There are people who believe that some large gatherings are immune to the virus if they are gatherings of their own tribe, while the virus will strike down gatherings of the enemy tribe. It's a lot like the way that religious fundamentalists once viewed lightning.

submitted by Chipit from self.whatever

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Rivergirl 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I think that both the group concerned with a loss of civil rights via potentially unconstitutional governor executive orders and the group concerned with a lack of civil rights via police brutality both think that are are some things so important that they are worth the risk of the virus.

Unfortunately, neither “side” seems to recognize how much they have in common with the other, so both are pretty disrespectful of the other.

[–]Chipit[S] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

It's not a "both sides" argument. Scientists and doctors have come out on the side of BLM. You can literally point to articles weeks apart that state my side's gatherings good, The Other's are breeding grounds for disease.

Of course there's the little matter of it not being about police but being an attempted Maoist style cultural revolution.

And that the Nazis frequently used disease metaphors to describe Jews.

[–]Tom_BombadilBombadildo 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Scientists and doctors Media outlets have come out on the side of BLM.

FTFY

[–]whereswhat 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Once again, credit where it is due.