The masks work, but he only mentions a narrow use that isn't the current reason for wearing them. That's the misinformation; he got you, too.

Think of it this way: "Don't wear a seatbelt because they don't keep other cars from hitting you."

If we are going to use a car analogy it would be better to use a more fitting one.

Installing an exhaust filter won't reduce lung cancer risk of the driver. Car dealers should be careful if they advertised filters as medical devices that reducing lung cancer for drivers, rather than an filter that reduces pollution for those who live near the road. Exhaust filters are still a good idea for society, but if you want to reduce the personal risk then an air filter for the AC is required. It would however be a rather bad world to live in if everyone installed air filters for the AC and excluded filter for the exhausts.

Outside of garages or other enclosed spaces where the driver might actually get exposed to the cars exhausts.

Ah, I see, you're using "misinformation" to mean "came to a different conclusion than I did".

Misinformation, because it encourages a practice that is counter to the recommendations. Because it allows for a conclusion to be drawn that is counter to the recommendations.

No, here it means "came to a different purpose than I and everybody else using science did."

No, it's bait and switch.

It's a common strategy employed by misinformation campaigns and people which don't want to accept some facts but know that they are kinda in the wrong to

take advantage of the difference between the meaning conveyed by words(1) to the general public and the specific words said(2).

(1): I.e. the meaning large groups of people will interpret words as. In this case "masks do not work at all".

(2): I.e. "in a very specific context which in this way doesn't matter in the grater picture masks do not work well".

> His comment was on masks reducing the risk of you getting infected, not infecting others.

His comment was extremely ambiguous and certainly sounded to me like he was claiming masks don't work as a tool to fight the pandemic, or at least carefully choosing his works to align himself with the factions in his base that believe they don't.

If you want to say the words "masks don't work", in a screed arguing against masks mandates, you need to be a whole lot more careful than that. And Paul isn't a careless guy, he knew what the fuck he was saying.

I find this need to pander to people who are incapable/uninterested in understanding the reality and nuances of a conversation very frustrating. I see it as a race to the bottom for news organizations, and society, where we weaponize and spread the intentional misunderstanding of conversations that are often well formed and logical.

> I see it as a race to the bottom for news organizations, and society

Why are you citing "news organizations" and "society" when the offender is a political leader? I don't argue with your point but it seems like your blame is misplaced.

But it should have been explicit in the reasoning for wearing masks in the first place. It seems to me that the pro-mask people have such contempt for the masses that they must disguise a reasonable social request into a selfish mandate, which is just weird. And yes, there are those who are unreasonably selfish, but I don’t think it’s working on them anyway. My personal take on this is that the mask issue is a poor choice for a hill to die on. It has to be the most reasonable and innocuous of all the unprecedented powers in exercise.