right has me thinking. We probably should mandate helmets in cars. Most fatal crashes are from head trauma.
i have a better idea: let's [ban cars](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSSNlM3Au1A) and then we won't even have to mandate bike helmets
The number of people who call you selfish for not wearing a mask while driving a 4 ton kinetic kill vehicle is insane.
The only reason why cars don't kill more people than covid every year is because we've gotten so good at treating the injuries they cause that the majority of victims are merely left crippled.
Yeah said no one ever lol
This is suppose to be a parody but I literally compared mask mandates to seatbelts in the beginning of the pandemic and got a response like this from someone being completely serious. I posted it on Reddit bc it was so ridiculous, check my history.
Since Ralph Nader's name was mentioned a few times, I thought I'd share his latest tweet:
The reply to it makes a good point, we have half-assed the whole masking thing, but it was still a hell of a lot better than doing nothing.
With hot takes like this, everyone is glad it's not your business lol
reddit still wouldn’t be on your side if this meme were comparing seat belt laws to the vaccines lol
Masks, not vaccines.
Why would you want to force others to wear a seatbelt? Who cares if they don’t? It’s their life, their death. Let them be
Holy fucking shit. You're the dork illustrated in the middle of the picture. Lol
Just zero sense in this argument. As if car crashes often occur in a vaccum and don't effect anyone else at all. Not other drivers, medical professionals, legal or insurance ramifications.
Just the dumbest take.
It’s called giving people the option, even if it’s a stupid option. We’re going to get to a point where everything is considered dangerous and the government wants to mandate this and that to “protect” us
How does it affect you if I die or not in a given car crash?
I would probably be more careful driving if I wasn't wearing one honestly
Full disclosure; I always wear a seat belt because 1. it has saved my life before, and 2. not wearing one makes me instantly carsick
I have also worn my mask every time I've left the house and gotten vaccinated, and I think these should be strictly mandated.
I just think the "wearing a seat belt" argument is a bad take because it detracts from the main purpose and reason to wear a mask, which is to protect __others__.
>How does it affect you if I die or not in a given car crash?
Insurance premiums. Traffic jams. Psychological toll if you're the other driver and someone died. Potential manslaughter chargers. Come on. Think.
Yes everytime I get in a traffic some dick head without a seat belt cuts me off!
Traffic jams as in car wrecks with fatalities tale longer to clear. But okay
None of this is legally applicable.
Traffic jams? Insurance premiums? What do those have to do with it?
As for psychological toll and manslaughter charges you really can't hold the other person responsible for that. If it comes up in court I would have no problem with "he wouldn't have died if he was wearing a seat belt" being a defense, but that already implies that there is sufficient evidence of negligence on the other driver's part already.
*uses Chad wojak to symbolize being right*
Couple cases. You're in a car full of people, one of your friends is a dipshit and doesn't wear their seatbelt. Then, while driving, you have a car crash where everyone should have survived, but instead they're dead or have a life changing injury. Now you have to suffer with that guilt.
Lets say you cause a car crash. Again, it should have been minor, but now the other person has massive medical bills and you're "at fault."
It's amazing how quickly it goes from "This is a personal choice and I'm the one who chose it" to "I'm handicapped from the waist down, I'm gunna try and find a way to blame this on YOU, and sue you for millions of dollars."
>it should have been minor but because no seatbelt it’s massive medical bills
You do know insurance have been able to tell if you’re wearing yours seatbelt during a crash? For like years now? They’ve seen enough crashes to know what’s what and they have massive dedicated to the task
I don't doubt it. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that they won't sue you. You might be "innocent" but it could take years and a lot of time in court and money on a lawyer. The US legal system is built to work for those with money.
The friends example isn’t good. If it’s their car they can make their own rule. It’s not the governments job to prevent guilt.
You probably shouldn’t have caused a car crash then.
But sure, blame the woman when a man rapes her because she wasn’t wearing a chastity belt.
> If it’s their car they can make their own rule.
Ah yes, because people are really good at following rules and telling the truth. Also, nobody is a stupid ass teenager.
>It’s not the governments job to prevent guilt.
It's the government's job to institutionalize policy(law) that benefits society on the whole (in theory). If people not wearing seatbelts regularly infringes on other people's rights (freedom from) than it makes sense to have a law, even if it "infringes" on someone's rights to do it (freedom to).
>You probably shouldn’t have caused a car crash then.
Ah yes, nobody has ever driven while tired, or as a shitty driver, or just got distracted by their kids fighting. Yes, if everyone only drove PERFECTLY than this wouldn't be an issue, ever.
>But sure, blame the woman when a man rapes her because she wasn’t wearing a chastity belt.
Nobody accidently drove their penis into a woman because they were adjusting the volume on their radio.
You have a troubled view on the purpose of government. Genuinely feel sorry for you.
lol, realized you didn't have any good points to make so fell back on the old, "You just don't understand" argument? pathetic.
> Nobody accidently drove their penis into a woman because they were adjusting the volume on their radio.
speak for yourself that's the only way i can get off
>that's the only way i can get off
Have you just tried pushing the volume knob in like a button?
No, it is because a person not wearing a seat belt becomes a deadly object in a car crash. Do you even Reddit? There are so many vids posted from inside a car when it crashes, one persons not wearing a seat belt and their head hits someone else and kills them.. the innocent person wearing the seatbelts. This is why you wear your goddamn seat belt. If your alone in your car, don’t wear one, that would be fine.
No one is forcing them to ride in the same car.
And yes I shouldn’t be allowed to wear a helmet when on my motorcycle because when I get hit and I go flying off, I can hit someone and my helmet can kill someone
so your argument is now that all cars should be single-occupancy?
No, my argument is people are free to do whatever the want but they’re required to face the consequences. Let them face the consequences if they choose to
My argument is that you must be a fucking moron if you can’t see that point here is to just wear a fucking seatbelt in the car with other people.
That makes literally no sense. I don’t give a fuck if people don’t wear helmets on motorcycles. It’s only when you put other people in danger should fucks be given. Not wearing a seatbelt in a car with other people puts other people in danger.
I still get confused if I fart in public....can I find an ass mask? Aren't I technically passing xovid particles
COVID farts are I thing, I hear.
Was anyone here around when seat belts were implemented and required by law? I'll bet this is exactly what some people were saying back then too
They were, they did. Some people still believe the "conspiracy" that if the feds want to secretly off you, they'll crash your car, and your seatbelt will keep you in the car so they can kill you. Don't ask me the logic of that, I mean, if you go flying out of the car, what stops them from killing you, anyways?
I actually knew a guy that believed this and refused to wear his seatbelt, but I looked it up and the conspiracy started in the 70s, IIRC.
tl;dr dumbasses are dumbasses no matter the year.
the internet didn't give rise to bullshit, it just gave it a microphone and an audience
It is about BODILY AUTONOMY. How hard is that to understand?
Exactly, keep keep the coughs and spit from your body off mine.
What about those who say people who are afraid of others without masks have the option to stay home if they’re scared
why stop there, stay home and dont buy groceries if you want the clerk stocking the shelves to wash his hands after pooping, can you grasp how fucking stupid that sounds? That is completely moronic, first it is not an option to completely stay home, second it still doesnt solve the problem that in many parts of the country the health care system is crippled, and who could have imagined those places are mostly mask free.
Also if seatbelt laws were introduced in 2021: every liberal on the planet claps and mocks every single person who passes away in a car accident without a seatbelt
Well I m very much opposed to that sentiment, and so should every self described leftist. A core principle of leftism is to provide support and care universally irrespective of their background or politics.
He's so evil that he's literally heartless.
Very true yet most of the left, from what I can see, openly supports denying health care to the unvacced. And mock them when they get sick. Even if they are vaccinated but are on the right you see it. It's crazy
i mean, it is objectively funny when a loud antivaxxer dies from a disease they actively refused to get vaccinated against, and i'm tired of pretending it's not.
now, here's the thing. *i* want health coverage to be universal so that any person who gets sick or injured for any reason can get the care they need, and *i* want medical professionals to be paid what they're worth and treated like human beings who have their own lives, and under that model, i feel like the antivax movement would be less prominent and this whole thing could have been ameliorated much more effectively much earlier, and i don't *want* anybody to die of covid: every person who dies of covid makes it longer before i can go to big shows again, so i'd really prefer if everybody got their shit together and just got the damn vaccine to ensure i can actually take my girlfriend to that toh kay show in november. if that shit gets canceled, i'm gonna be bummed as hell that she didn't get a chance to see it.
when i say that it would be only appropriate if people who have chosen not to get vaccinated were denied medical care for the diseases they chose not to get vaccinated against, i'm simply leaning into the "personal responsibility" argument that the right uses to argue against any form of systemic change intended to benefit working people. if the right wants people to accept the consequences of their choices, then that should also apply to them when they choose to recklessly endanger themselves and others for no good reason.
and if they want to actually help working people, then maybe they should listen to the left instead.
Is it funny when a smoker gets lung cancer? Or someone who eats poorly gets diabetes? Or when someone doesn't wear a seatbelt and injure themselves in a wreck? The majority of medical bills in the United States come from preventable diseases. I don't really think that's funny and sure as hell don't think we should not treat people for a disease, virus, or any medical condition even if it's self inflicted or preventable. Why do we apply these standards for covid, a disease with a 99% survival rate, but do not apply it to literally anything else. That's how the whole year has went. We apply ridiculous standards to a disease for seemingly no reason other than the media. Covid isn't more deadly, transmissible, or as big of an issue as a number of inflictions yet we justify completely different measures to combat it. I guess with your reasoning we should not accommodate any person in a wheelchair if they were paralyzed from self inflicted injury, and they shouldn't even get health care. You have to "accept the consequences of your actions". I'm sorry but that's objectively stupid
so maybe you should start by reading the rest of my comment after the first line, but i'll respond to what you said anyway
you're taking the leftist position here that everybody should be entitled to healthcare for anything that afflicts them, a position which i made very clear that i support in my second and final paragraphs. the position you're taking issue with is the one that's ideologically conservative, in that it stands on personal responsibility. i'd have thought you'd be all about that, since you've said you're a libertarian. but it sounds like you agree with my actual position, so congratulations on not being a libertarian, welcome back to the real world: i know i sound sarcastic, but i am genuinely glad to have you here
anyway, bullet point responses to everything else
* covid is more dangerous than other diseases because it's deadlier than most that are contagious and more contagious than most that are deadly, that's why it's killed so many people
* you can't infect someone else with heart disease, but you can give them covid: that makes it a your right to swing your fist ends at my face situation
* if you want to prevent car deaths, what you should do is get people out of cars and onto their feet, bikes, and transit wherever possible
* * and that's straying dangerously close to /r/left_urbanism territory, which i don't want to get into right now because if i do i'll be here all night
* * * but here's the [short version](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSSNlM3Au1A)
And to your bullet points, those are all scientifically incorrect. Covid death rates were about double that of the flu, until the CDC did a blood study determining that more than twice the amount of people have already had covid as originally thought. Effectively halving the death rate making it almost identical to the flu. I would like evidence as well that it is more contagious than any other disease of similar death rates. There are also plenty of other examples of diseases that are contagious that we don't care about in the same way as covid, so yes you may be able to disregard my comparison to lung cancer but that's stupid as I was attempting to make a point that could apply to literally any transmissible disease, plenty of which have an incredibly high death rate and generally larger affect on the population
Yeah sorry you're clearly in a better state of mind for an in depth conversation, and I struggle to get my point across over text, so I did ignore a lot of what you said and I apologize. And you your point on my political affiliation (which was incredibly condescending but I'll ignore that to seek out a real conversation, I could we easily say the same about a socialist who wants government run healthcare but I won't go there), I would argue libertarians are not on the right by default. Most of us would consider ourselves in the middle and hate the drug war, want open boarders, hate abortion laws (Texas), are anti war (our most important issue) so we can relate to the left a lot. I completely disagree with the thought of government taking over the health care sector but if you do want that I can respect you being discriminate on who gets the healthcare, but that's a slippery slope. So you do seem incredibly consistent for a socialist (if you identify as such) and that's mostly what I care about. Consistency. That's why Bernie Sanders is okay in my book even though I don't agree with most of his policies. I'm libertarian because I believe consistency is key. If you'd like to continue this conversation I would suggest you don't insinuate I am insane for being libertarian
Can you show some examples of this? I disagree that "most" people on the left do this. Maybe a few leftist Twitter crazies, but we disavow them. I'd love for you to substantiate this
Why am I getting downvoted for pointing something out? Another example lol
On this sub and in leftist spaces in general, no one would consider Jimmy Kimmel nor most of his audience to be "leftist." So when you say "most on the left" support denying healthcare to the unvaxxed, it comes across as inaccurate or at the very least unnuanced. I can't say I've seen many actual leftists advocate that position. (I don't consider myself a leftist, but I do respect many of them for their principles and reasoning.)
"Most liberals" or "most Democrats" might be accurate, but even then I'd be surprised if it's a majority opinion. A majority of those latter groups might be in favor of giving preference to vaxxed in over-capacity/triage situations, though. Some number of conservatives/Republicans probably support that as well, though far less than a majority.
That's fair I honestly still don't understand the difference between left, liberal, and Democrat so I wasn't attempting to assert anything like that. I guess I've just seen people who typically vote Democrat doing these things, but I guess if most don't see it, it is not an issue. It's just concerning to see at all
Yeah, the differences aren't always clear cut, and people use the terms interchangeably or reverse them sometimes. Even people who describe themselves as left or liberal don't all agree. It's sort of like how neocons, right-libertarians, and the religious right all get lumped together as "the right." There are some overlaps between their positions, but they also disagree vehemently on others.
If someone from the left came onto a libertarian sub and said "the right wants to ban gay marriage," including people on that sub, they'd look at that person like they didn't know what they were talking about. Evangelicals might want to ban gay marriage, but libertarians almost invariably do not (unless they want the state out of marriage altogether.)
>It's just concerning to see at all
I'm a libertarian so honestly I should know more that's kind of embarrassing, and I use them interchangeably knowing full well they don't describe the same thing. I pride myself on using the correct terminology and understanding the bigger scope of things too so I really ought to be better. Regardless I appreciate the meaningful conversation, so fucking rare these days
>Regardless I appreciate the meaningful conversation, so fucking rare these days
Likewise, which is why I appreciate this sub. They don't suffer fools here, but you can generally have a good conversation even if you come at something from a different point of view.
In this clip Jimmy Kimmel says unvacced should not be treated at hospitals, and should instead die, followed by a thundering round of applause from the crowd
You are probably getting downvoted because people don't agree with you. You made it sound like a lot of people on the left are calling for refusing treatment to unvaccinated as a matter of policy. That is just not true
Then THIS is your evidence? I just don't see it
Jimmy is a (bad) comedian and this was from his monologue segment. You can probably paint lot of comedians in a bad light if you use things like this to extrapolate intent. If this is his ACTUAL belief, I don't agree with that of course. But it's a one line comment form a monologue. You can't give this any credence. I just don't see the "most" people on the left calling for not treating unvaccinated. Also he was saying that an unvaccinated vs vaccinated person if you had to chose in the context of hospital capacity on an unrelated medical problem. But I 100% think he doesn't hold this belief anyway and it was hyperbolic "joke" on a late night monologue. These people say shit in this way all the time.
On as related note, please wear a mask and get vaccinated if you don't and aren't
And no please don't assert your own medical beliefs on me I can do whatever the fuck I want
That's a fair enough argument I guess, but usually a joke is followed by laughs and not applause, meaning his audience (mostly leftists) did not think it was funny but instead agreed with the sentiment. I'm not going to say every comedian makes jokes about views that they hold, but specifically Jimmy Kimmel and other late night hosts have almost exclusively made jokes about political opinions that they agree with for like the past 4 years. So it's not outside the realm of possibility that he believes that. And even if he doesn't the majority of the crowd does. And I've seen plenty of comments on r/politics that have the exact same beliefs, not just crazy left Twitter. That being said r/politics has gotten fairly woke left as well so that and Twitter are basically the same thing. So I guess maybe it's just the nutjobs who think like this but in my opinion and from what I've seen, a lot of the left thinks like this
And if seatbelt laws were introduced in 2019: every liberal on the planet....
>* A May 2020 meta-study on pandemic influenza published by the US CDC found that face masks had no effect, neither as personal protective equipment nor as a source control. [Source](https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article)
>* A Danish randomized controlled trial with 6000 participants, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2020, found no statistically significant effect of high-quality medical face masks against SARS-CoV-2 infection in a community setting. [Source](https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817)
>* A large randomized controlled trial with close to 8000 participants, published in October 2020 in PLOS One, found that face masks “did not seem to be effective against laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections nor against clinical respiratory infection.” [Source](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0240287)
>* A February 2021 review by the European CDC found no significant evidence supporting the effectiveness of non-medical and medical face masks in the community. Furthermore, the European CDC advised against the use of FFP2/N95 respirators by the general public. [Source](https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/covid-19-face-masks-community-first-update.pdf)
>* A July 2020 review by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine found that there is no evidence for the effectiveness of cloth masks against virus infection or transmission. [Source](https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-politics/)
>* A November 2020 Cochrane review found that face masks did not reduce influenza-like illness (ILI) cases, neither in the general population nor in health care workers. [Source](https://www.cochrane.org/CD006207/ARI_do-physical-measures-such-hand-washing-or-wearing-masks-stop-or-slow-down-spread-respiratory-viruses)
>* An April 2020 review by two US professors in respiratory and infectious disease from the University of Illinois concluded that face masks have no effect in everyday life, neither as self-protection nor to protect third parties (so-called source control). [Source](https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commentary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based-sound-data)
>* An article in the New England Journal of Medicine from May 2020 came to the conclusion that cloth face masks offer little to no protection in everyday life. [Source](https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372)
>* A 2015 study in the British Medical Journal BMJ Open found that cloth masks were **penetrated by 97% of particles and may increase infection risk by retaining moisture or repeated use.** [Source](https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577)
>* An August 2020 review by a German professor in virology, epidemiology and hygiene found that there is no evidence for the effectiveness of cloth face masks and that the improper daily use of masks by the public may in fact lead to an increase in infections. [Source](https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/html/10.1055/a-1174-6591)
> * **The WHO admitted to the BBC that its June 2020 [mask policy update](https://swprs.org/who-mask-study-seriously-flawed/) was due not to new evidence but [“political lobbying”](https://archive.ph/YVJ0Y)**: “We had been told by various sources WHO committee reviewing the evidence had not backed masks but they recommended them due to political lobbying. This point was put to WHO who did not deny.” (D. Cohen, BBC Medical Corresponent).
> * There is increasing evidence that the novel coronavirus is transmitted, at least in indoor settings, not only by droplets but also by smaller aerosols. However, due to their large pore size and poor fit, cloth masks cannot filter out aerosols (see [video analysis](https://videopress.com/v/4egEyh2b
)): **over 90% of aerosols [penetrate or bypass](https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577) the mask and fill a medium-sized room within minutes.**
> * During the notorious 1918 influenza pandemic, the use of cloth face masks among the general population was widespread and in some places mandatory, but they [made no difference](https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2020/04/02/everyone-wore-masks-during-1918-flu-pandemic-they-were-useless/).
> * To date, the **only randomized controlled trial (RCT) on face masks against SARS-CoV-2 infection in a community setting found no statistically significant benefit** (see above). However, three major journals [refused to publish](https://swprs.org/the-suppressed-danish-mask-study/) this study, delaying its publication by several months.
> * An analysis by the US CDC found that **[85% of people](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6936a5-H.pdf#page=4) infected with the new coronavirus reported wearing a mask “always” (70.6%) or “often” (14.4%)**. Compared to the control group of uninfected people, always wearing a mask did not reduce the risk of infection.
> * **German researchers found that even an N95/FFP2 mask mandate had [no influence](https://twitter.com/DaFeid/status/1371448332875399168) on the coronavirus infection rate.** Austrian researchers found that the introduction, retraction and re-introduction of a facemask mandate in Austria had no influence on the infection rate.
> * **In the US state of Kansas, the 90 counties without mask mandates had lower coronavirus infection rates** than the 15 counties with mask mandates. To hide this fact, the Kansas health department [tried to manipulate](https://sentinelksmo.org/more-deception-kdhe-hid-data-to-justify-mask-mandate/) the official statistics and data presentation.
> * Contrary to common belief, studies in hospitals [found that](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01658736) the wearing of a medical mask by surgeons during operations [didn’t reduce](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2493952/pdf/annrcse01509-0009.pdf) post-operative bacterial wound infections in patients.
> * German scientists found that in and on **N95 (FFP2) masks**, the novel coronavirus remains infectious for [several days](https://fh-muenster.de/gesundheit/forschung/forschungsprojekte/moeglichkeiten-und-grenzen-der-eigenverantwortlichen-wiederverwendung-von-ffp2-masken-im-privatgebrauch/index.php), **much longer than on most other materials**, thus **significantly increasing the risk of infection** by touching or reusing such masks.
Edit: addition: you’re a fucking idiot
Addendum: duck yourself
Fuck off, I’m a physician. I don’t have time to refute all the bullshit you spouted, but let me know if you want us not wearing masks at your next surgery, you fucking moron
Seatbelt laws were introduced by insurance lobbyists, who do you think is pushing for mandatory vaccination?
But I guess if you'll shill for one corporation you'll shill for another.
Corporations are evil in nature, but they aren't fairytale devils. They're allowed to do good things if they think it'll help their bottom lines. In this case, they want you alive so they can steal the surplus value from your labor. It's much harder to get rich off of corpses.
Mandates are never good things.
Until they invent Soylent Green at least!
Same shit as the soap lobbyists that forced soap in all the public bathrooms and forcing people to wash their hands.
Go fuck yourself, don't you have an oil company to shill for? Some corporate boots to lick?
You should go shill for a scarecrow company, because you're really skilled at building strawmen.
I didn't come up with the seatbelt example, buddy boy.
I figured, you don’t seem like the kind of guy who can come up with original thoughts.
Haha, I don't come up with original thoughts because I don't like mandates, huh?
Seems more like I just don't get hard pointing a gun at people and telling them what to do.
how does it make you feel that you were not smart enough to read a fucking cartoon and figure out the cartoon was about facemasks and not vaccinations?
What's the difference? One mandate was just the prelude to the other.
you literally got confused about a simple cartoon
Can't answer the question?
you still dont get it, words and reading are going to be way to complicated for you if you fail to comprehend a simple drawing. Why would I waste my time. Before you can communicate like an adult, first you have to pass cartoon class.
Ah I see, a pathetic insult to cover your vacuous ideology.
Don't worry, it wasn't a question I expected you to be able to answer.
thats not even an insult, just stating it would be a complete waste of my time expecting you to be able to interpret words when you struggle with cartoons. Dont be mad at me you failed something so basic and simple.
Why could this not apply to a vaccine mandate as well as a mask mandate?
well I am not a cartoonist, and wont claim to have the deep understanding, but to start with I would draw needles instead of face masks if I wanted to change the meaning. Fortunately I dont need to depend solely on my art interpretation, luckily I was also taught the gift of being able to read and the title specifically states this is about masks. So yeah the fact its about masks would mean it doesnt apply to vaccines.
N95 and KN95 masks work. Other countries have used masks for decades during flu season as part of basic public hygiene to control the spread of airborne diseases. If you're in an area with poor ventilation, which applies to the majority of indoor spaces, have consideration for yourself and others and wear a mask.
So do I get a pass for wearing a cloth mask which has been proven not to work? Like it's still cool that I'm endangering everyone but I'm virtue signaling enough for it to be okay?
Even better when covid spreads you can blame all the people who refused to wear a mask!
The auto insurance companies lobbied for it hard and then never lowered rates with the lowered risk. Keep thinking it was all about safety though.
I don’t think seat belts should be mandatory, if you want to be stupid you should be allowed to
Problem is you put others at risk if you come out the drivers seat while driving.
True story, we were driving g in a 80s pick up truck with bench seating. My friend was driving with no seat belt. He hit a massive pot hole under a large puddle. He flew up out of the seat and over into my lap. The truck kept moving.
He managed to get back over into the drivers seat before we hit a tree.
Close call. But yeah, the seat belt is also for everyone else's benefits.
If seatbelts worked as well as cloth masks, no cars would have them and people wouldn't miss them.
Interestingly, seat belt laws were strongly encouraged and lobbied for by Reagan and his administration and the auto makers, because the alternative was mandatory air bags, which in the 80s were very expensive.
>[Secretary of Transportation Elizabeth] Dole issued a rule in 1985 that required automakers to install driver’s side airbags in all new cars unless—and this is the kicker—two-thirds of the states passed mandatory seat belt laws by April 1, 1989. Dole’s rule was so politically adroit because it looked like a regulation, but was really a gift to the auto industry. Cars already had seat belts, so all Detroit had to do was convince states to pass mandatory seat belt laws and it was off the hook for installing expensive air bags or automatic belts.
>The lobbying was intense, with top executives from General Motors and Chrysler, including Lee Iacocca, making a direct pitch to state legislators about seat belt safety.
But they couldn't get enough states to enact the laws, so airbags became mandatory anyway.
if God wants us to wear seatbelts he would have made seatbelts lmao that's hilarious.
I hate it when my seat-belt is required to attend a concert. Or buy groceries.
Edit: Okay, I see this is about masks, not mandatory vaccines. My bad.
Well, unless you walk there…
I hate it when I get blood clot and die from wearing a seatbelt properly. I also am terribly allergic to the materials that go into those seatbelts.
I wish the government can give exemption for wearing seatbelts and drink driving so I can go and apply those.
There were people back then actually saying that seatbelts will kill you by trapping you in a burning car after an accident.
Which they totally can. That's why paramedics carry seatbelt cutters. They just help more people than they hurt, much like vaccines.
When that passed I had a Mazda 323, it was tiny and got like 35mpg, if I hit anything bigger than a chicken it would have totaled the car. I would have rather taken the odds of being thrown from the car.
I knew a guy in HS who gave me shit for wearing mine, and he said the same bullshit about them trapping you in a car. Then one day he showed up with bad cuts all over his forehead. Tuns out he was letting someone else drive and wasn't wearing his seat belt when she slammed the car into a tree.
He wore his seat belt from then on.
As a huge ralph nader fan I can tell you the right still says shit like this. But seatbelts cost the Corporatocracy money, so basically the opposite of this cowboy vaccine subscription.
Are the pharmaceutical companies profiting from the vaccine?
How is their stock value?
I think he misspoke, insurance companies lobbied for seatbelt laws.
They profit a hell of a lot more from all the drugs they pump into people while they're hooked up to ventilators.
Its a guaranteed check from the US government. They didn't "make it," they lobbied and donated to campaigns for it.
Seatbelts kill as many people as they save. Are you arguing the State *mandate* games of Russian roulette?
Because killing people stops the spread of Covid. Given the mishandled bullshit from the State, this is the only thing we *know*.
>I feel like seatbelts should be mandated to exist in cars, but wearing them should up to the person.
Theres so much there I wanna deep dive into but I'll take some time to figure it out. Ultimately, everyone should have the option! In a moment of crisis you could put the seatbelt on knowing it might save you as likely as it kills you.
But thats not what this discussion is. The discussion is you have a car, drive it as dangerously as possible all the time and must now put a seatbelt on your face even when you're not driving and then the government threaten you with a second drivers licence if you don't put yourself at more risk while driving more and more recklessly all the time.
You could put gas in your tank, but Fauci didn't say so. What are you, an internal combustion denier?!
Read the title, the meme is poking fun at anti maskers
"Modifying my genes"
The comparison is seatbelt laws to mask mandates.
> The comparison is seatbelt laws to mask mandates.
the fact this has had to be spelled out several times in this thread shows how sad some of this subs reading comprehension is.
At least that's a workable comparison.
Just pointing out how bad / dishonest some of these takes are. Some aren't even reading the content before trashing it.
Like me, I think a lot of people saw the meme and missed the title and because the big news of the day is vaccine mandates they just jumped to that.
Not a good look for so-called "critical thinkers". No offense meant toward you, Thumb, you still have my respect.
If it was just me, yeah. But look at how many people thought this meme related to vaccines and not masks, in spite of it being in the title? Because the big news today is vaccine mandates.
I'm sure people more versed in NLP than I can explain how this works.
Or, like liberals who made every single topic about Trump, some of the loudest voices here have Vaccine Derangement Syndrome and everything leads back to vaccines = bad, even when it's not the subject of discussion whatsoever.
Kind of, but you're overlooking that today *specifically* has been dominated by news of last night's announcement from Biden that vaccines are to be federally mandated.
Not overlooking it, I just don't think some people are thinking clearly right now.
This is reasonable. I m personally in favor the vaccines, but I respect your stance, and don't support vaccine mandates.
Thanks for saying so. Can you expand on that?
Just pointing out that you didn't even read the meme before offering up your opinion.
The vaccine doesn't modify your genes either.
vaccine has a chance to kill you. low chances, but it exist.
Seatbelts don't kill and the only time they injure someone is if they are not used properly. Sort of like when nurse doesn't inject you properly.
Also, people can have legit reason for not getting a vaccine such as allergy. There is no legit reason for not wearing a seatbelt other than its not comfortable.
> such as allergy.
The rapid deceleration and pressure from using a seatbelt can rarely result in aortic rupture which can kill a person very quickly.
> The rapid deceleration and pressure from using a seatbelt can rarely result in aortic rupture which can kill a person very quickly.
Then again, under the same conditions, so could an airbag, a steering wheel, a dashboard.....
How concerned are you about the risks associated with the covid vaccine vs. covid infection? Because in each of these scenarios, the protective measure carries a small risk for the benefit of preventing something potentially much worse.
I was commenting on a seat belt observation.
If you want to draw any analogies, that's on you.