What a world we live in.
I sorta "get" why some people don't want to. But why get angry at folks minding their business. Are they just projecting their fears of being wrong?
I'd believe this answer if someone told me :). It's the same thing that fuels all of the fanboi-ism in tech. The "I'm insecure about my choice so I need to attack all of the other choices to feel better" behavior.
We've also had incidents of utility workers being attacked by people who think 5G towers are being used to spread the (imaginary????) coronavirus, so that's a thing.
These aren't hypothetical questions. I genuinely do not understand these people or their behavior on any level and I never see any attempt at an explanation anywhere - here, social media, mainstream media, documentaries - you name it.
I think the key for conspiracy theories is that they find a kernel of truth that powerful people don't readily admit, and then fill in the information gaps with their own narrative.
In these people, I theorize it's a badge of honor for them to be contrarian, and to be 'independent thinkers'. Which, in the abstract, is a good thing I guess - but where is the line? It's all phrased in a way that there is no 'proof' possible, because there is always an extra layer of 'but that's just what THEY want you to think!'.
I was at a (responsibly socially distanced, thank you) bbq yesterday where several highly intelligent, respected professionals were spouting... let's say... things with dubious intellectual justification. But hey, with some in that company being literally antifa t-shirt wearing activists, at least it's entertaining!
We're hearing about this now because conspiracy theories about covid are _dangerous_ in a way that belief that the earth is flat are largely not. Another worrying one potentially coming up; a lot of people believe various conspiracy theories about vaccines, and this may become a serious issue if a viable covid vaccine becomes available.
Also, one man's "animosity" is another's protest.
Obviously this does not justify boorish behavior, but I can certainly empathize with their sentiments.
If a school demands a dress code, people go nuts. It's immediately suspected to be unfair, overly broad, racist, sexist, and ableist, probably invented by perverts who think too much about adolescent sexuality. If you tell them the dress code is a courtesy to others, kids and parents will get in your face and protest it. [0]
Masks solve a (big) problem in some (limited) situations -- mostly close contact. But the rules are written to be over-inclusive and inconsistent. It's a protection against the chance you're infected and don't know it. Some municipalities are demanding them outdoors, in sparsely-populated areas, and indoors with your family. You don't get to present your body how you want, and your communication is stifled.
Masks are a dress code for the face. I wear them. But some people are going to get angry.
[0] https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2018/9/13/17847542/students-wa...
But I think you hit the mark closer with that little hedge of "and conduct", at the beginning. This isn't about dress codes per se, it's about rules - many Americans simply hate rules and reflexively rebel against them. Any suggestion that one should make a sacrifice for the collective good is invariably met, from some quarters, with a kind of moral outrage - often accompanied with self-righteous rhetoric giving frequent mention to "freedom" and "liberty", and often "the Constitution" and "founding fathers" as well. The inability to make collective sacrifice is a huge social weakness that interferes with the formation of a civil society, and in my opinion it is, more than anything else, the reason America is handling the pandemic so poorly - not just in terms of the acute response, but also the very structure of society. For example, due to overwhelming distaste for the idea of paying to fix other people's problems even if it's manifestly better for society as a whole, there's no socialized healthcare, or functioning social safety net - both of which cause people in low-paying service jobs to drag themselves to work while fighting COVID-19.
Many would be angry about the overinclusive rule. It would be more about the message to others about safety than actual safety. “Let them help themselves, if they’re so risk averse,“ you might say.
In at least some places, “masks all the time” isn’t entirely about function. Do masks really work better in casinos and schools, but not churches and funerals? Or, as in Maryland this week, do they work differently in public schools and private schools?
People sense that the mask in some situations is partly about a certain kind of authority and conformity — and they don’t like to conform with their face and body.
> But in the more general case, people can use moral decisions to signal how moral they are. In this case, they choose a disastrous decision based on some moral principle. The more suffering and destruction they support, and the more obscure a principle it is, the more obviously it shows their commitment to following their moral principles absolutely. For example, Immanuel Kant claims that if an axe murderer asks you where your best friend is, obviously intending to murder her when he finds her, you should tell the axe murderer the full truth, because lying is wrong. This is effective at showing how moral a person you are – no one would ever doubt your commitment to honesty after that – but it’s sure not a very good result for your friend.
Letting people die of disease shows their commitment to "freedom" from ... masks and scientists.
Some people are just inherently reactive to threats, and respond better to request. A governmental recommendation and public awareness campaign would likely be more effective with these people than a law.
You have to use their natural rebelliousness to your advantage.