Ah but that would make everyone seem guilty when in fact you need to have some kind of power to get your hands bloody. Let's not absolve the powerful because "that's how people are". Most people don't cause large-scale damage.

That might be true in theory. In practice, I see at least two issues with that statement:

1) you don't get what you deserve, but what the majority deserves. It's a big difference.
2) it assumes that the democracy you are talking about is functional, which in turn assumes that everyone has access to reliable information (a prerequisite to making informed decisions). One might argue that is technically the case, but in practice it isn't: when shown a fact and a lie, people acting in good faith disagree on which is which. Having access to reliable information would mean these people agree on which is which.

There's also the fact that often enough democracy ends up rewarding bad behaviour from politicians, such as populism, corruption, making decisions that do not satisfy the needs of the many, or more simply and perhaps more commonly than anything else, lying. Which in turn reinforces the issue of access to reliable information.

Ah I have been wondering about this, if you could share such studies I'd much appreciate it.

Can you please share some of this evidence?

Some people (me included) like not having a numpad because they never use it and it takes space on the desktop. For many, the mouse is directly right of the keyboard, and having the numpad take that space can make things actually quite uncomfortable.

This question holds for all operating systems though. Why would I want Windows or MacOS as my desktop OS? I'm sure many people have an opinion on this, for me believe it or not Linux just works as my desktop OS. It doesn't serve me ads (Windows), doesn't spy on me (safe to assume Windows and MacOS both do it), it doesn't try to tell me how to use my computer and lock me in as a source of revenue (Windows and MacOS) and it doesn't get in the way of me using it (Windows and MacOS).

It is safe as the average person is better off with than without it. It is effective as the average person as less chances to have severe COVID with it than without, and also less chances of transmitting it.

So at this point you are either disputing the reality of these facts, or arguing for different definitions of safe and effective. If the former then we live in a different reality and we won't be able to agree. If the latter then you are just arguing in bad faith to score gotcha points, which I have no interest in.

Not sure why you chose to be insulting but it makes your message less audible. Less noise and more information please.

We were not sold a similar message. We were told that the vaccine reduces risk of severe COVID infection (effective) and that the risk and nature of complications are such that we're better off vaccinated than not vaccinated (safe). I live in Austria but also read international news. If you can provide a link to the kind of propaganda you mention, I'm interested in having a look.

People thought that the right to abortion was here to stay, then some states made it illegal. Are you confident that these same states won't make birth control illegal in the coming years? If yes, based on what?

Only an idiot would understand it like that. Effective means that it has a significant effect, which it does. Significant means it is measured on more than one person, which it was and is.

I don't know about where you live but where I live (Europe), all of this was made very clear, the information was and is openly available and brought to everyone's attention. We nonetheless had (and still have) idiots cherry picking information so that they could make this kind of absurd all-or-nothing argument. It's hard to help people who choose stupidity, as it's hard to help people against their own will. But we shouldn't entertain these people's delusions.

Sure but let's not forget about the value of consensus, best effort and middle ground. Not everything needs to be a conflict or a win/lose scenario. For instance a high hedge might reduce noise.

Not the OP but I live in Austria and the same applies here. I often work from home and sometimes receive parcels for my neighbours. One other option (depending on the delivery company) is delivery to a shop 50m away from my apartment, where I can go and pick up the parcel when I have time. One other option is lockers at the entrance of my building, and a way to open said locker delivered to my mailbox. Yet another option is delivery to 24/7 lockers at the local post office. They're all good options. The delivery guys are given routes that are typically time-infeasible if they go to everyone's apartment, and delivery companies have access to different options, so the recipient doesn't always choose which option is used. But again, they're all good options.

Using the same word "crime" for different behaviours with different motivations is why your argument seems to make sense on a superficial level. But we both know that poor people commit crime because they can't afford shit while rich people commit crime because they're psychopaths who get high on not following the same rules as the plebes.

By "nuclear verdict" do you mean people high in the hierarchy at Facebook going to jail? Is that even possible in the jurisdiction where this is being judged? Because that's what needs to happen if the charges are true.