Embed Notice

@PacificNic I might be too late to party here but I think the best way to get people to see that not asking is a form of eugenics when immunocompromised and otherwise vulnerable people exist is to frame it in terms of Social Darwinism. When people think of eugenics they think of very clinical very controlled stuff like euthanasia and sterilization and not see experiment and stuff like that and so it can be hard for them to link themselves just randomly choosing not to mask to stuff like that even though the underlying logic is the same. But social darwinism essentially *is* the underlying logic that connects eugenics and masking, so the connection might be more clear. Here's how I'd frame it:

Back in the 1800s the social darwinists believe that we should not do anything to help or protect poor people and people living with disabilities, but instead should ask everyone to compete on a perfectly """level""" playing field with no help or aid whatsoever, because they believed that by eating poor people and people with disabilities we perpetuated the existence of those poor people and people with disabilities and were therefore just prolonging the "problem," whereas if we just stop helping them they'd all die off or become better or whatever in a few generations.

Not masking and appealing to "herd immunity" and stuff like that very much operates on the same logic as social darwinism, even if the the logic is not intentionally malicious on the part of many people who echo it. It is the same idea that we should just not do anything to help or protect those who are disadvantaged in some way — in this case immunocompromised people who can't get the vaccine and are far more likely to have serious complications or die from covid — but should instead just callously treat everyone the same, so as not to "prolong the problem" or because they don't deserve it or whatever.