Updated: Nov 20, 2020
As soon as I pull into the parking lot, my heart rate increases.
As I approach the building, I start to sweat.
As I enter, my muscles clench up, as I prepare to be attacked.
Every time I enter a building, I emotionally brace myself for verbal abuse.
As I walk through the isles, I can feel them staring at me. I can hear them whispering about me. The criticism. The ridicule. The anger.
I can feel their fingers pointing at me, without even looking at them.
As our paths cross, I can see the loathing in their eyes. I can feel their hatred burning into my skin like the light from a tanning-lamp turned up too high. I've never experienced this before. I never knew what it was like to be hated. Not like this.
As a member of a minority ethnic group, I've always been familiar with the idea of being on the receiving end of generalized prejudice. But this is different. This is up-close and personal. It's emotional. It's visceral.
Sometimes, they'll approach me. When they do, it all comes out. They scapegoat me for everything wrong around them. All of the abuses that their governments have imposed on them this year, they see me as the cause of it - and they unload their frustration onto me.
All for going shopping. All for daring to show my face in public.
Sometimes, they call security. Sometimes, they call the police. I've been forced out of stores and threatened with arrest.
I walk out of supermarkets feeling emotionally shaken, my hands trembling and my thoughts racing to psychologically integrate the public ostracism I just experienced.
So let me ask you:
If I were "selfish", why would I subject myself to this treatment, when there's such an easy way out?
If I were "selfish", wouldn't I be following the crowd, and doing what they want me to do?
Wouldn't that be so much less harrowing?
If my refusal to muzzle myself were simply out of "selfishness" and "only thinking about myself", how does that square with the fact that the emotional abuse I receive for not doing so is a hundred times more painful?
If it were just out of "laziness" and "not wanting to be bothered", then why would I opt instead to get thrown out of the store, and get in my car and drive to another one? Is that something a lazy person does?
Wouldn't a selfish and lazy person choose the path of least resistance? Instead of the path of most resistance?
Wouldn't it be easier to just wear the damn mask?
You know the answer, of course. It's because it has nothing to do with selfishness.
It's not that I'm "too selfish" to wear a mask.
It's that wearing a mask is the wrong thing to do.
Putting a warm moist microbial reservoir over your mouth, re-inhaling your own exhaust, is the wrong thing to do.
Such behavior can only come from a failure to understand how health works, and how the immune system works. If you think adding a semi-permanent synthetic organ to the human mouth, to smother it and catch air exhaled and re-breathe it in, is a positive thing, then your basic understanding of what constitutes health and sickness is faulty at the most fundamental level of awareness. Your paradigm is screwy.
I could start listing off all the science of what's wrong with this idea, if I wanted to, but it's deeper than that. It's deeper than the scientific method. You're not supposed to need the scientific method, for this. You're supposed to know it already, at a deeper level.
Forcing yourself to re-breathe your own exhaust is bad for you.
Doing so on a chronic basis, throughout daily activities, as a default condition, is bad for you and insane.
You're just supposed to know this.
You're just supposed to know that, with or without science.
Science is just one branch of epistemology. It's just one way to collect knowledge about the world. And there are others, like common sense and intuition.
Some things do fall into the science category - like "how far away is the Moon", and "which vitamins and minerals play which roles in the metabolic processes of antibody production."
Science is good for those questions.
But other things fall into the "you're just supposed to know it" category. Like, for instance, the fact that you're not supposed to be re-inhaling your own exhaust, and the fact that you're not supposed to collect bacteria and virions in a diaper directly over your air-hole.
That's the intuition category. You're just supposed to know.
Don't misunderstand me: There is plenty of science to prove why chronic universal muzzling is stupid, but the key thing here is the fact that you're not supposed to need the science in the first place. Science is the wrong epistemic strategy for this type of question.
Oh the science is there, if you want it. Lots of science.
But it shouldn't be necessary. This is a different category of knowledge.
You shouldn't need science to know that this is child abuse.
You're not supposed to need science to recognize this for what it is.
But that's not all! We're not done! Not even close to it.
Because you've got another problem, on top of that, which we haven't even addressed yet.
Let's say (for the sake of argument), that masks actually do "work", in the sense of slowing transmission. They don't - but let's just assume they do, for this discussion. I'll give you that free Bingo square, for now.
Even if you have science saying that masks slow transmission - even if your science is somehow "more valid" than the science saying masks are useless - even if you have that one assertion on your side and working for you, you still lack the other half of the equation:
You haven't shown that this transmission-reduction is *WORTH* the overall damage to public health you're causing as a direct result of the masking.
Masks harm. Is their harm eclipsed by their benefit?
Is the health-damage caused by chronic airway obstruction worth the health benefit from transmission reduction?
How do you know the positive effect of the latter is greater and more impactful than the negative effects from the former?
(Which is assuming of course that this reduction even exists in the first place...)
How do you know the benefit outweighs the damage?
Do you have any science on this question?
I'll save you the trouble of searching: You don't.
There is no science on this question. There hasn't even been investigation.
Make sure you understand what I'm actually asking, here. There has been scientific investigation into transmission reduction. But there has not been investigation into the weight of that reduction vis-a-vis the harm the masking causes to overall public health. That's what I'm asking.
And it has never been researched before, because this "treatment" has never been done before. The chronic universal muzzling of a population has never been tried before 2020, and hence, there is no science on its outcomes.
In the 1918 flu, some efforts were made to force masks on people, but compliance was low, and most importantly, no science was done to evaluate the results. Science itself was still in a stage of relative infancy, especially in the biological fields, and no scientific studies were even attempted to weigh the benefits of masking against the harms.
You have no science on this question. Because there is none. It has never been tested before. And that means that this whole thing is an experiment.
A mass-experiment, *without consent*.
A non-consensual medical experiment.
This puts the officials responsible in violation of the Nuremberg Principles and the Geneva Convention.
Do you care that your government is now violating those legal standards, and violating human rights on a universal scale?
Does it bother you that your government is committing crimes against humanity? Some of the same ones that the Nazis did?
If it doesn't, then maybe you're the selfish one.
And don't gaslight me with the "but there's no harm from masks."
Yes there is. Don't gaslight me.
Wearing masks is damaging to health. You know this.
You know it because you take it off every time you get home.
Why do you take it off?
You know the reason.
There is a reason why the human mouth (along with the mouth of all other species) doesn't have an airway obstruction built-in from birth.
There is a reason why we didn't wear masks for the past 200,000 years.
There is a reason why YOU didn't wear one, prior to this year.
And there's a reason why you take it off when you're not around people.