And the point of etiquette is to signal conformity and social status.
I had a friend who came from a working class culture where social aspiration was measured by tiny nuances, like whether someone put milk in their tea before or after pouring it.
Outside of that culture these nuances were irrelevant. Middle and upper class people had a completely different set of etiquette markers - as well as more or less obvious displays of wealth - which the working class aspirers were oblivious to.
I had pretty much the same reaction after two days of taking it.
Took a while longer to get the dose right so that my anxiety also mostly disappeared, but the difference in quality of life it made for me is hard to put into words.
An angry, divided population is a lot easier to push to the extremes, enabling such legislation because people are so angry and divided and can't come to a reasonable compromise or solution.
These things shouldn't move forward, indeed. But being angry about it for years at a time when things aren't even remotely set in stone doesn't seem healthy for an individual or society at large.
Anyone can and does say this about their pet favorite bit of legislation. And so journalists are more than happy to pull this shit with every other topic, too.
Isn't it the other way around? The police are asking permission to synthesis abuse images so they can pose as abusers in order to access forums of those actually perpetrating or encouraging abuse. The parallel given (I read it using Google Translate) is of posing as a drug dealer.
I'm sure some of them do. The last sentence makes a parallel to cops posing as buyers of illegal drugs, not purveyors, though I expect them to want that as well.
reply