[jollybean]

So which side are you talking about?

--- "Take away our constitutional freedoms."

Right now, who is ordering who to stay home, to not go to the gym, to church, to a restaurant, to a private gathering - by force of law - and even imposing curfews?

For context, these might be some of the most broad and assertive challenges ever made on constitutional freedoms.

--- "They preach a hypocritical sense of morality while inflicting violence on those who cannot defend themselves."

There is one group of people in America who are killing themselves at 6x the rate of other Americans, and about 20x the rate of people of other countries.

They have hypocritically 'blamed' (at least in terms of populism) the issue on policing, which is very demonstrably not a direct cause, requiring police to pull back in many areas, and now we see the result, a 150% increase in violence among those same poor and vulnerable communities, that were already extremely violent. The major increase in lives lost is directly measurable in the thousands.

The #1 cause of death among this group, is violence from their own group.

Not 'some other group' assaulting them.

--- "They use gerrymandering and political tricks to hold on to power"

One group is trying to give voting rights to huge numbers of non-citizens at every level of government, because that group feels the new voters would vote for them, which is in terms of raw numbers, the most gigantic form of election gerrymandering ever conceived.

--- "Because of their incompetence, we’ve become a laughingstock on the world stage. "

New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire etc. are some of the worst hit by COVID in terms of deaths per capita, as for 'laughing stock' the Governor went down on sexual assault allegations, and charges of misrepresenting COVID information. Despite the careless populist rhetoric of some political fools, frankly, there isn't much of a serious political pattern across the nation in terms of outcomes - there's a pretty big 'obesity' pattern, which correlates strongly with race, but it also points to an issue in America overall vis-a-vis the rest of the world (i.e. obesity). But that isn't really a politically 'sided' issue so much.

...

I think you really did make the OP's point by pointing out how 'each side likes to blame the other' - I couldn't even fathom who you were talking about for sure.

However much I personally might support mask, separation and other restrictions, it's pretty oddly lacking in self awareness to talk about the 'Authoritarianism Of The Other Side' when literally politicians are ordering the most assertive transgressions of basic rights in history however legitimized or not.

As for Omicron ... we really don't know yet. Maybe this is the last real lockdown wave before lethality, treatments and vaccines provide enough protection.

[fivea]

> For context, these might be some of the most broad and assertive challenges ever made on constitutional freedoms.

The US has organized, in recent history, concentration camps based on the premise that national security was at stake.

More recently, the US employed secret prisons to torture people who were deemed persons of interest, both foreign and US citizens.

I'd figure that requiring basic personal higiene and public health measures, such as wearing a mask in public places to avoid spreading a disease which is already killed well over 800k US citizens, shouldn't even register as a concern regarding "constitutional freedoms". Yet, why is this only a concern, and the "most broad and assertive" one to boot, regarding constitutional rights in the US?

[seba_dos1]

It's extremely simple - that's because the people complaining about masks were not in these concentration camps and were not tortured in secret prisons, while it's them who have to wear masks. Therefore, what you mentioned didn't really exist in practice, and being forced to maintain hygiene during a deadly pandemic is the most broad and assertive violation on constitutional rights.

[fivea]

> It's extremely simple - that's because the people complaining about masks were not in these concentration camps and were not tortured in secret prisons, while it's them who have to wear masks.

You see, that assertion does not pass any smell test. Think about it: any discussion, and complain, regarding the constitutionality of any policy is purely conceptual and abstract, and the conclusion is always absolute: either the constitution is violated, or it isn't.

Therefore, if anyone is honestly worried about the constitutional implications of a policy, they do not care if it affects everyone or even anyone. The discussion is purely conceptual: either the constitution is violated, and thus it must be upheld, or not.

With this in mind, any discussion on extrajudicial imprisonments, violations of the Geneva convention, and even extrajudicial assassinations, feature at the top of any concern.

And not whether you need to wash your hands or wear a face mask.

Think about it: how many times did the constitutionality of jailing people for pooping on the street was discussed in an election? Did fining people for not picking up their dog's poop ever became a divisive political talking point? Did you ever saw radical militant groups threatening with political action for being barred from urinating in public? Never, right?

[seba_dos1]

> Therefore, if anyone is honestly worried about the constitutional implications of a policy

This is the important part. They aren't worried about the constitution, they're worried that they have to do something they don't want to.

[xwolfi]

That s the joke, he wasnt talking of any one side. BOTH think the other is evil anti american.

[jollybean]

Responding to my own comment, I can see the commenter was making a 'double sided' point which I failed to see - that said, I think it reads a bit more strongly as one side.

(I fully agree with their satirical point however ... it's just the wording of the examples was a bit off in my purview.)

After listening to a family member scroll through some shocking Facebook tirades today, I'm ready to believe a lot of Americans will believe almost anything about the 'other side', it's tragic.

[labster]

If you see that as biased towards one side, it’s your own bias. I encourage everyone to try to understand the opposite political persuasion.

It’s rather easy to come up with these. Take “your party believes in inflicting violence on innocent children.” The replies would be “But they broke the law, and we need to send them back to their own country” and “Embryos are not yet children.” But both sides are appalled at how the other can hate little children so much.