This is a great answer and I love the most relatable example for this community is having friends that deal drugs, apparently.

While the “something out of the ordinary might happen to you” (getting caught for dealing, being a stalker’s victim) argument works for some, some may realize that rare things are, well, rare. It can be argued the effort to counter rare scenarios can only be justified to a certain degree, or not at all.

I think this language is more universal:

“Remember the notion that if you want to double your success rate you triple your failure rate. […] If you’ve ever watched a kid play in a way that’s pushing their boundaries, they do this thing where – if they don’t know you’re watching – they make a lot of mistakes and they keep pushing through them. But if they catch you secretly watching them while they make mistakes, they put the thing away and walk away from it. It just kills their play. As a father it’s the thing that breaks my heart when I do it, because it’s very tempting to look over at your kids when they’re doing something awesome and intense. But then you humiliate them. You embarrass them. So there’s something about us that wants to have vulnerable moments not take place in public, that wants to choose the moment of disclosure.”

Source

They might be implying that it’s nonsense to be having a conversation about whether trans people deserve equity, since they obviously do.

Yup, also see this article from Cory Doctorow.

From this article:

The procedure now chosen gives the proponents of Chat Control a significant tactical advantage. Since the law is in its second reading, an absolute majority of 361 votes of all parliament members is required for amendments or a renewed rejection on Thursday. In contrast, a simple majority of the MEPs present is sufficient for the other side. As many parliamentarians have historically already departed by the last day before the summer break, the re-enactment of the regulation is considered almost unavoidable.

Had the MEPs rejected the urgency, the draft would have gone to the responsible Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, where a legally sound compromise could have been worked out after the summer break.