Thank you for engaging, but Wow! Now you don't have to take out your unhappiness on some poor internet commenter who sincerely meant you no harm. It is quite humorous to me, but I also feel sad for you that you've reacted in this way. The trouble with internet discourse is, if in person, I'm sure you would come around once I reassured you I meant no harm, but on the 'net you will basically be unable to admit you over-reacted on your misinterpretation, and will just have to double down or stay silent. It's rare, but incredibly inspiring online when people can say, "Sorry, my bad, I misread you and over-reacted. I'm sorry"

Anyway, I will explain: That you want to read-in a bad intent to a comment that has none...that's just you projecting. Please don't do that--it is against the rules, but, especially don't try to blame someone else for your own feelings here, trying to attack me for how you misinterpreted my comment. OK, that would be nice, yes, mm? :)

I said I don't want to hurt your feelings, and modalized my hypothesis with an 'if', and said I hoped it was not the case. Indeed that's exactly how I feel. If you mistook it differently, that's not my problem :) Plus I was talking more about how this could be a factor in general, rather than directly associating it with you, but on account of how I knew you might feel it was associated I lead with how I did not want to hurt your feelings so you knew I wasn't trying to.

I'm sorry but if you're only reaction to this idea, that an element of Stockholm syndrome could manifest in populations in lockdown...is to call the speaker 'just a troll', say "go away" and and pretend they're not thinking critically...well it seems the only one resistant to a bit of critical inquiry, is you, in this case, wouldn't you say, hmm? :) Further to try to belittle someone's ideas as being 'just a troll' or not 'actually think[ing] critically' suggests you need to look down on someone with these ideas. Why would that be? Maybe because you fear the ideas have merit, but you have no response to the ideas per se, so you have to convince yourself the speaker is an idiot, so you can 'banish them' as it were from your mind. Problem solved? But it's so abusive to others who meant you no harm...Apart from being bad, in this case, the one resistant to critical inquiry, is clear :)

Further your defensive over-reaction implies you think what I said has merit, which would seem to reveal a NZ reality that belies your earnest insistence that it is not the case. Had you not reacted in this way, I never would have suspected NZ was in some sort of majorly restrictive situation--but perhaps it's just your life that is majorly restrictive right now, and you're projecting that? Which is it? Because it seems the mere general suggestion that you may have been looking with rosy colored glasses at something which is more dire than you seem to want to admit...was so triggering for you, that you unloaded like this with zero justification--suggesting that there has to be some reality to the notion I propose. Or maybe your reaction has nothing to do with NZ, and is just simply how you misinterpreted my comment, and then went on a projection-fueled tirade, because you're holding some unprocessed anger wholly unrelated to me. Or maybe the only one trolling was you...a bully looking for a fight on a weak pretext? Either way, please don't mis-read bad intent where there is none and please don't blame others for your own feelings, mate! That's not good boundaries, nor a good way to develop excellent relationships, is it now? :) Don't be toxic! :)

Besides... taking the point at hand, we should be open to multiple views, and not forget nuance. Let's not criminalize heterodoxy in the discourse. We should have a plurality of perspectives, particularly in these so-called Western liberal democracies. But granted, such an environment, does not ensure the tolerance of any one individual. Oh well... :)