People try and take a principled stance like "protest good" even when it is one whose goals they oppose because they think if we protect the protest for what I consider bad, we will also ostensibly protect the protests I consider good whenever that time comes. But this is just not how it goes. That State will wield its authority against protests based on the political consequences they have for people holding office, not based on what issues the protests are for. They are going to crack down on a Leftist protest or a Right wing protest if they are disruptive enough to cross a line for those in office.
So there is no practical reason for giving a shit about this principle. Throw your support behind protests pushing for what you support. Oppose protests pushing for what you oppose.
So when the numetas wanna be like "ohh so BLM protest good but trucker bad????" I say: yes, obviously.
Like iaafr said, people are more persuaded by the underlying message and demands of a protest. And that is how it should be. Don't fall for hypocrisy accusations. It makes perfect sense to support what the State is doing when it is doing something in your favor.
nah lukewarm at best. you should get it because there is close to no downside but if you want to fantasize a grand narrative deep state or can't be bothered then that's your right. used to have to get the flu vaccine yearly in the past and that's a crapshoot at best but i signed up for it as an adult
on a practical level attempting the mandate always seemed like itd lead to something like this anyhow given how polarized and staunch the vaccine opposers are
yea scared people talk louder whether they're scared people not getting the shot will propagate the virus or people scared the gubmint will strap them down and give them haldol to get that needle in. i think most people wouldn't resist one way or another if the state flexed on them. there's just not that much at stake compared to prison if you weigh your options
public discourse is great on this stuff but backing the state to muscle people down while pragmatic in a short term is a scarier precedent to set than letting people do dumb shit (if you're in the right)
Why definitely not best everyone is forced? Everyone isn't forced. Most "mandates" in question have a testing option. But even if they were forced, what is the argument against it?
I agree that politically, strict mandates are not a good option. But if I was king I would have 3 doses of vaccines in every arm for sure and I would feel righteous doing so.
actually they are lol remember when BLM shut down multiple city blocks and refused to let emergency services in? Or how about caused a billion dollars in property damage? All in the middle of a pandemic but liberal media sources made sure to tell you it was ok to go out and protest
If you honestly believe that an authoritarian system is best as long as it suits your idea of whatever political system you feel is best then you’re basing your opinions on a hypothetical utopia where all levels of government operate free of corruption towards a singular goal
The last time we had an authoritarian government all operating towards a singular goal we ALLEGEDLY had Jews in the gas chambers. Now I’m not going to call liberals today literally hitler or anything I just think providing government with overreaching powers and allowing them to make the decision to have bodily autonomy over an individual is a bad precedent
