based on your own experience, can you speak up if you are one of those who abide by all the rules? As long as you wear a mask in public, you won't get into trouble anywhere, neither in the supermarket nor at work. As long as you test yourself or get tested, you will be left unmolested. That is a fact that you have just confirmed.
Since you do not have your own experience of discrimination, abuse, dismissal and having your reputation destroyed if you abide by all the rules, how are you even going to judge that those who think the rules are pointless and damaging are faring?
To suggest that these people are paranoid is moving away from a factual discussion.
I lost my business partners as a freelancer, first because of my mask exemption and next because I didn't want to test myself "voluntarily". Do you want to tell such people that one has unjustified fear of persecution?
I was snapped at by two aggressive young men because I wasn't wearing my mask. They didn't care that there is such a thing as exemptions from it.
Now the question is, who is a victim, apparently? I would say: all of us. The fact that the victims of this regime are fighting each other is not only bad, but unwise.
But you can't see a dictatorship coming if you abide by (unjust) laws. Then you feel nothing of the fact that your freedom is taken away, because you don't have to suffer any consequences. You will only notice the deprivation of freedom when you dare to break rules.
My question to you is: Why do you think you abide by the rules? Is it because you fear a virus? Can it also be that you indeed are informed about what people are facing in not working by the book? At least, allow yourself to answer this question.
Those are decisions you made that had repercussions. This is not the same thing a persecution.
You are telling me that I do not see the dictatorship coming because I follow all the rules at all times. You are just really off the base there and making a lot of assumptions. There is no dictatorship, the is the empire. Comparing being asked to wear a mask, not wearing one because its not required, and having people judge you for it is not oppression, its society. This makes as much sense as presenting yourself as a victim of oppression and descrimination because your area has seatbelt laws and you dont like that. It's straight up childish.
Seatbelt laws are a form of tyranny and oppression wherever they are enforced with fines, as they punish people who have not initiated force or threatened force against another. Initiation of force against peaceful people is both unjust and tyrannical. Whether you see seatbelts as good or bad does nothing to change the fact that seatbelt laws authorize the state, which has a monopoly on force via armed men in guns and badges, to extract money from peaceful people who have not initiated force or threatened to use force upon another. That is called harassment and theft if done by any other human, but if done by the state it is somehow deemed 'moral' and 'just' (although it is not, it is only legal, and laws, such as in the case of Nazi Germany as one example, were used to exterminate populations and carry out genocides in the most extreme of cases).
Now granted, seatbelt laws are a far cry from genocide, but the principle remains the same, once the state has the power to punish those who have not harmed or threatened to harm another, they have embarked upon the path of tyranny which can in extreme cases lead to all sorts of vile evil, from imprisoning dissidents to ethnic cleansing and so much more.
Man, there is really no way you could have proved my point better here.
If you cannot take a large step back and see you just went from seatbelts to ethnic cleansing in one giant run-on sentence and that is a problem I have nothing left to say here because there are no ears to hear basic sense.
Again you talk about stepping back from this conversation, you do not see that calling others' opinion bullshit is rough, and after a few hundred words you still have not provided ONE fact to support your view.
I would be interested in this fact. I like to broaden my horizon.
You seem to be pretty new to Hive, so let me tell you, people love to have a decent exchange of opinions here, which you can tell from the effort jason and erh.germany are putting into trying to communicate with you.
You also do not seem to understand the structure of comments, as you seem to be replying to the wrong comments.
Why are you not adding to it, but keep on throwing out replies that are mostly agressive?
Any thinking human might think you have no arguments, but a lot of believe.
You clearly missed my point, which is that all major oppression started from the premise that any oppression can somehow be ‘just’ simply because the harm is minimal. Injustice is injustice no matter the scale, and initiation of force or threat of force against peaceful people is the underlying mechanism of both the collection of minor traffic tickets and ethnic cleansing. As I clearly said, there is a major difference between the 2 (in harm), but there is no difference in the premise behind both, that those with monopoly of force for some reason have the right and duty to initiate force against peaceful people in the name of public ‘health’ and ‘safety’.
I don't know what country you live in. In my country, the state of emergency has been declared by law, and with it the inviolability of the home, the free choice of profession, the regimentation of how many people I am allowed to meet with, has been formulated as a law by the government and has already been amended twice. You don't think that arresting people who demonstrate in public, chasing young people who hug outside by police, is questionable or dangerous?
I'm not assuming anything about you, I was referring to the fact that you said you didn't get into any trouble, which suggests that you abide by the rules? Is that not so? Then please correct that.
My government talks quite bluntly about vaccinated people "getting their basic rights back", while unvaccinated people are not given such a prospect. I don't know what you think that is? I think it is an encroachment on the freedom of the individual, a "society" as you portray it here is abstract and to compare it to compulsory seatbelt use I interpret as mockery.
My government's use of language alone, to say that it can "give" or "take away" fundamental rights, is a paradox. For fundamental rights cannot be handed out like sweets by any government. Otherwise they would not be fundamental rights.
Hey man, I'm going to step away. I don't know who you are arguing with but it's not me. I have not made any statments that are at all like this.
Just on my way out:
I dont think you understand what the word assumption means. You took some information you thought suggested a thing and came to an assumed conclusion. This is very basic. I'm glad you are able to grock that society is an abstract at least.
Please have a good day.
It's hard to read you when you are not correcting what you think I misinterpreted. I am having a hard time to do the translation work... strange. So, can you please make the effort and make it clear by what you meant? Like here:
My user-name has the word "germany" in it. This refers to me as a german speaking person. You may take into account that English is not my native tongue. Is it yours?
Is what you are referring to here me correcting the spelling of survival?
If that is a hurdle to communication here that is not on me.
okay, one more try.
What do you mean by that sentence?
To leave it just with that one.
Happy to help!
There is no dictatorship, there is the empire.
I'm going to go go ahead and not edit the original lost so your accusations that I editied them to confuse you has maximum WTF factor.
I just want to say it's made my morning to see you try and shame me for misspelling a word while also talking about how you don't speak English enough to be able to understand sentences with a misspelling in it.
Thanks for that, haha
oh, well. I changed my mind. Useless to come to an understanding with you.