This is *exactly what I predicted would be the case - I wrote about it in one of my essays saying let the courts decide - this is akin to shattering a glass on the floor and asking everyone to freeze, once the mess is cleaned up we'll have the hindsight to review how we did. "Surprisingly, the judge specifically noted that had he “been at [the federal cabinet’s] tables at that time” he might have agreed it was necessary to invoke the Act, but in conducting the judicial review, he had “the benefit of hindsight” and a “more extensive record of the facts”.
Because I value the pursuit truth I am always quick to admit my misunderstandings or when I am wrong.
And further, I admire this quality from the countless professionals I follow. In fact, when they do not admit mistakes (such as numerous medical "professional", a few specific ones come to mind) - I immediately unfollow and stop supporting.
These people do not have your best interest in heart - only their own.
"Expert sources themselves are more effective in correcting misinformation than users are, and engaging in such corrections on social media does not appear to negatively affect their credibility.5 Sharing corrections that counter personal or political interest can enhance trust and thus effectiveness, so considering trusted sources among a target audience is essential."
This one is mission critical - PLEASE listen & share!
Covering topics from AI/algorithms, 9/11, vaccines and how to escape through actually critical thinking. And how conspirituality deflects from actual evidence based conspiracies such as Fred Hampton, Epstein, Catholic child abuse - all symptoms of colonial capitalism.
Aso - shameless plug, this once again validates all my pandemic writing, up to and including the mentioning of Naomi Klein's disaster capitalism and especially her latest book Doppelganger which is *precisely what I've been saying throughout but is obviously FAR more comprehensive.