News Disney mask policy at Walt Disney World theme parks

[ImperfectPixie]

Maybe I'm in the minority, but is anyone else with me that the plexiglass is FAR more irritating than the masks? They make everything look completely run-down, like a CVS in the bad part of a major city.

I'm right there with you. I'm a stickler for things like that and the scratches, etc. make my need for everything to look nice and shiny go haywire. I understand their purpose, but I don't have to like them.

 

[correcaminos]

I also get a kick out of them. Makes no sense.

Don't judge, in the winter it kept me warmer. Like I want to take gloves off to remove. Pffft, nah keep me toasty and warm. Plus as a person who didn't own any hand sanitzer prior to the pandemic, I didn't always have it with me.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but is anyone else with me that the plexiglass is FAR more irritating than the masks? They make everything look completely run-down, like a CVS in the bad part of a major city.

I don't see it that much but I use self check out a lot.

 

[Tom P.]

I am not directing this at any specific person, I promise. Just tagging this onto the end of the thread after reading several pages. So please do not take this personally.

One thing I am tired of more than anything else during this pandemic is the pervasive attitude that people are too stupid to be told the truth or follow reasonable rules, so we have to either lie to them, make rules that go way farther than they really need to, or both. I'm sorry, but that is a totally cynical attitude that is antithetical to the basic idea behind the design of the United States as a country and as a government.

Our whole system is based on the concept that people are able to make reasonable, rational choices and should generally be given the freedom to do so. That's why we entrust the people with the awesome power to actually choose who their leaders are going to be. If you believe that people are just too stupid to understand information presented and make reasonable choices with that information, then we should basically fold up the country and move on to something different, because the American experiment has failed.

Now, I am not an anarchist. I understand we need government, we need leadership, and we need rules. And, yes, I even understand that during a public health emergency, there may need to be emergency measures that go beyond what is normal. But I expect that under such circumstances, our public health officials and leaders will present us with accurate information and ensure that restrictions go no farther than the best scientific evidence shows is absolutely necessary to achieve the goal.

Anything beyond that simply because "well, people are too stupid to understand" not only infringes on people's right to make their own choices but actually serves to undermine trust in our leaders and public health officials and makes it even harder the next time there is an emergency.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

I am not directing this at any specific person, I promise. Just tagging this onto the end of the thread after reading several pages. So please do not take this personally.

One thing I am tired of more than anything else during this pandemic is the pervasive attitude that people are too stupid to be told the truth or follow reasonable rules, so we have to either lie to them, make rules that go way farther than they really need to, or both. I'm sorry, but that is a totally cynical attitude that is antithetical to the basic idea behind the design of the United States as a country and as a government.

Our whole system is based on the concept that people are able to make reasonable, rational choices and should generally be given the freedom to do so. That's why we entrust the people with the awesome power to actually choose who their leaders are going to be. If you believe that people are just too stupid to understand information presented and make reasonable choices with that information, then we should basically fold up the country and move on to something different, because the American experiment has failed.

Now, I am not an anarchist. I understand we need government, we need leadership, and we need rules. And, yes, I even understand that during a public health emergency, there may need to be emergency measures that go beyond what is normal. But I expect that under such circumstances, our public health officials and leaders will present us with accurate information and ensure that restrictions go no farther than the best scientific evidence shows is absolutely necessary to achieve the goal.

Anything beyond that simply because "well, people are too stupid to understand" not only infringes on people's right to make their own choices but actually serves to undermine trust in our leaders and public health officials and makes it even harder the next time there is an emergency.

You have a very optimistic take, but evidence suggests that a decent percentage of people AREN'T smart enough to decide for themselves.

• It's a hoax
• They're going to inject us with a microchip
• the vaccines modify your DNA
• the deaths are way overblown
• it's all just an effort to control us
• masks are an infringement on my rights

I could keep going, but I would run the risk of getting political.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

You have a very optimistic take, but evidence suggests that a decent percentage of people AREN'T smart enough to decide for themselves.

• It's a hoax
• They're going to inject us with a microchip
• the vaccines modify your DNA
• the deaths are way overblown
• it's all just an effort to control us
• masks are an infringement on my rights

I could keep going, but I would run the risk of getting political.

I mean... Masks ARE an infringement of your rights. That's not in dispute. Government itself is an infringement on your rights, but we've collectively decided to give up certain rights as the cost of living in a society. That's the entire foundation of Western civilization.

The question is not whether it is an infringement on rights, the question is whether the infringement is legitimate.

 

[Tom P.]

You have a very optimistic take, but evidence suggests that a decent percentage of people AREN'T smart enough to decide for themselves.

• It's a hoax
• They're going to inject us with a microchip
• the vaccines modify your DNA
• the deaths are way overblown
• it's all just an effort to control us
• masks are an infringement on my rights

I could keep going, but I would run the risk of getting political.

So I presume then that you support taking away the right to vote? I mean, if someone is too stupid to understand that a vaccine isn't going to inject you with a microchip, how can we trust them to decide who gets to have our nuclear launch codes?

 

[ImperfectPixie]

So I presume then that you support taking away the right to vote? I mean, if someone is too stupid to understand that a vaccine isn't going to inject you with a microchip, how can we trust them to decide who gets to have our nuclear launch codes?

No, I don't. I want as many people voting as possible.

The way to fix the stupidity issue is to improve education. Until we're willing to actually do that, though, we're going to continue to have people elected who have no business holding public office.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

So I presume then that you support taking away the right to vote? I mean, if someone is too stupid to understand that a vaccine isn't going to inject you with a microchip, how can we trust them to decide who gets to have our nuclear launch codes?

Yes. Democracy is bad. Our founders knew this. All of them.

 

[Tom P.]

No, I don't. I want as many people voting as possible.

The way to fix the stupidity issue is to improve education. Until we're willing to actually do that, though, we're going to continue to have people elected who have no business holding public office.

So I'm legitimately curious why you are holding to one standard for public health measures surrounding Covid and a different standard for our elections. Again, I don't mean this in a political sense, I'm just trying to unpack the logic of your position on how we should treat people and the rules during a pandemic.

On the one hand, you have argued that people are not smart enough to make responsible choices about Covid and, therefore, we can't entrust them with nuanced information and targeted rules. On the other hand, you say that even though people are stupid, we still need to let them vote and decide who runs our government, even though that will result in people holding public office who have no business doing so.

So why is the standard for one thing "people are too stupid, we can't let them do this" and for another thing it's "yeah, people are really stupid, but we still should let them do this and we just have to live with the consequences"? Is that not inconsistent intellectually?

 

[Tom P.]

Yes. Democracy is bad. Our founders knew this. All of them.

Even though this whole issue touches on government and public leadership, I'm trying to be respectful of the "no politics" rule. Hopefully, a simple structural discussion regarding our government will not be considered political, but if the mods feel that this should be removed, I am happy to comply.

That said, I agree with you that our founders thought democracy was bad. And so do I. Simple "majority rule" is a disaster. That's why our system was built as a representative republic with checks, balances, and limits on the power of the majority. That doesn't mean I don't think people should vote. I was merely using that as an illustration of differing standards between how we view elections vs. how we view Covid policy.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

So I'm legitimately curious why you are holding to one standard for public health measures surrounding Covid and a different standard for our elections. Again, I don't mean this in a political sense, I'm just trying to unpack the logic of your position on how we should treat people and the rules during a pandemic.

On the one hand, you have argued that people are not smart enough to make responsible choices about Covid and, therefore, we can't entrust them with nuanced information and targeted rules. On the other hand, you say that even though people are stupid, we still need to let them vote and decide who runs our government, even though that will result in people holding public office who have no business doing so.

So why is the standard for one thing "people are too stupid, we can't let them do this" and for another thing it's "yeah, people are really stupid, but we still should let them do this and we just have to live with the consequences"? Is that not inconsistent intellectually?

It is. And I struggle with it.

The thing is, our government has checks and balances. Unfair laws may get passed, but then they go to court and are struck down.

There are no checks and balances for people making decisions that prolong a world-wide pandemic and place others at risk for infection with long-term consequences and death as possible outcomes.

 

[Chi84]

So I presume then that you support taking away the right to vote? I mean, if someone is too stupid to understand that a vaccine isn't going to inject you with a microchip, how can we trust them to decide who gets to have our nuclear launch codes?

I think the fallacy is in presenting the most outlandish beliefs and then attributing them to the majority of people. There are a number of gullible or unintelligent people out there, but there are enough people of reasonable intelligence and understanding to keep our system of government afloat.

 

[GaBoy]

I think the fallacy is in presenting the most outlandish beliefs and then attributing them to the majority of people. There are a number of gullible or unintelligent people out there, but there are enough people of reasonable intelligence and understanding to keep our system of government afloat.

In context, the label “stupid” thrown around so easily here is often used as a lazy, inarticulate way to describe people who think differently from the poster and not necessarily to describe people of less than average intelligence. That’s why we can trust these “stupid” people with some decisions and not others.

Good point. Honestly I am part of a fully vaccinated (former southern Democrat and now largely conservative Republican) large family. I just found out we were all vaccinated yesterday as it was offered by my Mom who keeps track of everybody's business. So with what I see out there on BOTH sides of the spectrum of so called leadership or constituency, no one side corners the market on stupid.

 

[HarperRose]

I am not directing this at any specific person, I promise. Just tagging this onto the end of the thread after reading several pages. So please do not take this personally.

One thing I am tired of more than anything else during this pandemic is the pervasive attitude that people are too stupid to be told the truth or follow reasonable rules, so we have to either lie to them, make rules that go way farther than they really need to, or both. I'm sorry, but that is a totally cynical attitude that is antithetical to the basic idea behind the design of the United States as a country and as a government.

Our whole system is based on the concept that people are able to make reasonable, rational choices and should generally be given the freedom to do so. That's why we entrust the people with the awesome power to actually choose who their leaders are going to be. If you believe that people are just too stupid to understand information presented and make reasonable choices with that information, then we should basically fold up the country and move on to something different, because the American experiment has failed.

Now, I am not an anarchist. I understand we need government, we need leadership, and we need rules. And, yes, I even understand that during a public health emergency, there may need to be emergency measures that go beyond what is normal. But I expect that under such circumstances, our public health officials and leaders will present us with accurate information and ensure that restrictions go no farther than the best scientific evidence shows is absolutely necessary to achieve the goal.

Anything beyond that simply because "well, people are too stupid to understand" not only infringes on people's right to make their own choices but actually serves to undermine trust in our leaders and public health officials and makes it even harder the next time there is an emergency.

The last 14 months have shown some people are too stupid to follow reasonable rules.

if they weren't, covid would be a distant memory.

 

[HarperRose]

I think the fallacy is in presenting the most outlandish beliefs and then attributing them to the majority of people. There are a number of gullible or unintelligent people out there, but there are enough people of reasonable intelligence and understanding to keep our system of government afloat.

In context, the label “stupid” thrown around so easily here is often used as a lazy, inarticulate way to describe people who think differently from the poster and not necessarily to describe people of less than average intelligence. That’s why we can trust these “stupid” people with some decisions and not others.

When I describe someone as stupid, it is never lazy or inarticulate on my part. It is a deliberate choice to use that particular descriptor.

 

[GaBoy]

The last 14 months have shown some people are too stupid to follow reasonable rules.

if they weren't, covid would be a distant memory.

Yes. Lots of stupidity out there. Can't disagree. However I dont think anyone believes we could have isolated, masked or distanced ourselves out of this so I assume you mean the stupidity of not getting a vaccination. I have only heard that herd immunity was the goal to end this. With that being said a great majority would have to either be vaccinated or get their antibodies the hard way. Now that we have vaccines readily available I cannot disagree that the more logical choice seems to be the vaccine route as the other way could go south fast and we never know if we may be one of the unlucky ones.

 

[Chi84]

When I describe someone as stupid, it is never lazy or inarticulate on my part. It is a deliberate choice to use that particular descriptor.

That's certainly your choice. You're free to disagree, but my opinion is that calling someone stupid rarely leads to constructive dialogue. It upsets people, makes them feel disrespected, and leads to arguments. Obviously, COVID has everyone on edge and saying things out of pure frustration.

 

[GaBoy]

Obviously, COVID has everyone on edge and saying things out of pure frustration.

Boy that nails it! Was just thinking... when this is over, how nice it will be to argue about the place we love the most and not something that we actually have very little influence on but an incredible level of concern about. Very frustrating.

 

[Parker in NYC]

Boy that nails it! Was just thinking... when this is over, how nice it will be to argue about the place we love the most and not something that we actually have very little influence on but an incredible level of concern about. Very frustrating.

Exactly! Bring on the tattooed CMs and Splash Mountain! That’ll bring us together.

 

[Chomama]

Most in GA aren't, but there are a few. My personal favorites are the ones who wear it while driving their car...no one else is in the car.

Totally guilt. But only bc I forget it is on after a year o wearing the freaking thing nonstop. My kids get in after school and chat away until I tell - you can take the masks off freaks! They are seriously so used to it that they forget