British Media Accuses People Who Don’t Wear Masks of Being “Anti-Social Personalities”

Andrew Anglin

Guest


Just wear the damn mask, bigot.

Why are you so driven by hatred?

The Independent:

Scientists in Brazil have linked resistance to Covid-19 safety measures, such as wearing a mask, with antisocial personality traits.

Their study was the first of its kind in Latin America and surveyed over 1,500 people aged 18-73.

Using a questionnaire, the scientists sought to identify the participants’ affective resonance – their impulse to act on feelings stirred by another person – and asked a series of personality questions about how well certain statements represented their behaviour on a scale.

The survey also asked about compliance with Covid-19 containment measures over time, such as mask wearing.

When profiles were analysed, two were identified: an antisocial pattern profile who were resistant to Covid-19 safety measures and an empathy pattern profile who were compliant.

The antisocial profile was linked to higher scores in the personality questions related to “callousness, deceitfulness, hostility, impulsivity, irresponsibility, manipulativeness, and risk-taking”, antisocial traits which, the study notes, “are typically present in people diagnosed with Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD)”. This group also had lower scores in affective resonance.

The empathy pattern profile showed higher scores in affective resonance and lower scores in the traits associated with ASPD.

The team who conducted the study said they hoped the findings would help to persuade health officials to do more to educate people and influence their policies.

“Through screenings that demonstrate an elevation in these [ASPD] traits, interventions can be carried out aiming at greater awareness and consequent compliance with containment measures”, the team explained.
One would think that a desire to psychoanalyze people who don’t wear masks would speak poorly of the psychological states of the people who are promoting masks.

But okay.

Here’s the thing: we know that not wearing masks is going to be primarily associated with people who are independent-minded and who don’t feel comfortable just going along with a group activity because everyone else is doing it. And of course, independence and refusal to submit to a mob mentality are traits associated with masculinity, whilst a desire to go along with the group is a trait associated with femininity.

The Independent itself recently admitted this:



So, what they are telling you here is this: if you refuse to go along with the masses, if you refuse to blindly accept a consensus that has been reached by the media and global organizations, then in this society, you are going to be classified as “anti-social.”

At least in America, independent thought and a refusal to bow to mobs, a general masculine self-confidence and internal moral compass, used to be considered pro-social traits. That is no longer the case, apparently.

Continue reading...
 

Coltraine

America First
Old World Underground
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻
At least in America, independent thought and a refusal to bow to mobs, a general masculine self-confidence and internal moral compass, used to be considered pro-social traits.
Literally how many millions of times were we taunted by our own parents as kids- albeit usually after we did something bad- that "if everyone also jumped off of a bridge (or a cliff), would you still do it?" after we told them beforehand that the reason we did what we did was simply "because everybody's doing it, mom, dad!"?

That was the go-to response of almost all authority figures during our childhood as Americans. We heard it from everyone from teachers to parents to church figures to celebrities.

And now that we're all grown up and we have internalized a bit of that "question everything" type of philosophy in our own lives, we are now being reprimanded by the JewsMedia and all its various "experts" as "anti-social". And now the JewsMedia is telling us that we should have just jumped off of the bridge/cliff without thinking so long ago when all of everybody else was doing it originally!

Amazing!
 
Last edited:

swihch

Well-known member
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿
Well, if the media, so called experts and scientists say it's better to jump off a cliff you should definitely do it.
"But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs." - Gandhi.

Close enough. Maybe the Jews will oblige him now, in order to not be deemed 'anti-social'?
 

nobodi

Well-known member
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒
The antisocial profile was linked to higher scores in the personality questions related to “callousness, deceitfulness, hostility, impulsivity, irresponsibility, manipulativeness, and risk-taking”, antisocial traits which, the study notes, “are typically present in people diagnosed with Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD)”.
That's almost every bitch I know.

Affect theory
is a theory that seeks to organize affects, sometimes used interchangeably with emotions or subjectively experienced feelings, into discrete categories and to typify their physiological, social, interpersonal, and internalized manifestations. The conversation about affect theory has been taken up in psychology, psychoanalysis, neuroscience, medicine, interpersonal communication, literary theory, critical theory, media studies, and gender studies, among other fields. Hence, affect theory is defined in different ways, depending on the discipline.
Yeah, typical jew nonsense. Neurotic, self absorbed, useless.
 
Last edited:

Ferdinand

Well-known member
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽
But I dont think its actually a law that you must wear a mask, its just a guidance, please correct me if Im wrong.
 

EastSaxonIdentity

Ideological Leader Of WigNatism
Old World Underground
⏰☕🚬
But I dont think its actually a law that you must wear a mask, its just a guidance, please correct me if Im wrong.
It's very vague.

If you are exempt from wearing one, you don't have to.

You don't have to prove you are exempt. You can't be asked why you're exempt under the Equalities Act 2010.
 

Mistaf

ℑ𝔫𝔱𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔦𝔫𝔤 𝔗𝔦𝔪𝔢𝔰 𝔗𝔯𝔞𝔳𝔢𝔩𝔢𝔯
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻
Well, if the media, so called experts and scientists say it's better to jump off a cliff you should definitely do it.
Well, my father just now basically did a "I'm just not good with numbers, teehee" when I asked him if he'd not rather take a look at the official graphs on excess mortality than consume the newspaper interpretation of the same.
At least I know what he would have said, if asked, why he never questioned ze Jews disappearing, had he lived in that time.
I'm done. High time to read "Ride the Tiger", I would assume.
 

CarterMcFerrell

Well-known member
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻
So, what they are telling you here is this: if you refuse to go along with the masses, if you refuse to blindly accept a consensus that has been reached by the media and global organizations, then in this society, you are going to be classified as “anti-social.”
Bollocks to the media and overrated celebs

Businesses are now resisting the face covering law:





Everyone is wearing a mask now, they've achieved total coverage.
But I dont think its actually a law that you must wear a mask, its just a guidance, please correct me if Im wrong.
There's an exception to wearing face coverings by law.

When you do not need to wear a face covering
In settings where face coverings are required in England, there are some circumstances where people may not be able to wear a face covering. Please be mindful and respectful of such circumstances, noting that some people are less able to wear face coverings, and that the reasons for this may not be visible to others.

This includes (but is not limited to):

  • children under the age of 11 (Public Health England does not recommend face coverings for children under the age of 3 for health and safety reasons)
  • people who cannot put on, wear or remove a face covering because of a physical or mental illness or impairment, or disability
  • where putting on, wearing or removing a face covering will cause you severe distress
  • if you are speaking to or providing assistance to someone who relies on lip reading, clear sound or facial expressions to communicate
  • to avoid harm or injury, or the risk of harm or injury, to yourself or others ‒ including if it would negatively impact on your ability to exercise or participate in a strenuous activity
  • police officers and other emergency workers, given that this may interfere with their ability to serve the public
There are also scenarios when you are permitted to remove a face covering:

  • if asked to do so in a bank, building society, or post office for identification
  • if asked to do so by shop staff or relevant employees for identification, for assessing health recommendations (for example by a pharmacist), or for age identification purposes including when buying age restricted products such as alcohol
  • if required in order to receive treatment or services, for example when getting a facial
  • in order to take medication
  • if you are delivering a sermon or prayer in a place or worship
  • if you are the persons getting married in a relevant place
  • if you are aged 11 to 18 attending a faith school and having lessons in a place of worship as part of your core curriculum
  • if you are undertaking exercise or an activity and it would negatively impact your ability to do so
  • if you are an elite sports person, professional dancer or referee acting in the course of your employment
  • when seated to eat or drink in a hospitality premise such as a pub, bar, restaurant or cafe. You must put a face covering back on once you finish eating or drinking
The government’s guidance for keeping workers and customers safe during COVID-19 in restaurants, pubs, bars and takeaway services clearly advises that designated indoor seating areas for customers to eat or drink should at this time only be open for table service, where possible, alongside additional infection control measures.

Exemption cards
Those who have an age, health or disability reason for not wearing a face covering should not be routinely asked to give any written evidence of this, this includes exemption cards. No person needs to seek advice or request a letter from a medical professional about their reason for not wearing a face covering.

Some people may feel more comfortable showing something that says they do not have to wear a face covering. This could be in the form of an exemption card, badge or even a home-made sign.

This is a personal choice and is not necessary in law.

Access exemption card templates

For exemptions in different parts of the UK please refer to the specific guidance for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) Regulations 2020

Regulation 4
Reasonable excuse

4.—(1) For the purposes of regulation 3(1), the circumstances in which a person (“P”) has a reasonable excuse include those where

(a) P cannot put on, wear or remove a face covering—
(i) because of any physical or mental illness or impairment, or disability (within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010), or
(ii) without severe distress;

(b) P is accompanying, or providing assistance to, another person (“B”) and B relies on lip reading to communicate with P;
(c) P removes their face covering to avoid harm or injury, or the risk of harm or injury, to themselves or others;
(d) P is entering or within a relevant place to avoid injury, or to escape a risk of harm, and does not have a face covering with them;
(e) it is reasonably necessary for P to eat or drink, P removes their face covering to eat or drink;
(f) P has to remove their face covering to take medication;
(g) a person responsible for a relevant place or an employee of that person acting in the course of their employment, requires that P remove their face covering in order to verify P’s identity;
(h) in a registered pharmacy, an employee of that registered pharmacy acting in the course of their employment, requires that P remove their face covering in order to assist in the provision of healthcare or healthcare advice to P;
(i) a relevant person requests that P remove their face covering.

(2) In this regulation “registered pharmacy” has the same meaning as in section 74 of the Medicines Act 1968.
 

Aquafina

Internet Fun Police
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻
I apologize for calling the war on terror fake and gay... I want to go back.
 
Top