# The Mask Or The Poppy A tweet reads "Pick a side, wear a mask or wear a poppy - you can't wear both" Ignoring as to whether, indeed, anyone did bother to wear both simultaneously, it really is a good thought exercise to think through such an action, its implications insofar as what it signifies and communicates, why anyone might be compelled to do a thing, and if it indeed makes more sense to wear one or the other ## Inclinations The inclination for such a tweet is likely the idea that the poppy pays respect to those who fought against the Axis forces in the second world war, and taht the wearing of the mask is an acknowledgment of laws/policies and philosophies that bear similarity or congruence/compatibility with those of the Axis. The inclination to refute such a claim/suggestion is something on which we need to brainstorm a little: - Obeying our own laws, both then and now - Keeping the peace, in all scenarios - Trying to save lives - Abiding by COVID directives is doing our part to fight in a battle or war against the "enemy" - The refusal to wear a mask itself is more in line with the thinking of the Axis Let us examine these points in greater detail. ## Obeying Laws We live in a society of laws, and it is our civic duty to obey them. Of course, we recognize that Nazi Germany had unjust and immoral laws, but we haven't produced such a society because we aren't conducting or allowing the same degree of atrocity, such as blatant genocide, and if we were, it would be bloody obvious. In fact, we are preventing transformation to such a society by following the directives which are philosophically opposed to the ideals of the right. These directives have clear intentions declared for all to see, as a transparent gesture, thus it makes perfect sense to follow them if we are indeed oriented towards avoiding Fascism and oppression. This presupposes that our state and ideals are perfectly incongruent to that of Fascism, and that we can trust the state to pre-examine and vet the policies on our behalf. It further assumes we can simply follow suite with supporting them, simply by virtue of the declared high-level principles of the party in power. To continue making the pro-obedience argument, we can say that as these laws are instantiated to save lives, that to not follow them would, in fact, be in line with putting lives at risk, thus the decision to follow or not follow is akin to deciding whether to save lives (and remember, saving lives is what heroes do). ## Keeping the Peace The next argument for supporting the perspective fo wearing both a mask and a poppy is that you are aiming to reduce conflict by being accepting and compatibel with positions that could theoretically be at odds with one another, and that by doing so , you are laying out the procedure to transcend each otherwise limited view/understanding. So that would be making the case on the basis of there being some new precedent for a given perspective, or that we solve problems through agreement thus this maintains the spirit necessary to for an agreement to ever be reached. A noble task for a nobleman - suitable to be impressive. ## Trying to Save Lives We touched on this already, but we can split it up further into working through the intentions to save lives and verifying/computing what the net benefit for mitigating threat of death is really doing. But really we always have to come back to the same issue: at what point do you believe that it becomes morally defensible to harm others? Because you can say that their existence, such as it is, is harmful to others, but you must still make the case that it is, indeed, not only harmful, but all the ways in which they are harmful in various contexts and across various time scales. Perhaps a coefficient with valence equivalent to the factor of imposed change on the potential of tragedy and evil. In this situation, however, there is no making of such a case, because that whole negotiation has been replaced with emergency powers which themselves perform whatever work it deems necessary to assure itself and others that a given standard has been met. This is, without competition, the single most causative factor by which the state understands its success and, perhaps more importantly, its productivity. So to validate it, we must be willing to make the case that such an authoritarian element needs to always be present, and that case isn't predicated on a specific instance or threshold of risk, but a fundamental belief that it is acceptable not only to allow for such decision-making to be delegated to an external process, but to furthermore acknowledge that the collateral damage of doing so is acceptable. This must be an act of faith, or a position of faith, for transcendance, or for revenge -> perhaps for evermore reasons than ever before. ## Questions What could possibly be the goal of permanently enabling such a process? Is it simpl the feeling of being unsafe? Or is it something more? Perhaps there is a new opportunity in the wake of it all. What sort of opportunity reveals itself in a phenomenon which constrains human movement and expression by a degree not otherwise seen so broadly in the modern, developed world? ## Opportunity For Force *To force something that would not be otherwise feasible.* The application of force to society, one's enemies, oneself, and so forth. You can exact your revenge on the world, or force others to commit their mind/time to that of your own choosing. ## Full Circle No matter how fare we deviate, or seem to, we cannot break apart from the prevailing issue of life. You were brought into being, and though it cannot be known whether you had a say in accepting the proposition of life, we must assume that you did not and that you were simply brought into existence. What did this cause? - It assured you that your perception would be bound to the human body. Some might call this a prison, or a curse, as the body brings with it all sorts of consequences of its own. - It brought you death -> just one consequence, and arguably the most noteworthy - It brought you emotional attachment to that which is not eternal, everlasting and infinite. The very idea that something could cease to be is cause for its own to prompt the human to experiencing some manner of anxiety associated with the idea of something transforming out of being, and into nothingness. ## Coping We have coping mechanisms to mitigate the challenges of holding these manners of thought. And so when the proposition presents that our very anxiety can be countered or prevented by following particular directions, we must ask if anxiety is already caused by the source of such directives, and whether the net effect is even legitimately something which should or could be calculated. Because, for every coping mechanism and mitigatory strategy you are applying, you are potentially not applying another. Masking and staying at home as a mitigatory measure is replacing environmental exposures which yield their own psychological, physiological and immunological effects. What can be computed and compared? What are the base behaviours? How does the new behaviour modulate existing ones? What qualifies the adopting of a new behaviour? Particularly if unprecedented? Surely it can't be only one dimension of consideration - infection of SARS-CoV2. Mass delusions serve as a coping mechanism, or lead to coping mechanisms both in their adopting and their denial