I mean, it would be nice if more people would come to the understanding that there is mutual disagreement: our side believes many people died due to unnecessary stress and fear put on people with overreactions and experimental “vaccines”. So your “misinformation” has killed, and would be something to feel ashamed of, from our perspective, and to feel bad for “your victims”; or at least to acknowledge there’s a lack of consensus and that people are trying to make the best decisions they can under uncertain circumstances.
The debate isn’t happening
I guess, it isn’t really on our side much either, we just know the masks are pretty useless and most people seem to agree by going back to normal without masking in public (in spite of other people sounding the alarm that covid rates and other diseases are still bad and that people should be masking I guess?). So I guess that’s a litmus for how many people actually believe masks work today (doesn’t seem to be much) and how many would have masked without being threatened (probably not as many?).
At least it would be nice if we could “agree to disagree” and don’t require the masks for all places. Just have one place that is mask-free, another that requires them (if desired). I guess I just envisioned this was how both sides could be accommodated. Didn’t totally understand why it had to be one way or the other. I am fine with people wearing masks if they want to; didn’t understand why they also felt the need to force other people to wear masks as well in all spaces. But I guess even this attitude is kind of a concession, and not-masking seems to be more desired by most?
It’s nothing if the sort.
People died because of tweaked information like this grandstanding as news and the circle-jerks they spawned. Another one is attempting to spawn here.
Elsewhere, OP pulled the same thing with a trans article.
The debate isn’t happening because it’s a dusted off year-old rigged conversation. Not because people are dehumanizing.
I mean, it would be nice if more people would come to the understanding that there is mutual disagreement: our side believes many people died due to unnecessary stress and fear put on people with overreactions and experimental “vaccines”. So your “misinformation” has killed, and would be something to feel ashamed of, from our perspective, and to feel bad for “your victims”; or at least to acknowledge there’s a lack of consensus and that people are trying to make the best decisions they can under uncertain circumstances.
I guess, it isn’t really on our side much either, we just know the masks are pretty useless and most people seem to agree by going back to normal without masking in public (in spite of other people sounding the alarm that covid rates and other diseases are still bad and that people should be masking I guess?). So I guess that’s a litmus for how many people actually believe masks work today (doesn’t seem to be much) and how many would have masked without being threatened (probably not as many?).
At least it would be nice if we could “agree to disagree” and don’t require the masks for all places. Just have one place that is mask-free, another that requires them (if desired). I guess I just envisioned this was how both sides could be accommodated. Didn’t totally understand why it had to be one way or the other. I am fine with people wearing masks if they want to; didn’t understand why they also felt the need to force other people to wear masks as well in all spaces. But I guess even this attitude is kind of a concession, and not-masking seems to be more desired by most?