3 ms·
> but I have not seen most people associate that same risk to the blm protests. They know of the risks, but they also know that racism, fascism, police brutali
by squarefoot 6y ago
> but I have not seen most people associate that same risk to the blm protests.
They know of the risks, but they also know that racism, fascism, police brutality, and subsequent immunity for the latter, are much much much worse to the society than Covid-19, HIV, Ebola and all other combined together, including cancer (1).
They don't go away like some virii, they can't be cured like some virii, they don't need physical/blood contact or vicinity to spread, and no lockdown would reduce the risks of "infection". All it needs in their case is corrupt rulers, corrupt press and corrupt law enforcement officers, all enablers that can do damage from whatever distance they wish.
(1- if any of you have a similar serious illness I'm truly sorry about that, but please don't lecture me on the sufferings compared to getting hit by a baton. I have direct detailed accounts from who helps every f'ing day terminal cancer patients and I'm well aware of it, so please try to understand my point instead, thanks)
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- totony 6y agoMy main point wasn't avout the awareness of the risks (although I have not seen muvh coverage on it). I understand the risk-analysis, but the people protesting/disagreeing with the lockdown also did the same thing. There is a sharp contrast in how the blm risk analysis is accepted whereas people were denying that the early protesters had even the right to make that analysis.