mrcloudyfun:sighinastorm:uncle-beanbag:nbased:uncle-beanbag:sirfrogsworth:I… kinda think that could
mrcloudyfun:sighinastorm:uncle-beanbag:nbased:uncle-beanbag:sirfrogsworth:I… kinda think that could work. Oh yeah lets just bring back the white feather. You won’t even have a clue what the hell I am talking about because you don’t pay attention to history. I dont have a clue what you’re talking about, but I’m curious. Care to explain?During WWI roaming gangs of youngish women would go around the major cities in the UK and gang up on men roughly age 15-35 and shame them by putting white feathers on them or in their pockets and berating them why haven’t they joined up for service yet? They were sanctioned by the crown. The White Feather is a symbol of cowardace in the UK. These women would harass men, many of whom were factory workers or otherwise exempt from service because of their jobs. It was absolutely awful. Sometimes the women would follow and peck at men for hours and miles. YOU DO NOT WANT TO BRING THIS BACK.It seems you contend that shaming someone for not signing up to go die in a foreign country is comparable for shaming someone not willing to do the measly service of wearing protective equipment that would help everyone. Do I understand you correctly?The way I figure it’ll go is a “give them an inch, they’ll take a mile” kind of situation. People will go overboard, and others will look away from it.So you’re saying, if I understand you, is that the wearing of masks, while it might be good, is now bad because the government demands it, or even that it is now good to not do it specifically because the government demands it, based on a perceived likelihood of encroachment of civil liberties resultant from a successful mask-wearing campaign? Is that it? Am I getting this right? -- source link