- In all modesty, I like quoting my opponents' positions in their entirety because I always want everybody to see twice how absurd people's thoughts can be just before breaking 'em down, but it's alright. Gotta do it differently for ya.
- Such empirical observation is hilariously tantamount to a bunch of weed smoking vandals telling us it is okay to get high in public because they've never got caught. Having people unabashedly ignoring authorities' 'recommendations' here and there doesn't make it less of a crime, and treating poor workers as criminals whereas inmates charged with real, violent crimes are freed from prison is ridiculous. If these juxtapositions of morality don't bother you, I'm afraid that nothing will. In regard to the orwellian oeuvre -- which I didn't even mention, by the way --, maybe, just maybe some build correlations because of the governors attempting to monitor citizens through their cellphones 'for the wellbeing of all' (bbc.com/portuguese/brasil-52154128
- thankfully it didn't work), or because the biggest social media platforms started deliberately witch-hunting whoever challenges the WHO without a second thought (reason.com/2020/04/20/facebook-coronavir.. bbc.com/news/technology-51961619),
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51961619), or because we're all being forced to wear masks that neither protect us from getting infected nor is any helpful to slow down the dissemination (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7153751..
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7153751/). But I'm not sure. You tell me...
- Not even China responded aggressively in the early days (apart from 'aggressively' silencing those who kinda knew what was about to happen all those months ago and 'aggressively' accusing foreigners of xenophobia for wanting to take significant action towards the virus) until the Wuhan outbreak reached international headlines, and the WHO blindly attested to that. As to you not being aware of people handcuffed for stepping outside, this might be the result of you only absorbing conjectures throughout life.
(Before I reply to the next paragraphs, I'm sincerely sorry you're functionally illiterate. In hindsight, I should've realized that earlier but you sounded so verbose and irritated until this moment, I couldn't tell. Now, moving on...)
- What I said was 'ordinary people were once unironically led to believe Brazil's summer weather could possibly get rid of COVID-19 alone' and 'Bolsonaro gave birth to a quarantine law during nearly the same period of time in case the worst happened later on' as a direct response to your meltdown. What you understood was 'Bolsonaro is above science', so yes. You are intellectually dishonest. Plus, you've been trying so hard to have it every which way that you even invoked George Orwell to straw man me. How low you have sunk.
- Aw yes! YES! Why the hell am I bringing the WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION into a CORONAVIRUS-RELATED DISCUSSION at all? It's not as if this international body whose role is to advise the globe on handling health crisis has killed hundreds of thousands by carelessly echoing China's messages in the first trimester of the year, without previous scrutiny of its own whatsoever, such as 'human-to-human transmissions can't happen I guess' and then 'apparently it can happen, but it's no big deal; no reason to panic, folks; IT'S A NEARLY HARMLESS FLU; just wash your hands, keep your room ventilated and y'all be fine', which was deemed a green light for big music concerts, church masses, football matches and other events like the carnival. Not even a chimpanzee needs to be told that social distancing is good to prevent viral diseases. And you're missing the point again if you continue focusing on the president and ignoring the people who also want the state to get out of the way so they can provide for their families 'cause the bills won't stop coming and they're desperate.
(Pardon me for this. I couldn't resist.)
"I don't see anti-lockdown protesters being poor people who need to eat nor do I see dudes in yellow shirts looking for work in essential services, wonder why?"
- Because you're not omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent like a God? Stop using empirism to make sense of the world already.
"And going parallel to the subject but don't get me started on the corruption and militias of the government you apparently want to defend."
- Unlike you, I'm not much into conspiracy theories.
"And yes you're quoting my arguments but yours don't really make any sense other than desperately trying to blame anything other than bolsonaro's incompetence."
- Not my fault if your worldview isn't wider than mine. Besides, where did I spare him from any responsibility again? Oh... and don't forget to follow the context, of course. I called you intellectually dishonest for a reason.
"Constantly addressing anti-lockdown rallies instead of warning people about what should be done, being cynical and undermining the biggest public health crisis in 100 years while ALL the mathematical models showed that no social distancing could lead to millions of deaths even months ago and somehow we're all just blaming him because of the media?"
- More and more empty 'Pocket Man Bad' gish galloping and ANOTHER straw man. You're unstoppable.
"Pretty sure this is just going to go in loopholes so yeah have a good one but there's an interesting article about it on the FT if you feel interested outline.com/hCTJkW. Hope the financial times isn't too communist for you as well".
- Third straw man of yours (now about communism, ha-ha) and counting! First of all, if you had read the article (I know you didn't) and were a person of good faith (I know you're not), you would notice the text don't differ one bit from any of those we already read on UOL/Folha/Estadao/Terra et caterva except for the language used, so it's not an interesting one at all (your mongrel complex is showing). Secondly, Rachman's three only valid points were about the anti-lockdown rallies, the major controversy towards the hydroxychloroquine and the fact that Brazil is politically polarized like never before. I respect him for sort of seeing the obvious JUST LIKE ME also, as follows (because again, you didn't read it judging by the way you sound so I have to show you at least this part):
"(...) But is it fair to blame Mr Bolsonaro? The president, who was sworn into office on January 1 2019, is obviously not responsible for the virus — nor for the poverty and overcrowding that make Covid-19 such a threat to the country. He has also not been able to prevent many of Brazil’s governors and mayors from imposing lockdowns in local areas. But by encouraging his followers to flout the lockdowns and undermining his own ministers, Mr. Bolsonaro is responsible for the chaotic response that has allowed the pandemic to get out of hand (...)". AFAIK, he hasn't formally encouraged anybody to fill the streets more than once, and that was in march.
Get a load of this. Hopefully, HLTV won't ban me for another long post.