Tag: authoritarianism

bookmark_borderRights are not the same as “convenience”

Posted on by Marissa

Inconvenience. This word is used to describe many things, including:

  • Requiring people to remove their shoes and even clothes while going through airport security, or to pass through full-body scanners that reveal their nude bodies.
  • Requiring people to undergo covid testing or receive covid vaccines.
  • Telling people that they must stay home and banning them from existing in public places such as beaches and parks.
  • Requiring people to provide medical and/or psychological records in order to be allowed to own a gun.

Contrary to the opinions of authoritarian-leaning people, the above things are not inconveniences. They are violations of rights.

People have a right to privacy. People have a right to bodily autonomy. People have a right to move about freely. People have a right to bear arms.

Privacy, bodily autonomy, freedom of movement, and gun ownership are not “conveniences.” They are basic rights.

An inconvenience is having to wait in a long line at the post office, or having to pay for something in cash, or encountering more traffic than usual, or finding out that your train is running late, or experiencing weather that is different than you thought it would be so that the clothing you chose ends up being too warm or too cold.

Taking basic rights away from people is not an inconvenience. It is immoral, it is unacceptable, and it should never happen. It is the epitome of moral wrong.

To refer to violations of rights as “inconveniences” is to warp language so that aggressors avoid accountability for their actions, while the burden of scrutiny and criticism is unfairly placed on their victims. Rights are pooh-poohed as something silly and stupid, their loss dismissed as “no big deal” and something we should just get used to. This enables aggressors to be perceived as holding the moral high ground, while those who correctly object to their rights being violated are portrayed as the problem. We are described as entitled, spoiled, immature, petty, selfish, unreasonable, and lacking in grit and resilience, and criticized for valuing our “convenience” over other people’s safety, security, and health. 

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

And nothing could be more despicable than to frame debates in such a way.

Rights are not a luxury. Rights are not a mere convenience, like an Uber ride or a contactless credit card or a smoothly-running subway system or a mobile app that allows you to avoid waiting in line. Having one’s rights respected is a necessity, without which life is not worth living at all.

Whether people’s rights are respected or violated is a matter of moral right and wrong, not a matter of convenience or inconvenience.

bookmark_borderMaren Morris is a scumbag human (continued)

Posted on by Marissa

The mean, nasty, and bullying behavior of country singer Maren Morris continues to reach new lows. As I wrote about earlier, Morris decided to call Brittany Aldean, country singer Jason Aldean’s wife, a “scumbag human” and told her to “sell your clip-ins and zip it, Insurrection Barbie” in response to Brittany’s opinion that parents shouldn’t allow their kids to have sex change surgeries.

Morris’s husband, Ryan Hurd, joined in the nasty and bullying behavior by tweeting: “Scoring quick points by picking on trans kids isn’t something that is brave at all. And I’m proud of Maren for sticking up for them. Badge of honor to have CO engage in completely normal discourse, too. Shut up and sing only applies to those who you disagree with.”

These comments are wrong for several reasons. First of all, Brittany’s comments actually were brave, because they went against the prevailing attitudes of our society. Additionally, Brittany was neither “scoring quick points” nor “picking on” anyone, and Maren was not “sticking up for” anyone. In fact, by using the term “insurrection” as an insult, Maren was picking on not only Brittany, but every person in the world who believes in thinking for oneself and standing up to authority. And finally, “shut up and sing”? Really? I’m not sure what Hurd is talking about here, because the only person telling others to shut up is his wife. It is Maren who literally wrote “sell your clip-ins and zip it” in response to a person voicing an opinion that she disagreed with. Telling someone to “zip it” is synonymous with telling someone to “shut up.” Therefore, if Hurd has a problem with people telling others to shut up, his wife is the person that he should be criticizing, because she is the person who is doing this.

Making this situation even more ridiculous is the fact that Morris recently complained that she does not feel comfortable attending the CMA Awards because Brittany and Jason Aldean are going to be there. This is bizarre and makes no sense whatsoever. Maren is the one who created the situation that she is complaining makes her uncomfortable. She chose to viciously criticize both Brittany and every person in the world who believes in thinking for oneself and standing up to authority. No one forced her to write the disgusting things that she wrote; she went out of her way to write them. And now she, the one who created the entire situation, is complaining that she is uncomfortable. In other words, a bully is complaining about having to be at the same event as her victims.

Maren Morris needs to look in the mirror and think about her role in this situation. She is the aggressor, she is the one who did something wrong, and she is the one who went out of her way to insult and harm other people. By using the concept of resistance to authority as an insult, Maren Morris has acted reprehensibly. She does not hold the moral high ground. In fact, Morris shouldn’t be allowed to attend the CMA Awards at all, given that she decided to attack and bully other members of the country music community. Morgan Wallen was suspended by his record label, ruled ineligible for major awards, and had all major radio stations stop playing his music, all for far less objectionable behavior than Morris’s. Morris deserves to be treated the way that Wallen was, because she has truly acted in a bigoted and intolerant manner.

bookmark_borderMaren Morris is a scumbag human

Posted on by Marissa

Recently, country singer Maren Morris decided to viciously insult Brittany Aldean, the wife of country singer Jason Aldean. Brittany Aldean had made comments on social media criticizing the idea of performing sex change surgeries on children, and in response, Morris wrote the following:

“It’s so easy to, like, not be a scumbag human? Sell your clip-ins and zip it, Insurrection Barbie.”

These comments are truly appalling, and the moral bankruptcy that Morris has demonstrated is breathtaking. It is, indeed, easy to not be a scumbag human. In order to do so, one needs merely to refrain from insulting innocent people who have done nothing wrong. Yet it is Morris, not Aldean, who has utterly failed to accomplish this. For some reason, Morris, completely without provocation, decided to viciously insult not only Brittany Aldean, but every person in the world who thinks independently and holds beliefs that differ from the establishment view.

According to Dictionary.com, the word “insurrection” is defined as “an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government.” As you can see from this definition, there is nothing inherently bad about an insurrection. Insurrection means to revolt, rebel, or resist. It means being opposed to authority and the establishment. There is nothing inherently bad about revolting against, rebelling against, or resisting authority or the establishment. In fact, when the established government violates people’s fundamental rights and takes away everything that makes live worth living, as the current administration is doing, then insurrection is very much a good thing, which should be praised and encouraged. Yet Morris chose to use the very idea of resistance to authority as an insult. Apparently, to her, obedience and conformity are synonymous with goodness, while rebellion and nonconformity are synonymous with badness. By using the term “Insurrection Barbie” as an insult, Morris demonstrates not only egregious cruelty and nastiness, but also mindless conformity and authoritarianism. 

Morris’s demand that Aldean “sell your clip-ins and zip it” is similarly appalling. With these words, Morris expresses complete and utter contempt for anyone who thinks differently than her. She orders all people with non-establishment views to just shut up, as if our feelings, thoughts, and perspectives don’t matter. As if it is an obvious fact that her own views are the only ones allowed to be expressed, and that any dissenting opinions must automatically be dismissed as illegitimate. It is impossible to overstate the sheer bigotry and intolerance demonstrated by these comments.

As if the above comments somehow weren’t bad enough, Morris continued to badmouth Aldean in a back and forth exchange with fellow country singer Cassadee Pope on Instagram:

“You know, I’m glad she didn’t become a boy either because we really don’t need another a–hole dude in the world. Sucks when Karens try to hide their homophobia/transphobia behind their ‘protectiveness of the children.’ Weren’t they putting their kids in ‘Biden-is-a-pedo’ shirts on social media? Sounds like a real safe way to protect them from millions of eyes! F— all the way off to Insurrection Barbie and the fellow IB’s trolling this comment section with their hypocritical, hateful a–es.”

So not only has Morris demonstrated an appalling level of nastiness, authoritarianism, and intolerance, but now she has decided to add sexism to the mix as well. It is Morris, not Aldean or any of the “fellow IB’s,” who is truly hypocritical and hateful. It is Morris’s actions that truly suck. And it is Morris who truly needs to f*** all the way off.

In conclusion, Maren Morris has proven herself to be a bully and a bigot with no sense of kindness, tolerance, or decency and no ability to engage in critical thinking. To use some of her own words, she is a scumbag human who needs to zip it and actually respect people who are different than her instead of viciously attacking them. It is beyond classless and beyond unprofessional for a public figure to ridicule, insult, and then gossip back and forth about another public figure, as Morris has done. You simply cannot call someone an “Insurrection Barbie.” It is unacceptable. Not only is this behavior incredibly mean and nasty towards Brittany Aldean, it is also incredibly mean and nasty towards all people who identify as rebels and all people who believe in resisting authority or standing up to the establishment. Morris is a talented singer and songwriter, but unfortunately an absolutely terrible person. I have really enjoyed her music over the years, but I will never be able to listen to it again without thinking of these disgusting comments.

It’s also worth mentioning that the biased media coverage of this situation is almost as despicable as Morris’s comments themselves.

For example, an article from Billboard characterized Aldean’s words as a “transphobic joke” and “transphobic comments.” The article also included a detailed explanation, including quotes by experts, of transgenderism and how it presents for children. Plus, the publication even went so far as to ask Mattel for their comments on the font that Aldean used in an Instagram post, which resembles the font that is used in the logo for Barbie dolls. The article places all this scrutiny on Aldean’s comments and the subject matter thereof, while placing no scrutiny whatsoever on Morris’s comments, other than merely quoting them. The article calls Aldean’s comments “transphobic” as if this is an established fact, without mentioning even the possibility that anything about Morris’s comments might be considered offensive of problematic in any way.

Additionally, an article from The Hill mentions that Fox News host Tucker Carlson “insulted” Morris by calling her a “lunatic country music person.” Similarly to the article described above, this article characterizes Carlson’s comments as an “insult” as if this is an established fact, without even mentioning the possibility that Morris’s comments might be insulting. And in a sad commentary on our society, the article also mentions that Morris decided to create and sell t-shirts with Carlson’s quote in order to raise money for transgender organizations. News flash: “Insurrection Barbie” is a far worse insult than “lunatic.” In fact, Carlson’s words were relatively kind. Morris is far worse than a lunatic; she is a bigot and a bully.

The bottom line is that regardless of what one thinks about transgender rights or the appropriateness of children being able to make their own gender decisions, Morris’s comments are far more offensive, problematic, insulting, harmful, and just plain mean than either Aldean’s or Carlson’s. It is beyond disturbing that the media, along with much of society as a whole, fails to see this obvious truth. For having the audacity to state her opinion that children should not be able to change their gender, Aldean has been insulted, condemned, and mercilessly scrutinized. Plus, her husband Jason Aldean has been dropped by his PR agency. Meanwhile, Morris, who flippantly attacked the very idea of resistance to authority by using the word “insurrection” as an insult, faces no negative consequences whatsoever. She gets to spew vicious and bigoted insults and then continue on her merry way, gloating about how much money she raised and basking in her mindless and hypocritical self-righteousness. This situation, in which people who did nothing wrong are shamed and punished while cruel bullies are rewarded and praised, is emblematic of our society’s warped sense of values.

bookmark_borderSkepticism of institutions is not the problem; the institutions are the problem

Posted on by Marissa

When I first saw this tweet, my immediate reaction was, “You consider this to be a bad thing… why?”

There is nothing inherently bad about wanting to abolish government agencies or wanting to impeach and/or imprison government officials. Whether wanting such things is good or bad depends entirely on whether the agencies or officials have done anything wrong to deserve abolition, impeachment, and/or imprisonment. Yet the author of this tweet is ridiculing Republicans for their wishes with regards to government agencies and officials. And while doing this, he is not even bothering to argue that these government agencies and officials are good, and therefore not deserving of abolition, impeachment, and/or imprisonment. He is simply presuming that wanting to abolish, impeach, and/or imprison government agencies and officials is intrinsically bad. This viewpoint is disturbingly authoritarian. According to Filipkowski, trusting and respecting the government is inherently good, and disliking or criticizing the government is inherently bad. According to Filipkowski, the government is apparently worthy of trust and respect merely by virtue of being the government.

If the FBI, CIA, IRS, and Department of Education are acting wrongly, then they deserve to be abolished. If the President, Vice President, DHS Secretary, and Attorney General are acting wrongly, then they deserve to be impeached. And if the NIH Director is acting wrongly, then he deserves to be put in prison. In my opinion, all of these agencies and officials are, indeed, acting wrongly, and therefore Republicans are correct in wanting their abolishment, impeachment, and imprisonment. Instead of criticizing Republicans in this situation, one must ask what, if anything, government agencies and officials have done to cause people to hold such negative attitudes towards them. One must at least consider the possibility that the government agencies and officials in question are actually to blame for people’s negative evaluations of them, and therefore that the negative evaluations are correct. In my opinion, this is exactly what is the case in this situation.

Below is another example of the illogical and authoritarian attitude that societal institutions are inherently good and inherently worthy of trust and respect:

As you can see, Alex Young has taken it upon himself to ridicule the completely valid and reasonable criticisms that the Firearms Policy Coalition makes of the institutions of the ballot box, jury box, and soapbox. He demonstrates the same type of disturbing authoritarianism as Filipkowski does. By ridiculing the FPC for expressing disillusionment with societal institutions, Young is presuming that societal institutions automatically ought to be treated with reverence, merely by virtue of being institutions. To Young, if someone voices criticism of societal institutions, that reflects badly on said person, and makes them deserving of dismissal and ridicule. Like Filipkowski, he fails to even consider the possibility that it is actually the institutions that are flawed, and that the person making the criticisms is therefore correct in doing so.

In this case, the FPC is indeed correct in pointing out that the ballot box, jury box, and soapbox do not serve as effective “boxes of liberty.” What Young states so flippantly and dismissively is actually true. Indeed, it is a bummer that people’s fundamental rights are subject to majority rule, that the jury box is illusory, and that large corporations have the power to decide what speech is acceptable. These things are actual problems that need to be taken seriously, and it is both despicable and bizarre that someone would react to a problematic situation not by criticizing it, but by criticizing (particularly in such a flippant and dismissive tone) the organization that is pointing out the problem. Young needs to acknowledge that what is going on in our society actually is a bummer, to put it lightly. Instead of flippantly dismissing the FPC’s observations and ridiculing the organization for making them, Young should be praising the FPC for drawing attention to real and important problems with our government and society.

bookmark_borderBigot of the day: “Anti-Free Stater”

Posted on by Marissa

A little while ago, I came across this disgusting and reprehensible tweet:

The Free State Project is a movement that encourages people to move to New Hampshire to form a community based on respect for individual rights and liberty. The Free State Project is a good thing, because individual rights and liberty are good. 

Criticizing the Free State Project would be bad and wrong in itself. Yet this person (and I use that term loosely) not only chose to dedicate his entire Twitter account to opposing the Free State movement, but also chose to insult this movement in cruel and profane terms and to wish death upon its members because they hold different political beliefs than he does. For obvious reasons, this is unacceptable and horrifying.

Additionally, it makes no sense that this person criticizes the Free State Project for being reactionary. According to Dictionary.com, “reactionary” means “of, pertaining to, marked by, or favoring reaction, especially extreme conservatism or rightism in politics; opposing political or social change.” To be reactionary is a neutral, not negative, attribute. There is nothing about liberalism that makes it superior to conservatism, there is nothing about leftism that makes it superior to rightism, and there is nothing about supporting political or social change that makes this superior to opposing political or social change (change is inherently neither positive nor negative; whether it is good or bad depends on what is being changed and how).

What makes even less sense is this person’s claim that “libertarianism is a Trojan horse for fascism.” Libertarianism is a political ideology that favors individual rights and liberty, while fascism is a political ideology that favors the maximum amount of state control. These two political ideologies are polar opposites, so it is ludicrous to claim that one could be a Trojan horse for the other.

Furthermore, by claiming that “every non-troglodyte hates you,” this person is calling every person who does not hate the Free State Project a troglodyte. This is both false and highly insulting.

Finally, this person calls members of the Free State movement “trashy rich people,” which is highly insulting, and writes that members of the movement “come here to defund the public sector,” as if that is somehow inherently a bad thing, which it is not.

In conclusion, the fact that someone would choose to write a post such as this is appalling. Words and attitudes like these are unacceptable and must be condemned at every opportunity.

bookmark_borderTo the person who hacked GiveSendGo

Posted on by Marissa

Recently, a despicable excuse for a human being (or group of despicable excuses for human beings) decided to attack and forcibly shut down the fundraising website GiveSendGo due to the fact that GiveSendGo is used to raise money for pro-individual-rights causes. If this sounds completely despicable, that’s because it is.

The normal GiveSendGo home page was temporarily replaced with a video that stated the following:

“Attention GiveSendGo grifters and hatriots: The Canadian government has informed you that the money you assholes raised to fund an insurrection is frozen. TD Bank has frozen several accounts. You helped fund the January 6th insurrection in the US. You helped fund an insurrection in Ottawa. In fact, you are committed to funding anything that keeps the raging fire of misinformation going until that it (sic) burns the world’s collective democracies down. On behalf of sane people worldwide who wish to continue living in a democracy, I am now telling you that GiveSendGo itself is frozen. A convoy of trucks to protest vaccine requirements?”

At this point, I was unable to stomach reading any more of this morally grotesque message, so I stopped. 

The fact that this incident was allowed to occur exemplifies the appalling state of our world, in which individual liberty is attacked and ridiculed, while compliance and conformity are worshipped and fetishized. Bigotry is called inclusion, uniformity is called diversity, freedom is called authoritarianism, racism is called anti-racism, and fascism is called anti-fascism. 

There are so many things wrong with this despicable message, not to mention the hacker’s despicable actions, that it is difficult to know where to begin.

First of all, people protesting against vaccine mandates are neither grifters, nor “hatriots,” nor assholes. 

Second, the hacker’s sentiments about “insurrection” demonstrate utter mindlessness and moral bankruptcy. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, there is nothing intrinsically bad about an insurrection. An insurrection is a rebellion against authority. When authority is acting unjustly, which it currently is in almost every country in the world, an insurrection is a good thing, not a bad thing. An insurrection is brave, heroic, and honorable. Both the January 6th protesters and the Freedom Convoy truckers should be lauded and supported, not insulted and ridiculed, for they are fighting back against unjust authority. It may well be true that users of GiveSendGo have helped to fund insurrections. But the fact that someone would presume this to be a bad thing says more about that person than it does about the causes to which GiveSendGo users donate. Specifically, it says that the person is an authoritarian. It says that the person values compliance with authority, as opposed to individuality, justice, or thinking for oneself. Any person who uses the word “insurrection” as an insult is presuming that rebelling against authority is intrinsically bad, which means that said person is devoid of an independent mind, devoid of a moral compass, and devoid of a soul. 

In addition to this, I am incredibly disturbed by the sentiments about “sane people” who “wish to continue living in a democracy.” Why is living in a democracy considered to be a good thing, anyway? A democracy is simply a society in which people elect their leaders. Just as there is nothing intrinsically bad about an insurrection, there is nothing about this method of choosing leaders that makes it inherently superior to others. Going along with the all-too-common mindset that compliance is good and rebellion bad, the despicable excuse for a human being who hacked GiveSendGo clearly holds the (also all-too-common) mindset that democracy is what matters and not individual rights. This “person” ridicules the idea of a convoy of trucks protesting against vaccine requirements, something that every person should not only not ridicule, but actively support. This “person” considers living in a democracy – a neutral state – to be of paramount importance while dismissing the right to make medical decisions about one’s own body – a fundamental requirement for having a life that is worth living – as frivolous and unimportant. Wishing to live in a democracy where people are forced to undergo medical procedures against their will is not sane; it is morally repugnant. If the world’s collective democracies implement policies that require people to get a medical procedure as a condition of being allowed to participate in public life, then they deserve to burn down. Yet unfortunately, abhorrent views like those of the hacker(s) have become the majority, establishment, mainstream views of our society, and those who hold them control the narrative, the framing of the debate, and all of our major institutions. 

In conclusion, not only are the actions of the hacker(s) morally wrong because they demonstrate intolerance for the viewpoints of others; they are morally wrong on an even deeper level, because the viewpoint being held in such contempt is in reality the only morally acceptable viewpoint on the issue in question. The viewpoint being held in such contempt is the viewpoint that people should not be forced to undergo medical procedures against their will. That is a viewpoint with which everyone should be in unanimous agreement. Causes such as the Freedom Convoy should not even be considered controversial, let alone considered so unacceptable that hackers take it upon themselves to forcibly shut down any fundraising platforms that fail to discriminate against such causes. The actions of the hacker(s) are so morally reprehensible that they shock the conscience. I do not exaggerate when I say that these actions leave me sick to my stomach, shaking, struggling to breathe, and searching with mixed success for words strong enough to accurately convey my horror, rage, and disgust. It is difficult to wrap my mind around the fact that a human being (or worse, multiple human beings) would actually choose to act this way. 

The best I can do is to say that the person (or people) who decided to forcibly shut down a website for allowing money to be raised for causes with which said person disagrees is the true asshole. That person is the true grifter. That person is the one who is truly filled with hate. That person is the epitome of bigotry, intolerance, brutality, cruelty, nastiness, authoritarianism, and mindless conformity. That person is utter scum and deserves to be sentenced to death and to burn in hell for the rest of time. 

bookmark_borderIncreased vaccination rates are nothing to celebrate

Posted on by Marissa

Recently I saw a video of a press conference during which, about a week after Boston implemented a vaccine mandate for restaurants, gyms, theaters, museums, and sporting events, city officials praised the resulting increase in the city’s vaccination rate. The mayor and public health officials used words such as “hopeful” and “encouraging” to describe this state of affairs.

“I would say there is quite a bit of reason to be ‘hopeful.’ For several weeks in December and into early January, our vaccination rates didn’t increase. More recently we have seen a significant increase in vaccination uptake. From the first or second week, we noticed a 36% increase…”

(source: Massachusetts Says No)

In my opinion, there is nothing to celebrate in this situation. Essentially, city leaders introduced a policy forcing people to do something, and then shortly after the policy went into effect, they brag about the fact that the policy succeeded in forcing people to do the thing. 

Forcing people to do something – or coercing people, or bullying people, or pressuring people – is not good. It is not something that anyone should be bragging about. It is not something that anyone should be celebrating. It is not hopeful. It is not encouraging.

Since May 2021, the Covid vaccine has been easily available to anyone who wishes to get it. It is highly likely that the people who received the vaccine in mid January did so not because they wanted to, but because of the mandate that went into effect on January 15.

Each and every instance of someone getting a medical procedure that they don’t really want is a tragedy. The fact that so many people seem to have gotten the Covid vaccine as a result of the city’s mandate makes my heart sick. The thought of people feeling reluctant to get the vaccine, but feeling that they have no choice but to get it, is depressing and demoralizing. No one should ever have to face a situation in which they have to get a medical procedure in order to keep their job, participate in an activity, or go about their everyday life. 

The fact that Mayor Wu and her administration consider this situation to be “hopeful” and “encouraging” is sickening, perverted, and grotesque.

bookmark_borderOpposing vaccine mandates is not “anti-vax”

Posted on by Marissa

It shouldn’t even need to be stated that being against forcing people to do something is not the same as being against the thing itself. Specifically, opposing forcing people to get vaccines against their will is not the same thing as opposing vaccines themselves. This is a basic and obvious concept that anyone with an IQ over 80 should be able to easily understand. However, far too many members of the media are, infuriatingly, incapable of grasping this basic concept.

For example, when actress Evangeline Lilly revealed that she attended last weekend’s anti-vaccine mandate rally in Washington, D.C., much of the media coverage was neutral, appropriate, and professional.

However, as can be seen above, the Daily Beast decided to characterize the rally as an “anti-vax protest.” This is factually incorrect and unacceptable, because being anti-vaccine mandates is not the same as being anti-vax.

Rolling Stone did an even worse job, describing the rally as not only “anti-vax” but “insane,” and adopting a shocked and outraged tone at the fact that Lilly would “brag” about having attended the event. This is beyond unacceptable. Not only is it factually incorrect to describe the rally as anti-vax, but it is morally abhorrent that someone would consider it insane to oppose forcing people to undergo medical procedures against their will. In reality, it is insane not to oppose such a thing. As for Lilly “bragging” about attending the rally, she is 100% correct in doing so, as attending a rally for medical freedom is courageous, honorable, and exactly the type of thing a person is justified in bragging about. There is no reason for Rolling Stone to find this strange or bad in any way. Rolling Stone’s actions become even more abhorrent when one considers the fact that neither news articles nor their headlines are appropriate places in which to express opinions at all.

Another example of a factually incorrect and unprofessional headline is that of The Independent, in which the Washington, D.C. rally is again described as “anti-vaxx.” The Independent’s coverage is also an example of a disturbing trend, in which the media focuses its scrutiny and negative attention on those speaking out against authoritarian policies, as opposed to the authoritarian policies themselves. It is appalling that members of the media would consider Robert J. Kennedy Jr.’s comments at an anti-mandate rally to be more worthy of “outrage” than the fact that mandates exist in the first place. The targets of outrage, scrutiny, and criticism should be policies forcing people to undergo medical procedures against their will, not the brave people speaking out against such policies.

In conclusion, any headline that uses the term “anti-vax” (or worse, “anti-vaxx” with two X’s) to describe opposition to vaccine mandates is factually incorrect, unprofessional, and inappropriate. Anyone who chooses to publish such a headline is choosing to take the side of authoritarianism and to defame heroes who are bravely fighting for freedom. Therefore, anyone responsible for such a headline deserves, at the very least, to be fired immediately.

bookmark_borderThe stupidest comment ever made?

Posted on by Marissa

A few months ago, NHL player Mike Fisher made an awesome Instagram post expressing his support for medical freedom and non-discrimination.

Unfortunately, someone named “nada_alghz” recently decided to make what is quite possibly the stupidest comment I have ever seen in my life.

First, she called the Freedom Convoy, an inspiring and beautiful protest against medical mandates in Canada, a “scam,” which is false and unsupported by any evidence that I am aware of.

Second, she claims that supporting an inspiring and beautiful protest against medical mandates is the same thing as supporting discrimination and racism, which is not only false but preposterous. Opposing medical mandates has nothing to do with race. Additionally, because medical mandates are discriminatory, opposing medical mandates is the opposite of supporting discrimination.

So to sum up, in response to an excellent and thoughtful post by Fisher, Nada decided to leave a mean-spirited, logically unsound, vicious, and nasty comment. It is unacceptable that we live in a world where mindless and authoritarian people like this are allowed a platform on which to express their views, while people who have done nothing wrong, such as Donald Trump, Robert Malone, and Marjorie Taylor Greene, are not. Constantly seeing comments like this is mentally exhausting and needs to stop yesterday.

bookmark_borderThe slippery slope of vaccine requirements

Posted on by Marissa

Numerous times, I’ve heard people make various versions of the following argument:

Requiring Y in order to do X is not the same thing as forcing people to do Y, because people can simply not do X.

Or, put slightly differently:

Requiring Y in order to do X is not the same thing as forcing people to do Y, because people consent to Y when they choose X.

For example…

  • Requiring the Covid vaccine in order to attend a concert does not force anyone to get the vaccine, because you can simply not go to the concert.
  • Requiring the vaccine in order to attend a Bruins or Celtics game does not force anyone to get the vaccine, because you can simply not go to any games.
  • Requiring the vaccine in order to eat inside a restaurant does not force anyone to get the vaccine, because you can simply not go to restaurants, or sit outside on the patio, or get takeout instead.
  • Requiring the vaccine in order to go to a gym does not force anyone to get the vaccine, because you can go for a run or work out at home instead.
  • Requiring the vaccine in order to go into a grocery store does not force anyone to get the vaccine, because you can order groceries using Instacart, Amazon, or Peapod.
  • For a country to require the vaccine for all incoming travelers does not force anyone to get the vaccine, because you can simply not travel to that country.
  • Requiring the vaccine in order to board an airplane does not force anyone to get the vaccine, because you can simply not travel.
  • For the federal government to require the vaccine in order to work in the medical field does not force anyone to get the vaccine, because you can work in a different field.
  • For an employer to require the vaccine does not force anyone to get the vaccine, because no one is forced to work for that particular company.
  • For a college to require the vaccine does not force anyone to get the vaccine, because no one is forced to attend that particular college.
  • For OSHA to require the vaccine in order to work at a company with 100 or more employees does not force anyone to get the vaccine, because you can choose to work at a smaller company.
  • For a local government to require the vaccine in order to work at any company does not force anyone to get the vaccine, because you can simply move to a different city, or choose not to work.
  • Requiring the vaccine in order to receive Social Security benefits, or welfare benefits, does not force anyone to get the vaccine, because you can simply forego those benefits.
  • For a doctor to require the vaccine of their patients does not force anyone to get the vaccine, because you can just switch to a different doctor.
  • For health insurance companies to charge extra to non-vaccinated people does not force anyone to get the vaccine, because you can just pay the extra money.
  • Ordering a lockdown for non-vaccinated people does not force anyone to get the vaccine, because you can simply stay locked down inside your home.
  • For the government to require the vaccine for everyone and impose fines on those who do not comply does not force anyone to get the vaccine, because you can simply pay the fine.

As these examples show, depending on what the “X” is, the difficulty of avoiding doing it, and therefore avoiding a situation in which one is required to do “Y,” varies greatly.

If one particular concert requires proof of vaccination, then it’s not too burdensome to forego the concert. If one particular restaurant or bar requires proof of vaccination, then it’s not too burdensome to choose a different restaurant or bar instead. But what if your favorite professional sports team decides to require proof of vaccination to attend games? You could, of course, stop attending games, but if you love the team, are used to attending games frequently, and really look forward to the games, this would be a big sacrifice. But still, no one needs to attend professional sporting events. It’s not an essential service.

But then what happens if your local government passes a vaccine mandate for indoor recreational spaces such as restaurants, bars, gyms, theaters, and museums? None of these things are necessary to live. You can make all your meals at home, and exercise at home as well. Perhaps in order to exercise at home you will need to invest in weights and maybe an exercise bike, because you don’t own any exercise equipment. What if you can’t afford this? One might argue that you could run outside, but what if it’s winter and it’s too cold to comfortably do so? One might argue that you could just forego exercising, and accept becoming out of shape and unhealthy, but what if fitness is very important to you? Not to mention the fact that with restaurants, bars, theaters, and museums off-limits, your recreational activities will be very limited, which will take a toll on your quality of life. Your relationships will likely be harmed as well, because you will need to either make up an excuse or explain your vaccination decision to your friends if you are invited to a get-together at any of these venues.

Then what happens if, hypothetically, vaccination becomes required in order to enter grocery stores? You could have groceries delivered to your home, but this is more expensive. What if you are very low-income and cannot afford this added cost?

On a different note, what happens if your state government requires vaccination for all large events, including weddings and family reunions? What if you are invited to the wedding of a close friend or relative? How would you feel about having to miss such a once in a lifetime event? How would you explain your absence to your friends and family, and how would they react?

Now, let’s talk professional life. What if you are a high school student applying to colleges, and all of the colleges that are conveniently located and offer your desired major require the vaccine? Should you move across the country for school? Should you choose a small, obscure college that doesn’t offer the program that you want? Or should you forego college entirely, even if you worked hard to get excellent grades and always planned on going to college? What if you planned on going into the medical field, only to find that the vaccine is now required for any job in a medical setting? You could always choose a different career field, but what if being a doctor or nurse is your calling, and there is no other career that would be as fulfilling for you?

What if you are in the process of applying for jobs? If there is a particular company that requires vaccination, then you can just avoid applying to that company, but the more companies that implement vaccine requirements, the more difficult your job search will be. You will have fewer options, your search will likely take longer, and you will face higher odds of having to settle for a job that is non-ideal in terms of pay, duties, or location. What if you need to steer clear of any company with 100 or more employees because OSHA has mandated the vaccine for all employees at such companies? Most likely you would still be able to find a job eventually, but doing so would be all the more difficult with so many options eliminated.

What if you are currently at a job that you love, and your employer implements a vaccine mandate? What if your profession requires significant amounts of education and training, and you now need to start over in an entirely new career, meaning that your education and training are now wasted?

Clearly, the more companies, activities, events, locations, and career options that require the vaccine, the more pressured, coerced, and forced people will feel into getting it. It will become more and more difficult for non-vaccinated people to plot a course through life. Avoiding the requirements will become more and more burdensome, inconvenient, and difficult and will require more and more sacrifices. The world will become more and more like an obstacle course, with more hoops to jump through and a metaphorical noose gradually tightening around one’s neck. Some vaccine requirements are clearly worse than others; for example, requiring the vaccine for a concert is not as bad as requiring it for the subway, bus, or grocery store. It is impossible to pinpoint the exact point on the continuum at which one can say that people are forced into getting the vaccine. But every vaccine requirement is a step towards that point. Any vaccine requirement is a step in the wrong direction.

That is why you should be able to do anything you want without having to get a vaccine in order to do so. People have a fundamental right to decide whether or not to get any medical procedure. If the decision to forego a medical procedure is punished by having activities, events, locations, or career options taken away, then it can no longer be said that people are truly free to decide. Some vaccine requirements violate people’s rights more severely than others, but all vaccine requirements violate rights. Some people claim, condescendingly, that vaccine mandates are not coercive but merely a matter of “the unvaccinated” facing “consequences” for their decisions. But the decision to get a vaccine and the decision not to get a vaccine must be treated equally, because both are equally good and equally valid decisions. Any disparate treatment amounts to punishing people who have done nothing wrong and is therefore unjust. No one should have to forego a job, an education, a mode of transit, a travel destination, an event, a meal, a game, or a recreational activity because of their personal medical decision. No one should have to sacrifice money, time, convenience, fitness, relationships, fun, or happiness for the “privilege” of declining a shot. Vaccinated and non-vaccinated people should have all the same activities, opportunities, and career options available. Only then will people truly have medical liberty.