It's amazing to me to see how quickly Godwin's Law takes effect in these kinds of discussions.

As amusing as it is watching this thread blow up, I'm going to take my leave lol. This is a bit much for me. o/

I would say you are out for blood if you had actually achieved any level of verbal violence instead of... whatever this poor attempt at a glove toss is.

Controlled market capitalism usually works better in favor of the average consumer, as it is in the US. We just need someone with Teddy Roosevelt's intense hatred of monopolies to rise up again and suplex all these giant corporations into the ground.

Daring today, are we xvarnah? Careful, people may discuss their disagreement with you, to put it lightly.

I don't know what that tl;dr is for

From what I could gather from some discussions, the crux of the vaccination matter is this. Some people are willing to accept mandates because they genuinely believe in keeping everyone's health out of harm's way. But others see a different light to the mandates, something they think far outweighs the "lofty" ideals of perfect public health.
.
Don't get me wrong, most people on both sides would not try to consciously endanger those around them. But for the people who oppose the mandates, they're focusing on how this government, and others, have been reacting. South Australia has authorized police to forcibly quarantine people without needing to show their identification or papers. Consider how people might feel if they cannot question the people detaining them. For the people I've talked to, this is what they see. They're afraid of that slippery slope, and they use that context to inform their decisions.

Therein lies the problem. Part of what determines the context around an issue is precisely people's understanding of it. Suppose we have a criminal case where the Defendant is accused of murder. The defense can try to argue for self defense, but whether or not the jury understands it as self defense will determine the outcome of the case. If it turns out that the jury holds a belief in "reasonable reactions" and deem the Defendant's reactions as extreme, then they won't accept the self defense argument as valid, even if the supposed victim attacked the Defendant first. On the other hand, if the jury decides that the Defendant has the full entitlement to the right of life, then barring exceptional circumstances, the Defendant will be cleared of the worst of the charges.

I don't think so. The meter's off for that lol. But thank you for clarifying your original intent.

Imagine dismissing a widely recognized abusive tactic as a hysterics maneuver...

I think the worst part about this tweet is the fact that it's targeting people's "perceptions." Which is bordering on, if not a perfect example of, thought-crime.

Yes, the offspring of the infamous killer species the chridria holomancus