So are we assuming the non-masker is trying to be somewhere they’ve been told they’re not welcome like, as a statement of rebellion? Do they not understand that they’re not welcome or what they need to change to be welcome? Are they trying to be provocative, or are they trying to gain access to the community for some specific purpose?
“Enforcing this exclusion” is really broad. It has the underlying assumption that the situation is already violent, that there is a thing to enforce against someone who is “disobeying” the thing. Which I’d argue comes from the fact that we’ve really only lived in police states in modern history. Again, humans are social creatures–we want community and we want to feel included. And we don’t consciously do things to each other for no reason. I urge you to think deeply about where the need for “enforcement” comes from, and what we mean by it.
If someone is refusing to wear a mask and you and your neighbourhood watch or vigilantes or whatever you want to call yourselves come together and decide this person is not allowed to make use of community spaces anymore but they decide not to listen (as they already are about the masking rules) what is the course of action.
“Enforcing this exclusion” is really broad. It has the underlying assumption that the situation is already violent, that there is a thing to enforce against someone who is “disobeying” the thing.
Word salad entirely dancing around the point that you brought up exclusion as a response to someone violating health recommendations like masking during a pandemic but entirely refused to engage with the fact that exclusion (especially from spaces) requires there to be action taken should the exclusion be violated.
Yeah, sorry, my thoughts on the original question/scenario evolved as we were talking so this ended up being messy and unclear.
I want to retract my response about excluding the non-masker, not because I don’t think it’s possible to do that in a way that respects autonomy and doesn’t leverage power structures, but because the specific way that would be done would be fluid and dependent on factors we can’t really take into account in the abstract. My answer to your proposed scenario is, I don’t have enough information to make a judgment of the situation.
Another way of putting what I’m getting at: when someone/some group is given power over others, the normal social dynamics of how people cooperate and be in conflict with each other are disrupted, because the power-holders can just wield the authority to enforce their will regardless. In your scenario, a non-masker choosing to go against the community’s will is a conflict, and the action to be taken should be based around resolving that conflict under the conditions it’s taking place in. If we just say “they’ll be excluded from community spaces under threat of violence” or “they’ll be locked up and forced to reintegrate into the community”, we’re wielding authority to bypass the actual conflict with all of its messiness and nuance. Nothing actually get resolved other than the person not physically being there anymore. Resentment grows, and we end up with more violence and wielding of authority down the line.
They do understand what youre saying. You dont have an answer but instead of just writing “I don’t have an answer for that, you have given me something to think about” you try to write a whole bunch of nothing to save face.
So are we assuming the non-masker is trying to be somewhere they’ve been told they’re not welcome like, as a statement of rebellion? Do they not understand that they’re not welcome or what they need to change to be welcome? Are they trying to be provocative, or are they trying to gain access to the community for some specific purpose?
“Enforcing this exclusion” is really broad. It has the underlying assumption that the situation is already violent, that there is a thing to enforce against someone who is “disobeying” the thing. Which I’d argue comes from the fact that we’ve really only lived in police states in modern history. Again, humans are social creatures–we want community and we want to feel included. And we don’t consciously do things to each other for no reason. I urge you to think deeply about where the need for “enforcement” comes from, and what we mean by it.
Really not engaging with what I said at all.
If someone is refusing to wear a mask and you and your neighbourhood watch or vigilantes or whatever you want to call yourselves come together and decide this person is not allowed to make use of community spaces anymore but they decide not to listen (as they already are about the masking rules) what is the course of action.
Word salad entirely dancing around the point that you brought up exclusion as a response to someone violating health recommendations like masking during a pandemic but entirely refused to engage with the fact that exclusion (especially from spaces) requires there to be action taken should the exclusion be violated.
Yeah, sorry, my thoughts on the original question/scenario evolved as we were talking so this ended up being messy and unclear.
I want to retract my response about excluding the non-masker, not because I don’t think it’s possible to do that in a way that respects autonomy and doesn’t leverage power structures, but because the specific way that would be done would be fluid and dependent on factors we can’t really take into account in the abstract. My answer to your proposed scenario is, I don’t have enough information to make a judgment of the situation.
Another way of putting what I’m getting at: when someone/some group is given power over others, the normal social dynamics of how people cooperate and be in conflict with each other are disrupted, because the power-holders can just wield the authority to enforce their will regardless. In your scenario, a non-masker choosing to go against the community’s will is a conflict, and the action to be taken should be based around resolving that conflict under the conditions it’s taking place in. If we just say “they’ll be excluded from community spaces under threat of violence” or “they’ll be locked up and forced to reintegrate into the community”, we’re wielding authority to bypass the actual conflict with all of its messiness and nuance. Nothing actually get resolved other than the person not physically being there anymore. Resentment grows, and we end up with more violence and wielding of authority down the line.
My god you write a lot to cover the fact you’re not actually saying anything
You can just say you don’t understand what I’m saying. It’s okay.
They do understand what youre saying. You dont have an answer but instead of just writing “I don’t have an answer for that, you have given me something to think about” you try to write a whole bunch of nothing to save face.
Go back to Reddit you dork
Rule 2
Removed by mod