I'm not sure I'd read too much into off-the-cuff remarks from CNN guest experts.
Mask mandates aren't worthless, but I agree they'd be a lot better if they required better masks. I believe that's already the case in other countries and I wouldn't be surprised if it eventually comes to the US.
Leana Wen isn't just some talking head. She was the head of Planned Parenthood and is a nationally-known medical figure. She is especially respected on the political left. That makes her statement especially surprising because the left has been the side pushing the mask mandates.
FWIW "the political left" in the United States is not so much a team and more a loose coalition of folks who have some range of views that don't agree with the more uniform political right. It's not that useful to call this out as a group as if surely 80% of folks in the political left care what Leana Wen has to say unless it happens to be particularly insightful. Most folks don't actually know this woman's name, nor do they particularly care.
It might be healthier for you to see things less as "there are two sides" and reconsider how you analyze individual topics. When you say "this is the view of side L and this is the view of side R" you are in danger of missing nuance and views that cut across. If you identify with say, side R, you will bias yourself toward those specific viewpoints.
The point is that she is a well-known and respected person on the left. She is not loved on the right. If she had made this remark 6 or 12 months ago she would have alienated the people who love her. That would have ruined her reputation.
Don't assume I have a manichean approach to everything. This was just one example where her popularity is very polarized along political lines.
Maybe this person's popularity only looks polar to you because you're making things out to have a team L and a team R, whereas it's more like team R is real and hallucinating a bogeyman team L where surely folks worship named figureheads as much as team R.
You think Planned Parenthood is not polarized? I guarantee you that Wen's favorables/unfavorables break down purely along partisan lines. Plenty of people don't know her. But prior to this statement, all of her favorables were Ds and all of her unfavorables were R's.
Not everything is partisan. But abortion surely is.
My point is simply that it seems odd to describe an individual as "polarizing" when the people who know them are generally either the large number of haters (thanks to R media demonizing individuals) or their small group of personal supporters (because there isn't this huge group worshipping her as you might imagine).
My other point is that Planned Parenthood and abortion are of course polarizing topics but pro-choice folks are not as monolithic in ideology as the core republican base, so it's weird to see statements like this which you made:
> She is especially respected on the political left. That makes her statement especially surprising because the left has been the side pushing the mask mandates.
This rings untrue, and like someone's been watching too much angry news. And characterizing mask mandates as some nonexistent "left-wing agenda" is also really unfair to folks who may not have progressive politics but support masking. My parents for example are Christian capital-R Republicans but think it's bonkers that we can't get folks to do what is best for the common good, in the name of "freedom." At least they understand, very minimally, the difference between fascism and emergency measures.
There are not two sides to this issue until one angry group of people decide "you're either with us or against us" and generate those two sides out of thin air. It's really stupid to do that. Abortion and masking are not related. That are you surprised an individual has a unique opinion different from "their team" is very telling.
> You seem to know a lot about an anonymous person on the internet!
Yeah I'm going off of the ~20 sentences I've spent time reading from this anonymous person on the internet. You're not doing much in these responses to demonstrate comprehension of my points so maybe it's gg.
> If you can't see that abortion is polarized along partisan lines, we live on different planets.
I didn't dispute this very basic fact. But again, this wasn't what my comments were about.
"Abortion care" is less than 8% of what people go to Planned Parenthood for ...
Abortion may be polarizing but to take a minority focus of Planned Parenthood and claim Planned Parenthood is polarizing because of it is silly.
Yeah yeah we get it, republicans hate planned parenthood. What everyone in these replies is trying to tell you, is that this DOESN'T mean democrats/the left/however you want to group {everyone else}, gives a crap about the details of that specific organization / who runs it, even if they are pro-choice in ideology. And your constant choice of saying "but the left!" is problematic at its core.
How is that your takeaway from the balanced fact check article? It says both sides are wrong. As an enlightened liberal, you clearly know better! Good day, friend.
I'm confused why you think I'm supposed to defend or explain what a CNN guest said.
The comment I was responding to said "masks don't really work," which isn't true. Even cloth masks provide some benefit. Whether that benefit justifies a mask mandate is something reasonable people can disagree about.
You don't have to defend or explain. But you didn't respond to the point about masks. You said that you and GP were on the same page. It didn't seem like that to me since you appear to disagree about masks.
Mask mandates aren't worthless, but I agree they'd be a lot better if they required better masks. I believe that's already the case in other countries and I wouldn't be surprised if it eventually comes to the US.