EAll
@ealluia.bsky.social
1.1K followers 48 following 11K posts
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
They're different things responding to different circumstances, but if you move off of participation as a reference to demonstration activity, there's obviously a very large number of people who are politically opposed to Trump as a usurper which shows up in things like strong disapproval numbers.
Your read the initial claim incorrectly. Since you deny this is possible, you seem to regard any follow up that explains what was meant as disingenuous revision. I don't think that's warranted when it's so plainly what he wrote can mean and seems to in fact meant.
If you're determined to call him a fool, you might be tempted to disregard explicit clarification about a meaning as lying about the initial comment. I'd ask you to read that initial comment in light of that stated intent and see if it makes sense. It does, right?
He's trying to make a point about placing it on a scale of size of participation for historically significant activist movements. Again, if you found the initial wording here to be ambiguous, he did clarify the meaning repeatedly. If you didn't see that reading initially, you should now.
No, it's not if you are trying to read it as a reasonable response to what it was responding to. And if you were confused about this point, there were several follow-up posts that have clarified this. If you just want to know what he meant and not seeking a target to criticize, that should suffice.
The context of the original post clearly indicates that he is making a reference to the relative number of participants in demonstrations. It's true that "bigger" is an ambiguous term when you lack any context what a person might mean, but that's not true here.
The original context was about whether issues only matter if they involve the "lived experience" of material conditions. You can try to write so people can't take you out of context, but if people are going to lie about you relentlessly, there's very little you can do to stop them from it.
People pulled those tweets out of context to mislead people about their meaning, then years later you decided to repeat that deception to continue the attack.
Those tweets in context were about how people can be rightly upset about something without being directly affected because they are capable of caring about how other people are affected and imagining how they could be in the future. It was an argument against only "lived experience" mattering.
Less than I do now where I'd only use a mask in specific medical settings, and what changed is updated information on efficacy. People are allowed to learn things. People also picked up the habit of washing their hands at one point.
Aside from living with complications from a viral illness, flu rates -> pneumonia rates -> incremental risk of death in the following years is something people in health care have long thought a lot about before COVID and continue to think about after and about COVID as well.
COVID is worse than flu in this regard, however. It's not all standard post-viral syndrome stuff. People are right to want to avoid this. This does not mean universal masks forever, of course, but it's not a hysterical reaction to want to minimize this as is realistically possible.
I do. I think this depends on how close you are to the health care field and medically vulnerable populations. Avoiding long-term complications from flu is a big deal in any long-term care setting. You can see how good organizations are at preventing flu show up in quality of life data.
Long COVID is tricky to talk about because it is a vague umbrella term that includes several distinct things ranging from 3 months of chronic fatigue all the way to "living with the severe organ damage you sustained during the acute phase."
The conversation was about "vaccine denialism from that crowd."
I totally buy "young progressives in a liberal city use masks as part of their hygiene more often than other people do to reduce disease risk" as a habit picked up from their own subculture without that meaning anything more nefarious.
Do you just think, "Oh, they're virtue signaling. They want others to know how good they are." Or do you think, "They're from in a subculture that uses masks more often?" If the latter, then why could that not also be true of progressives in a liberal city? Do they not have cultural differences?
One way to test this claim is if you have the same instinctive reaction if someone who looks Asian-American is walking around in mask.
When I see people in masks and it's not a period of high respiratory virus circulation, I generally think they might have a medical vulnerability, expect to be spending time with someone who does, might be sick, or are risk-averse. And it's fine.
More generally, ever since it became clear that high COVID vaccine efficacy had a relatively short window, we've seen people struggle with both claiming too much and too little about what vaccines do. Just as long there's been a group of people who argue any other response is implicitly "anti-vax."
There's a much larger group in those same threads trying to leverage the correct point that vaccines have limitations around their protective benefit against infection and long-term disease. If we're going to refer to that group as a unified "crowd" I think it is fair to say this isn't "anti-vax."
It's also appropriate at times to use masks for influenza. Many people do this as part of routine hygiene expectations just as they would with hand washing. The United States isn't the only country on Earth. They're not vaccine denialists because of this fact.
As my post indicates, mortality isn't the only reason to be concerned about COVID. That said, I adopt the once standard advice to rely on prevalence data to determine when masking is appropriate that could've easily been a new norm. I think you think you're arguing with a position I don't have.
I wasn't arguing for universal masking. I would strongly argue against "get vaccinated and don't worry about anything else" though, and it's not "anti-vax" to note that vaccines alone have not solved the problem of COVID.
COVID disease burden is currently worse than influenza incidentally. The mortality is about twice as bad and the disabilities it causes, while harder to quantify, are conspicuously worse. But you can just say "close enough" to that and it'd be beside the point.