Thread by @CharlieBillin18

@unhealthytruth
1/x
A pal made good points re: people (or is it a bot? It has some red flags) like Emma:
1.) As @delbigtree pointed out at @dchomecoming, "For those of you that say 'I did what I had to to protect my job', know that that was the same argument made by the Nazis"

@unhealthytruth @delbigtree @dchomecoming 2/x
Statements like @Emma12816's are esp dangerous because they perpetuate the false notion that it's ok to comply under certain circumstances. And it's not. Period.

There are many folks who know better but who got the jab or a forged certificate, justifying it the same as Emma

3/x
So, many such folks use the Parent or Job card to justify compliance when actually they're careerists &/or lazy &/or want the advantages of compliance.

Don't misunderstand me; not saying that Emma (or the bot?🤣) wasn't sincere about wanting to see her parents . . .

4/x
. . .She may or may not be--that's another discussion.

The point is she's giving herself a pass AND asking us to sympathize. And she's also (whether intentionally or not--doesn't make a difference really) essentially normalizing such behaviour to others, AND giving . .

5/x . . moral support to folks who caved, even though they knew better, because they wanted to have advantages others of us have necessarily foregone for the greater good.

Nevermind that Emma's conveniently seems to ignore the fact that if everyone like her had said "No!". . .

6/x . . we'd be much closer to being out of this mess, if not already out of it.

Finally, this is a good example of #controlledopposition (NOT saying she's necessarily controlled oppoistion or that her situation isn't authentic, though there's no way to know for sure). But. . .

7/x . . Emma's statement works on the same level as #ControlledOpposition (for the reasons enumerated above). So, FOR ALL INTENTS & PURPOSES, it might as well be controlled opposition.

PS. For the likes of @Emma12816:

@Emma12816 @threadreaderapp unroll