Of course there are everyday risks. This one is new (one might say novel) that we still have a tenuous grasp of. But, that being said, I do believe that trying to convince you of the seriousness of this is pissing in the wind, so that'll be the last I say on this.

Yes, 100%. But I want to get this straight, you wouldn't take extra money if it was offered to you for doing the same job?

Dealing with shitty customers is part of the job, potentially contracting a rapidly spreading fatal virus isn't. The decision was made that these people are the ones who have to stay behind to serve us. And why wouldn't you want more pay if it was offered? Honestly, why do you personally care if that happens? Like you said, you'd love the extra money.

What the hell are you talking about?

The point is is that these people are the ones who have to stay behind and serve us because their job is essential to the function of our society, and we, as a society, will still treat them like shit long after this over because it's considered low skill or low importance.

Try to be unbiased is a fools errand. Heck, trying to be unbiased is a bias in and of itself. The best you can do is use your bias in a constructive and positive way.

It's a very religious and traditional family. I was seen as this big rebel because I have tattoos and liberal politics. Her parents, needless to say, do not care for me.

It's the typical Trump half-measure. He says something radically stupid, gauges the reaction, then determines if he was serious or not.

The whole movie is a trip down Misery Lane, with a few stops in Fuckedups Town and Holyshitwhyamiwatchingthis-ville.

Key word is sense. If people can't have actual control, the illusion of control will work just as well.

Respectability politics only plays into the hands of those you're protesting.

Don't say you're against fascism, somebody might accuse you of being...anti-fascist!

Not only that, she's employed by the Heartland Institute, which is a conservative, libertarian think-tank.

That's an insanely broad question, but the simple answer is that any publication with a very clear and explicit bias and goal are to be viewed with skepticism. Right wing publications are especially known to portray the evil foreigners conspiring against America for their own gain. The Federalist and National Review do not hide their agenda, and i have neither time nor energy to listen to the ramblings of crackpots and cranks.

So, I looked up your claim. The main proponents of this theory (and it is a theory), are right wing publications like The Federalist, National Review, and Foreign Policy magazines. The Atlantic had a piece about how the WHO bungled their response, which I agree with. But to say that the WHO is "in their pocket" is the definition of begging the question.

What can I say? That you believe the communist party runs the World Health Organization? That that's an insane conspiracy theory spewed from the mouth of an insane person?

Like a parody! I have no idea how you take yourself seriously.