What "controversy"? Nothing controversal with what he's saying AND doing.

What is the point, exactly?

Mask mandate at school

If he is against mandatory masks he is arguing against his own case by pretending to break other mandatory requirements that make sense.
If he is for mandatory masks his (sarcastic?) argumentation style is going to antagonize people who do not already agree with him.
WTF?

It's the latter. One of the lady on the stage appreciated his theatrics to bring out his point.

I think at this point of the pandemic, a majority of the unvaccinated anti-maskers already feel antagonized seeing someone else minding their own business wearing a mask already.

Is there anything that doesn't antagonize the brain dead morons who disagree with him (and science, medicine, civility, common good, etc)?

Those people are antagonized by reality. No one should hold back a single syllable to avoid antagonizing them. They should be antagonized as much as possible every waking second until it becomes too much and they drop their hyperpartisan insanity in a self preservation move. Their idiotic positions and actions are dangerous and deadly, and based on fantasy and partisan lies. They don't deserve your sympathy or empathy any more than a school bomber or child molester does.

believe the idea is that all of us do or don't engage in things that we don't necessarily enjoy (or enjoy). either for legality or decency or the stir, it causes...

- breastfeeding
- pistol wearing in town
- hats at weddings/funerals/churches
- shutting off cells at the same and more
- wheels on busy sidewalks
- not heckling the priest's sermon ("YOU SUCK FATHER!")*

some of these are up to the person, some not as bad as others, but common sense SHOULD guide sane people.

'tho if COVID becomes a public health crisis (ala Black Death-esque) they'll find where their freedom meets real oppression (Thyphoid Mary on a large scale).

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/publications/youraba/2020/youraba-april-2020/law-guides-legal-approach-to-pandemic/

personally, the idea that I could end up killing someone quickly replaced my health concerns. if found someone died because wasn't wearing a mask - would kill me.

so, in short, hope any/or all of these blunts find themselves in a situation where their car won't start. and no one will help them 'til them mask up.

"just need a part!"
"not until you observe our policy of public health! here's a mask...and if you'd put on shoes and a shirt..."

bet they'd do it for their f'n car. but for little bobby or old man Thorney?

...hope a camel w/a huge lip blister kisses them straight on the mouth.

reminds me of a song...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFRDimvVimw

testify.



* Bobcat gag

So he is trying to be clever. But is he making his point well?

Its much like us trying to convince Bob and friends by calling them names, its not going to work.

Mask mandate is an emergency measure and should be put in place by responsible representatives, not public debate. It should be explained seriously and not by anecdote. It should only be enforced where necessary and for as long as necessary. Local authorities should have that authority, just like for other natural disasters.

If you start a discussion, extremists will take hold of it.

Yes, he's making his point quite well.
He's pointing out all the ways they follow the law and rules of civilization, even though they're sometimes inconvenient or uncomfortable, even though many laws are to protect others more than themselves. He's doing it in a way that no one ignores. He's exemplifying the selfish, outrageous behavior they are championing in such a way that they can't help but disagree with him, which MAY lead to them questioning their own actions and recognising they resemble that display he put on.

When did he call them names?

Mask mandates are in place, put there by responsible representatives. This meeting was to explain why to those too obstinate to understand why, not to let them choose.
They have been told hundreds of times by calm reasonable people, calmly and using data and statistics to explain why masks and vaccines are necessary, and the answer was "keep yer govment vaxine urtta mah blud and yer Fouchi facemask off me and mah chilin!"

Only enforcing it when it's absolutely necessary, only where it's absolutely necessary, and for as short a time as possible has led us to wave 4, the worst yet. It's necessary now until the virus is gone, it's necessary everywhere so the virus doesn't have a Petri dish to evolve in and become far more virulent and dangerous, it's necessary to continue wearing them and getting vaccinated/boostered until the virus is eradicated....maybe until civilization falls if we're unlucky or too stupid to follow directions.

I have no idea why this touches such a nerve for you. It seems so obviously proper to most of us, and an excellent way to show them that they already do tons of annoying stuff for other people's safety, like driving the speed limit and stopping at lights and wearing clothes, not starting random fires, etc....all stuff mandated by the government.

Explain please, why that's improper.

Wait....so you say we shouldn't have a discussion at all with anti maskers/antivaxers, because they'll spout some nonsense?!
Um.....no.
You don't convince people to do the right thing by ignoring them when they do the wrong things for the wrong reasons. WTF are you saying?! Don't have any discussions because extremists will take hold and you think reasonable people can do nothing. Only true if reasonable people stop trying to discuss and convince them of reality, which is your suggestion? Um......