No, I fully believe you're making different issues into one, which is dishonest argumentation.
Adblockers are functionally equivalent to piracy, the fact that some entities abuse others is a different issue. It's the same as with gambling mechanics in games, the fact that most people would think that those are predatory and bad does not change that not paying for the game is piracy. It's possible to be more nuanced about things than to group everything together.
I disagree that we shouldn't constrain the use of words to their definitions. It's what helps make the meaning of sentences the most clear for everyone. If people had actually done that then the definition of "literally" wouldn't include "figuratively" and a lot of misunderstandings could be avoided.
Otherwise we could end up with people saying that when they wrote "all white people deserve to die" what they actually meant was that they deserve to live, since that's how they use the word "die". It's nonsensical to me.
But it's not a yoke, it's a steering wheel, which generally turn up to 1 and 1/2 times each way, which with a small radius roundabout (which is a lot of them in Norway) means you'll have to go hand over hand to turn sharply enough, thus not having your hands on the exact same spots through the turn and thus not able to press the right haptic feedback panel at that time.
The situation they created was to kill one person, versus the situation that existed was that 5 people would die.
The difference is between action and inaction and the fact that it's easier to say "you caused something" if you took some action than if you simply didn't take an action.
I would say that one shouldn't use "ex-convict" if the conviction was overturned, since that's essentially saying the conviction was incorrect to begin with (as far as I understand), while it could be correct for someone who was pardoned, since it isn't directly about the conviction being wrong in that case (unless I've misunderstood that).
EDIT: Making it explicit; making derogatory remarks towards others does not make people seem less like a lunatic. And claiming that a group of people are downvoting you to make you look like a lunatic is itself more likely to make you look like a lunatic than if the group actually were downvoting you.
Interestingly enough, in old English you had "werman" and "wifman" for man and woman respectively, in which case referring to all with "mankind" makes perfect sense. So the originator for mankind seems more likely to be from that than the explanation that it's a shortening of "humankind" to me.
It doesn't say you go back in time to being six years old, you start over as a six year old. A six year old in 2024.
Hashtag monkeys paw.