To Mask or Not to Mask?

[foszoe]

Meh. He was channeling Kathy Newman again.

You musta read a new book or something....

 

[jamil]

Since there was still some discussion going on, here is my post mortem on the discussion that Rookie and I were having.




At this point, I am making an attempt to show, while not denying the "only" in Rookies statement in his personal experience, that he has an incomplete picture based on his membership in one group. Basically that the street does go both ways.

This is his response. I don't see the point that it is making. I see it as a straight up personal attack. After all, I've said on here I've already had it before in another thread. Yet he makes an assumption that I am cowering in fear over a virus I have already had and running away from him (or similar minded folks) if they come up to me.

Well that's not me. It is possible we are defining personal space differently. If someone walks past me in an aisle way, I don't think that's getting in my personal space. In fact, my definition of personal space hasn't changed since pre Covid. If I am standing in front of a display and someone basically moves into and remains in a bubble anywhere between me and the shelves or loiters within 3 feet of me.

Now, that doesn't mean I want to just stand in someone's way either. IF I am purposefully getting something, and you start reaching over or in front of me. That's gonna get a comment. If I am being indecisive, and I notice you, I will offer you the space if you know what you want. If I don't notice you and you say "excuse me" then I will move out of your way.

Another derogatory post with little or no point other than to insult but I include it because I replied to it and Rookie replied to me. It is a response to my yin to the yang post.

the reply to Maxi



Then I responded to the fear and running comment.

This is where I do something I usually try not to do, use second person pronouns. It was an visceral reaction to the fear and running comment. If he can make comments about me personally, without knowing me, then I will do the same. That was wrong and I apologize for making it personal.

However, the intimidation part is real. I have witnessed it and been a part of it. It's easy to say let the owner say something, but what about the 16-21 year old clerk that is usually the one placed in that position? They are intimidated. Especially if the person they are to confront is much older. Especially if the person they are to confront is wearing a gun. Especially if the person they are to confront is in a group. Now everyone here may be too tough to have had that happen to them, but it does happen and not everyone it happens to is a snowflake. There has been violence from people not wearing a mask when asked to put one on. Its not an unreasonable fear or expectation. Anyone who has carried a firearm with an extra mag for the just in case for 10, 20, 30 years is preparing for that one instance and there is no way a clerk can discern if this is his/her one instance. Now some may say go tell a manager....but at that point, intimidation has already occurred.

Secondly, Rookie did make the statement walking towards me, I could have interpreted that wrong, but in the context of me being personally afraid and running away, it didn't sound like he was walking past me in a nonchalant manner. He could have meant that and if he did I apologize for misunderstanding.

See just above.

Useless is a personal interpretation. IF the store has made the business decision to hang them up (the store has, that means not due to a government mandate), than to the business it's not useless. It has a purpose. For intimidating see above. The rest of the post is just another insult.


I am commenting on walking towards you vs making sure people have plenty of room to get around me...seems like two different approaches. One is more threatening than another, in my experience.

The predator comes into the territory and immediately establishes that he owns it. That's walking towards.

Giving people plenty of room....thats respecting other people. I can't dispute Rookies experience because its his....which is where this conversation all started. In my experience though his "only" statement in the first post fails and his "always" statement in this post fails.

Here I also begin trying to understand where Rookie falls on private property rights. In one sentence he is talking about giving room but every comment about the people wearing a mask (every is valid because of the use of "only" and now "always") includes an instance where that person is the lesser human being. One confronts him. I wouldn't do that unless he got in my personal space as defined above. The other is basically standing there.


Basically just another insult. No real point. Instead, elaborating on why no trespassing signs aren't related would have been more fruitful since I am making a connection between the two.


The following was a reply to another member but Rookie responded.







I am thinking of the two differently because in one situation its one constitutional right against another. Rookie disagrees.

It is here that I think the conversation really becomes about what is legal vs what is respectful and what is the difference between the meaning of required vs requested. Rookie, is I believe, taking it in a legal context. I am taking in a being respectful context.







I am not seeing any difference between walking past signs in a store vs hunting on unposted property etc...

Perhaps this is all a difference of experience. In mine, when you were invited to someone's house, you did not go into any room that you were not shown into, especially if the door is shut. To me, Rookie is sounding like the guy who comes over and views it as ok to venture anywhere in the house unless specifically told not to. It seems like a shifting of the decision concerning property rights to the visitor vs the owner.


Confusing sure...followed by an insult.

A new point seems to be coming up. Denial of Entry vs a Condition to Enter. It's not a framework I was considering. Another insult followed by a generalization that is not true and a point I had already conceded.

Many may interpret the first line to be a complaint. That's their right, but its meant as an observation of how things go on INGO.

I am basically returning to my main point. Being respectful matters.


I did read through the Indiana law on trespass this morning and I can see where Rookie is coming from on a legal standpoint. I still see it as a spirit vs letter of the law issue based on legality vs intent and being respectful. I am still not sure I am clear on denial of entry vs actual trespass.

About the only sign I can think of I ignore is a no guns allowed sign. Any other sign, I honor. "No shirt no shoes no service", "Masks Required", Labeled bathrooms, (although I am a hypocrite on that one too because if the mens is occupied and I GOTTA go....well I will be found in the womens restroom.

Holy ****. I do appreciate that you put a lot of time into that. And I don't want to take anything away from that effort. But it challenges even some of my posts in length. It is seriously tl;dr. But. When I get a chance, I'll read it because I'd hate for your time to have gone to waste.

 

[foszoe]

Holy ****. I do appreciate that you put a lot of time into that. And I don't want to take anything away from that effort. But it challenges even some of my posts in length. It is seriously tl;dr. But. When I get a chance, I'll read it because I'd hate for your time to have gone to waste.

You will be the only one BUT that's ok.

I entered it into the public record like so many other documents that never get read :0

 

[jamil]

You musta read a new book or something....

Well, c'mon. It did sound a lot like "so you're saying..." and then you said he's saying things he didn't say.

 

[foszoe]

Well, c'mon. It did sound a lot like "so you're saying..." and then you said he's saying things he didn't say.

It was a vague reference to one post it was Cathy the next it was Kathy....like you are still processing the info and haven't yet REM'd it into memory

 

[jamil]

It was a vague reference to one post it was Cathy the next it was Kathy....like you are still processing the info and haven't yet REM'd it into memory

Kathy/Cathy. Same thing.

 

[churchmouse]

Holy ****. I do appreciate that you put a lot of time into that. And I don't want to take anything away from that effort. But it challenges even some of my posts in length. It is seriously tl;dr. But. When I get a chance, I'll read it because I'd hate for your time to have gone to waste.

Holy mother I need way more to even start that.....

 

[Lee11b]

Holy mother I need way more to even start that.....

TOTALLY AGREE!!! WAY MORE

 

[nonobaddog]

I'm guessing it isn't worth reading and moving on.

 

[bobzilla]

I'm guessing it isn't worth reading and move on.

I’m guessing someone just needs to walk away for a bit to put that much effort into “proving” intimidation. And whining about insults.

 

[churchmouse]

I am guessing that if this tread goes off again the fly swatter is coming out.

Foz can be irritating as hell. He can also be a deep voice of reason as can every one of us. Even Rookie....

 

[BugI02]

[A bunch of stuff 'explaining' what he really meant]

Dude, if you have to put that much explanatory verbiage into convincing people what you 'really' meant or how you 'really' interpreted their replies, is it not time to seriously question your rhetorical technique and the clarity of your thought/writing?

Much like what is true with humor, if you have to explain it that much it ain't funny/effective

Just as a for instance, I interpreted Rookie's 'cowering' comment to be indicating what many try to express in this thread; if you are afraid of the possibility of contamination it is on you to take action to mitigate the risk you perceive, you cannot control the actions of others so that they act in ways you think will benefit you. You're just some random mook in the grocery store, people don't care what you want

 

[BugI02]

Holy mother I need way more to even start that.....

Might have to wait for after 5 o'clock for me to get started

 

[chipbennett]

The pandemic is real. We should stop sputtering brain-wormed quackery about vitamins or how one has a right to spit on others. We need to inform others of real science that helps society, not endanger it.

No need to stay in the basement. We can get through this, but we have to be responsible. Hygiene, mask wearing, distancing, it all helps and blunts the attack of Covid until we get everyone vaccinated.

No sane person has questioned that the pandemic is real. The virus is real. Its spread is real. Its effects are real. What has been challenged are the assertions regarding how deadly the virus is overall, and the public policies put in place in response to the virus. Your straw man doesn't help advance dialogue.

Speaking of straw men: no one has claimed the "right to spit on others". Spitting on someone else is a form of assault/battery (pick your applicable statutory term, depending on jurisdiction). Breathing != spitting, and I expect those who proclaim to "follow the science" to understand and to apply the difference.

Speaking of science: there are real data that show certain vitamins, in particular D2, to have efficacy in response to the virus. Clinical trials are not "quackery", brain-wormed, or otherwise.

This is why those on the other side will dismiss you out of hand: because your statements are wholly devoid of sincerity and belie any desire to find common ground, much less, any desire to apply "real science."

 

[chipbennett]

I dont know about you, but I can grocery shop, do my banking, pay for gas, have a conversation with friends, family, and customers, etc, without spitting on anyone. It's really not that hard. No mask required

You make an excellent point. Perhaps this fixation on spitting on others is psychological projection?

 

[churchmouse]

Might have to wait for after 5 o'clock for me to get started

OK heres a deal for you. Read it. PM me the readers digest over view in real. No anger just what he is expressing. If accepted a get out of your next swatting card will be given.

 

[chipbennett]

The Tenth Amendment, the police powers of a State. In Indiana's case that is the Governor as your representatives gave him the authority.

You cannot go around hurting others just because of meye ryyyeeettts.

Prove the harm.

I'm still waiting on someone to do that. You're asserting the existence of said harm, and that harm being the basis for restriction of individual liberties. Therefore, you bear the burden to prove the harm.

The floor is yours.

 

[BugI02]

OK heres a deal for you. Read it. PM me the readers digest over view in real. No anger just what he is expressing. If accepted a get out of your next swatting card will be given.

Is the offer still good if I wait until after 'drinky time'? I think you're on either way, but it would sure go down easier with a little Aberlour

If you want it soonest, I brew another pot

 

[churchmouse]

You make an excellent point. Perhaps this fixation on spitting on others is psychological projection?

Is the offer still good if I wait until after 'drinky time'? I think you're on either way, but it would sure go down easier with a little Aberlour

If you want it soonest, I brew another pot

As you can but this is not a major felony level GOOJF card....

 

[actaeon277]