What my point is trying to convey is how ridiculously it has been overblown and overhyped and ruthlessly co-opted to gain power.
The hype and hysteria is SO OVERBLOWN it's like a lit cigarette in a forest fire.
In dark conditions a human eye can pick out a lit cigarette from a great distance.
But in a forest fire? Is there someone in there with a lit cigarette? You might KNOW there is someone in there, if you go looking really really hard, but as far as you can tell, you can make a strong argument that there IS NO-ONE IN THERE.
Just like the virus. The bullshit is so strong you can make logical arguments that it's not even real at all.
Perspective.
And, if the 94% figure of actually "died from" not "died with" is true - if something is 94% fake, is it even real?
Barely.
Why do I keep making this point?
They LOCKED HEALTHY PEOPLE IN THEIR HOMES. FOR NO REASON.
THEY CRASHED THE GLOBAL ECONOMY. FOR NO REASON.
THEY'VE TRAUMATIZED MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF PEOPLE. FOR NO REASON. People are scared shitless, they think they're gonna die. They think their death is around every corner.
There are people still, in a state with a rescinded mask mandate, walking around outside on a sunny day with a mask on. These people see a mother and small child walk out of a store with no masks on and stop short, step back and glare daggers at them because they think these people LITERALLY WANT TO KILL THEM BECAUSE THEY AREN'T WEARING A MASK.
This is mind control. This is brainwashing.
And it's for something that's 94% bullshit. In my book, that's basically complete bullshit.
You're not wrong per se, but when you say "it's not real" its trivially simple to shut you down, diluting everything you want to say, and all evidence you want to present.
If you start with, "it's been overblown" then you can't be refuted out of the gate. Each piece of evidence can support or not support that statement on its own merits and the argument still remains strong.
In the first case, it only takes ONE piece of evidence to fall apart to destroy the statement. In the second case EVERY piece of evidence must be refuted.
well, you're not wrong, of course.
What my point is trying to convey is how ridiculously it has been overblown and overhyped and ruthlessly co-opted to gain power.
The hype and hysteria is SO OVERBLOWN it's like a lit cigarette in a forest fire.
In dark conditions a human eye can pick out a lit cigarette from a great distance.
But in a forest fire? Is there someone in there with a lit cigarette? You might KNOW there is someone in there, if you go looking really really hard, but as far as you can tell, you can make a strong argument that there IS NO-ONE IN THERE.
Just like the virus. The bullshit is so strong you can make logical arguments that it's not even real at all.
Perspective.
And, if the 94% figure of actually "died from" not "died with" is true - if something is 94% fake, is it even real?
Barely.
Why do I keep making this point?
They LOCKED HEALTHY PEOPLE IN THEIR HOMES. FOR NO REASON.
THEY CRASHED THE GLOBAL ECONOMY. FOR NO REASON.
THEY'VE TRAUMATIZED MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF PEOPLE. FOR NO REASON. People are scared shitless, they think they're gonna die. They think their death is around every corner.
There are people still, in a state with a rescinded mask mandate, walking around outside on a sunny day with a mask on. These people see a mother and small child walk out of a store with no masks on and stop short, step back and glare daggers at them because they think these people LITERALLY WANT TO KILL THEM BECAUSE THEY AREN'T WEARING A MASK.
This is mind control. This is brainwashing.
And it's for something that's 94% bullshit. In my book, that's basically complete bullshit.
You're not wrong per se, but when you say "it's not real" its trivially simple to shut you down, diluting everything you want to say, and all evidence you want to present.
If you start with, "it's been overblown" then you can't be refuted out of the gate. Each piece of evidence can support or not support that statement on its own merits and the argument still remains strong.
In the first case, it only takes ONE piece of evidence to fall apart to destroy the statement. In the second case EVERY piece of evidence must be refuted.
Bottom line, pick the right hill to stand on.