Many wonder about the role of these people who constantly see a danger somewhere. These people see danger in everything. They even see a danger in their (political) opponents seeing a danger. The point is that someone has to do the job. Someone has to see a danger constantly and everywhere. That would be insofar unproblematic, if these people would not bother other people with it, or these even more or less want to force to see the danger discovered by them also. People of Color are a danger ... for whatever. Renewable energies are a danger. Political opponents are a danger. A different opinion than your own is a danger. Pointing out that smoking is hazardous to health is a hazard. The strengthening of the weapons law is a danger. Any change in the law demanded by the opposition is a danger. The others are a danger! The problem in this day and age is that these people have a microphone, a digital one (internet), and not only harass but indoctrinate many other people with their danger messages. It is not that these people live in constant fear, no, they feel perfectly comfortable as long as they can constantly recognize and report a danger. Because, if the microphone is taken away from them, or they are told to let this constant danger reporting be, then they feel suppressed. Because, if they are right once with one of their danger reports, then this is used to the fact that in principle all their danger reports are to be taken seriously. They play the lottery with their hazard reports. At some point, one will hit. It's a little crazy, but it's so crazy that the constant reporting of danger can actually become a danger. It's like the firefighter who sets a fire himself (and is the first to report the fire). However, the matter is much more influential when political action is taken against the reported dangers because of these constant danger reports. So the constant reporting of dangers is not without danger. More precisely, they are not only reports of danger, but they are alleged disclosures of mistakes that have been made by others. Because the others are constantly making mistakes, they are supposed to be a danger. If, however, a mistake is uncovered among the danger reporters, this is also understood as a danger, as an attack on the so important danger reporters. Would your living in a world with preventing of each danger what this danger reporters reports? Curiously, this danger reporters says, that would be a world of freedom. That would be a world of freedom. However, there is a confusion between freedom and liberation. Liberation is always only the freedom, which is approved to you by someone or something. Liberation (Liberty) is the liberation / permission of acts, which only extends the freedom of some chosen ones (privileges), as well as restricts others. Liberation is a one-sided Freedom, also only a Liberty (release). US America is known for its Liberty. Politically it expresses itself in libertarian partie (republican). In Europe (germany), however, there are rather liberal parties. However, libertarian parties have also been established in recent decades. In germany, a so namend (libertarian) "Republikaner" partie has not succeeded the establishing. A new libertarian partie with an another name has succeeded the establishing. In Europe, therefore, a direct comparison between liberal and libertarian parties is possible. What do you think about the constant danger reporters?
Your Danger Reporters dont seem to mention climate? yet it seems climate reminders are with us always. Constant reporting of danger will gain a person the label of parinoid. or cry wolf. Is violent crime considered one of the dangers. Or is it considered overreported?
hmmmm... The climate change alerter are not this constantly danger reporter, but only constantly climate change alerter. This danger reporters see a danger in people warning about climate change. About this, it is not the people who only warn about one danger, like violent crime or climate change, but who constantly see a danger in everywhere, except themselves. They do it so skillfully that it is not perceived as paranoid or siren, because every time they do it, they are attacking someone and calling them guilty. Similar to accusing someone of witchcraft in the Middle Ages. It worked then and it works now. Their goal seems to be to gain common influence and power. Should this way of gaining common influence and power be legitimate?
The comparison to an insurance underwriter is an interesting one. It is similar to the situation where these danger reporters see a danger to freedom with borderless immigration. My freedom: yes. Your freedom: danger!
I'm still trying to figure out what you're trying to say, cuz it seems kinda muddled. Let's take the last paragraph first. "US America is known for its Liberty. Politically it expresses itself in libertarian partie (republican)." We have a Libertarian Party in the U.S., but we have a different much larger party, and known as "Republican"--or should we say "Retrumplican". The party known as Libertarian doesn't have much of a chance electorally, because of the "winner take all" character of our electoral system which makes it practically impossible for a third party to get anywhere in this country. The Republican Party is anything but libertarian, nor is it liberal, which it regards as a dirty word. There are plenty of real dangers in the world today, and plenty of manufactured ones. Some of us are worried about Covid, while others are worried about vaccines. Some are worried about Climate Change, while others are worried they won't have gas guzzling vehicles. Etc. Some people are paranoid, others aren't. And some are out to deceive us for personal gain or just because. So what's the solution? What's the point of your post? Please spell it out. My personal solution is to try, as best I can, to employ my faculties of reason, intuition, and experience to exercise my best judgment to distinguish the real from the fake, as i do in voting. It takes effort, but I see no easy way out.
