How it's presented has zero impact on the actual result. That is to say 'Risk Abatement'.
Some women might intend this as punishment or revenge on an individual or society at large, but that is also irrelevant.
It stems from a conscious ~or~ unconscious understanding that the risks have changed. And so must their decisions.
To be more accurate, your analogy should actually read something like this:
Origionally you give raises to your employees based on performance.
Then one of them says "fuck you".
After that point giving a raise to any of them has a 5% chance of killing you, per raise.
How many raises do you now give?
There is no retaliation or punishing involved at all. Just a healthy respect for the consequences, however unlikely.
Man who subverted democracy with the help of his brother and the supreme court....is okay with another man subverting democracy. Startling. ¬_¬
Honestly, it's much more troubling the amount of people who seem to have come round to 'George is just a bumbling buffoon but a great guy really'.
Is it just time? Wishful thinking? Or Trump making his presidency seem less destructive - even though Bush was waaaay worse for the planet as a whole? (Obviously that latter part would no doubt be ~trumped~ if he actually gets a second term)
See if Musk was ~actually~ a smart man, he'd have moved twitter's headquarters TO Israel before starting this lawsuit, seeing as that anti-boycott act is present in like 40 states.