I am not sure whom are you talking to now, jason or me?
In general I find it noteworthy that in these conversations it is always that the side that critisizes the mainstream approach is the side that stays rather calm and factual, and the side defending it rather quickly gets emotional and slightly rough.
We are presenting views here according to our knowledge, and if you do not like them, you are free to disagree. But please add to the information pool and don't call things bullshit and discredit the facts they are based on while at the same time refraining from stating your facts.
I am happy if I am kind of prepared if shit hits the fan, and even more happy if it does not happen.
(This is in memory of what used to be called 'discourse').
Bud, if you scroll up you will find a post where you are telling stories about all the bad things you can see coming while providing zero evidence or proof. Since then I've been nothing but kind to you. If you think me pointing out that this paranoia is not serving you well is me attacking you or being overly emotional is a a misread of this situation.
You seem pretty deep in your collapse fantasies, I'll not interrupt that. I'm not sorry me pointing out living in a fantasy terrible future is making you less happy here and now and hope that gets stuck in your teeth long enough for you to maybe digest it.
Again, it's not paranoia, it's what THEY are planning for society, and it's been openly presented to the public for nearly a year now. Here's just one example from all the way back last August - COVID-19 vaccines could become mandatory. Here’s how it might work.
"After a COVID-19 vaccine is available, you may need to get inoculated to go to the office, attend a sporting event, or even get a seat at a restaurant." And again, "This is the future as some experts see it: a world in which you’ll need to show you’ve been inoculated against the novel coronavirus to attend a sports game, get a manicure, go to work, or hop on a train."
The future as some experts see it, the same experts driving the technocratic agenda (Bill Gates and co.), and they've been pushing this agenda for over a year now. It's not paranoia to notice their plans and speak out against them, even before they've been made reality, although in Israel it is becoming reality, and their digital passport system has been hailed as 'the model for the world'. China, too, requiring vaccine passports and leading the way with social credit scores as well, and we've been fed the narrative that we should follow in China's footsteps for many months now. Airlines openly stating plans to require vaccine passport as condition for travel, employers already making vaccination a condition for employment, schools already mandating the vaccine, and yet it's paranoia to think it may soon be a condition for 'normal' life in society? The writing is on the wall. There are many more mainstream pieces going into much more detail about how this will be the new normal. The only question is whether those planning this future succeed or not, that mandatory vaccination is their plan cannot be disputed, and mainstream pieces continue to push this agenda. Here's a most recent piece from Bloomberg advocating forced injections:
What Happens When Vaccine Incentives Aren’t Enough?
Reluctant citizens can slow down herd immunity despite abundant vaccines. Compulsory shots are unpalatable, but may be necessary.
You can say that it is paranoia that is based in some great information. When you are having thoughts of persecution coming from a shadowy THEM there is simply a word for what that is.
And that word is paranoia.
It is not paranoia when one is already feeling the real life effects of the plans of those not so shadowy folks being implemented in real time. A family member of mine must wear a mask for work or lose her job and it is negatively affecting her health, @erhgermany lost a contract for same reason, and vaccination mandates are already being implemented. This is not mere thoughts of persecution, this is discrimination that is already taking place on a massive global scale.
When you choose to not to do the things a workplace or business requires it's not discrimination, it's simply repercussions.
Do you feel oppressed that convenience stores requite shirts and shoes? You talk about how you don't see yourself as a victim but anything beyond the world fully supporting your personal egotism is oppression and discrimination.
I think that person is just a kid or an immature one who probably has no experience in having disobeyed his authorities and therefor cannot feel that breaking the rules or rejecting the enforced laws has any disadvantage. He seems to be convinced that "punishing" people for their own views is just.
It goes so far as to respect your own view as less authentic and valuable and to insist on the assertion that a negative view cannot be, that is, to deny the individual how he feels. The people who tell you "it's not so bad", who say: "You feel wrong because you think it's bad, but I don't." That would be like a big strong man saying to a small physically inferior woman who has to carry thirty kilos of luggage on her back that it's not so bad because he can carry the thirty kilos easily himself.
His comparisons with the compulsory wearing of seat belts in cars or people being clothed in public completely miss the point. He is a submitter, a conformist who accepts laws made by fallible people as if they were God-given.
To describe the fact that I no longer have a job and that my colleagues think it is right that I am no longer allowed to enter the rooms without a mask and testing as a mere "disadvantage" shows a complete lack of legal awareness.
According to this world view, there is no discrimination, but the person who refuses has himself to blame because he has not obeyed. This tendency shows that people who exclude others from the social community probably do so because they fear for their own jobs and social exclusion. You don't want to have "rotten tomatoes" in your basket because it might reflect badly on you. So protective claims are made that brand people like us as immoral, as selfish. Yet it has long been clear that the hangers-on are in the majority, but feel threatened by a minority. Because they do not want to recognise that the threat comes from above and not horizontally. But they blame the weakest members of a community because they already feel stronger and do not want to lose this strength under any circumstances. The perceived fear of the oppressive provisions then expresses itself as rejection, hatred or ignorance towards the oppressed. The victim becomes the perpetrator because he or she does not want to be a victim.