—> You miss the point. The term ‘pureblood’ has been around long before Harry Potter and the vaccines. When the anti-vaxxers adopt the term ‘pureblood’ they’re imitating Nazis, skin heads and white surpemicists who call themselves ‘Purebloods’.
Ok, should be extremely easy for you, mudblood, to demonstrate with evidence:
…one single non-vaxxed Pureblood who “ adopted the term ‘pureblood’ to imitate Nazis, skin heads and white surpemicists”
Go!
I like to call myself as “untainted,” personally.
I get that “pureblood” in the context of Nazis and the vaxeem is entirely two different things, logically-speaking, in that the those who didn’t take the jab are white, black, Asian, Catholic, Jew, Buddhist, Mexican, Thai, etc., the whole gamut, albeit higher concentrations of some groups are unjabbed. So there’s no ethnic or racial thing like the Nazis had going on.
Also, except for children, one makes a choice with the jab to make their blood “unpure.” It started in a pure state before the jab.
But the “pure” vs. “unpure” thing sort of has a connotation of superiority built into it, which is not helpful in winning converts.
“Tainted” versus “untainted” has more of a connotation of “Hey, a poison is out there in the vaxseem. They lied to you about it. Now you have a problem. Your blood is tainted with it. You should be mad about this and want it fixed and the poisoners brought to justice. Yeah, some people knew enough not to “taint” themselves with it. But we’re all in this together because the “tainters” are out there cooking up ways to get more people tainted.”