Nov 2, 2022·edited Nov 2, 2022Liked by Sarah Reynolds
What a great piece...perhaps expose' would be a better characterization?
One thought popped into my head while reading this...getting something wrong, such as "I think we should wear masks to help slow the spread." is not a "moral failing." Telling someone that if they don't wear a mask, you will push to get them fired, ostracized by their families, denied health care, etc. is very definitely a "Moral Failing!"
It isn't that they got it wrong, it's that they were willing to crush anyone who had the audacity to challenge them. That's downright scary and does not warrant amnesty.
This and the Tim Robbins article both boil down to a setup to later describe the call for justice as “intolerance.”
Note that the lion share of behavior involved forcibly silencing people who deviated from or challenged the message. And these articles are essentially asking everyone who was silenced to shut the fuck up voluntarily.
Elon MuSK buys Twitter. A NY judge tells NYC to give every single job back to unvaxxed. GOP looks poised for a major victory.... and this cadre of authoritarians think really hard about what’s next and come up with LET’S ASK THEM TO SHUT UP INSTEAD OF TELLING THEM TO SHUT UP AND THEN CALL THEM MONSTERS WHEN THEY DON’T.
Gosh, it’s almost like their thoughts are bounded on every side by the presupposition that your silence is a requirement for their existence.
Nov 2, 2022·edited Nov 2, 2022Liked by Sarah Reynolds
Great article. This segment in particular goes to the heart of something I was trying to tell a friend the other day:
"All of a sudden, the fear underlying the overconfident tone, the arrogant presumptuous prediction of the future as requiring you, unvaxxed untouchable, to sit down and shut the fuck up rises to the top. It’s as though she’s poo-pooing us! Why would that be? Fear. Because she’s afraid she did something so wrong that it might be considered illegal. (And if not her, whoever encouraged her to write the piece.)"
I also detect that precise species of fear in her piece: the fear of financial or even *criminal* culpability for lies she spun up or retailed. I am in particular referring to her whitewashing of mask policy, after presenting data to the contrary.
You won't find anyone a fiercer proponent of free speech than I am. It's not her opinions that I find criminal, and I wouldn't consider any justice system to be worth its name for prosecuting those. But we have a large and growing body count on our hands, and many powerful people desperate to wash their hands of it. I want a full accounting of those that ran cover for them. I want to know who was paid for what, and when. As I've said before, I'm in no mood to give the Osters of the world the benefit of the doubt. I want to know if she was a knowing accessory to the deadliest, most destructive fraud ever perpetrated, either before or after the fact.
Nov 2, 2022·edited Nov 2, 2022Liked by Sarah Reynolds
in general, politicians who get caught having affairs with their interns do this exact thing. they say they are sorry, but they are really only sorry that they got caught. they had a great time; that 18 year old chick was so much hotter than their menopausal wife but now they pull out the "contrition" and the "family values" and hope for amnesty.
just wait until people start dropping dead from the long term effects of these "vaccines" and the people who lost their jobs come together in a class action lawsuit. she may have plenty to worry about.
sure, they didn't know and if they had known then what they do now...yada yada. but when you don't know, when you aren't sure, you don't force everyone to do something that may, in hindsight, turn out to have been very wrong. our Constitution, when it's followed, puts the breaks on such errors.
anyone can use the old hindsight excuse. i'm interested in the people who had foresight
Conspicuous this Oster piece came so shortly after the CDC gave states the A-Ok to mandate yearly vaccines for kids and thereby eliminated all liability for all injuries for everybody forever.
This is literally what I said the second I read her piece. I noticed “amnesty” and I realized she’s hiking up her pants leg to test the depths of the water.
Good catch in her manipulating the history quote. I always found that a stupid quote anyway, because history is literally people repeating the past. “Oh look how they did the Armenians, let do that to Jews.” “Oh look how the US used nuclear weapons, let’s get those too.” “Oh look how tribe “x” had slaves, we should do that too.”
According to Meriam Webster’s 1828 dictionary, amnesty is defined as [a]n act of oblivion; a general pardon of the offenses of subjects against the government, or the proclamation of such pardon.
The government certainly was NOT the victim of these heinous crimes perpetrated during the COVID response (and still currently being perpetrated, by the way).
Nov 2, 2022·edited Nov 2, 2022Liked by Sarah Reynolds
Excellent theory! Excellent analysis. Any rhetoric class could do an entire year on this article! The narcissist cabal floating test narratives while dropping the clues of what they're going to do, just as they always do. No we do not agree, and we do not buy in. Oh, and, h/t to history, give them no quarter.
As a lawyer, he's supposed to know some things about justice. As a Christian, he has some strong beliefs about forgiveness, too. I think his take is pretty well-considered.
In short, we need some kind of "truth and reconciliation" for people who were on the wrong side but didn't do anything genuinely criminal. Maybe they were just scared or weak. We need them on our side now, and going forward. We need a process by which they can genuinely atone and be forgiven.
I don't think Oster is in that category, but I think a big chunk of the population is.
"I don’t think this woman feels bad for a second for behaving like an actual monster. (She feels bad she got caught.)"
I think that she's less afraid of COVID now, and more afraid of justice.
You are right. This was ghostwritten. It is a trial balloon.
The best we can do is a military tribunal.
You can't ever give an inch to psychopaths. I wrote a book about it. Here's a free download: https://dl.bookfunnel.com/t2feeen29q
What a great piece...perhaps expose' would be a better characterization?
One thought popped into my head while reading this...getting something wrong, such as "I think we should wear masks to help slow the spread." is not a "moral failing." Telling someone that if they don't wear a mask, you will push to get them fired, ostracized by their families, denied health care, etc. is very definitely a "Moral Failing!"
It isn't that they got it wrong, it's that they were willing to crush anyone who had the audacity to challenge them. That's downright scary and does not warrant amnesty.
This and the Tim Robbins article both boil down to a setup to later describe the call for justice as “intolerance.”
Note that the lion share of behavior involved forcibly silencing people who deviated from or challenged the message. And these articles are essentially asking everyone who was silenced to shut the fuck up voluntarily.
Elon MuSK buys Twitter. A NY judge tells NYC to give every single job back to unvaxxed. GOP looks poised for a major victory.... and this cadre of authoritarians think really hard about what’s next and come up with LET’S ASK THEM TO SHUT UP INSTEAD OF TELLING THEM TO SHUT UP AND THEN CALL THEM MONSTERS WHEN THEY DON’T.
Gosh, it’s almost like their thoughts are bounded on every side by the presupposition that your silence is a requirement for their existence.
Great article. This segment in particular goes to the heart of something I was trying to tell a friend the other day:
"All of a sudden, the fear underlying the overconfident tone, the arrogant presumptuous prediction of the future as requiring you, unvaxxed untouchable, to sit down and shut the fuck up rises to the top. It’s as though she’s poo-pooing us! Why would that be? Fear. Because she’s afraid she did something so wrong that it might be considered illegal. (And if not her, whoever encouraged her to write the piece.)"
I also detect that precise species of fear in her piece: the fear of financial or even *criminal* culpability for lies she spun up or retailed. I am in particular referring to her whitewashing of mask policy, after presenting data to the contrary.
You won't find anyone a fiercer proponent of free speech than I am. It's not her opinions that I find criminal, and I wouldn't consider any justice system to be worth its name for prosecuting those. But we have a large and growing body count on our hands, and many powerful people desperate to wash their hands of it. I want a full accounting of those that ran cover for them. I want to know who was paid for what, and when. As I've said before, I'm in no mood to give the Osters of the world the benefit of the doubt. I want to know if she was a knowing accessory to the deadliest, most destructive fraud ever perpetrated, either before or after the fact.
Also: Subscribed.
in general, politicians who get caught having affairs with their interns do this exact thing. they say they are sorry, but they are really only sorry that they got caught. they had a great time; that 18 year old chick was so much hotter than their menopausal wife but now they pull out the "contrition" and the "family values" and hope for amnesty.
just wait until people start dropping dead from the long term effects of these "vaccines" and the people who lost their jobs come together in a class action lawsuit. she may have plenty to worry about.
sure, they didn't know and if they had known then what they do now...yada yada. but when you don't know, when you aren't sure, you don't force everyone to do something that may, in hindsight, turn out to have been very wrong. our Constitution, when it's followed, puts the breaks on such errors.
anyone can use the old hindsight excuse. i'm interested in the people who had foresight
Conspicuous this Oster piece came so shortly after the CDC gave states the A-Ok to mandate yearly vaccines for kids and thereby eliminated all liability for all injuries for everybody forever.
This is literally what I said the second I read her piece. I noticed “amnesty” and I realized she’s hiking up her pants leg to test the depths of the water.
Good catch in her manipulating the history quote. I always found that a stupid quote anyway, because history is literally people repeating the past. “Oh look how they did the Armenians, let do that to Jews.” “Oh look how the US used nuclear weapons, let’s get those too.” “Oh look how tribe “x” had slaves, we should do that too.”
Either way, great article, subscribed.
Hmm - is asking for amnesty a strong form of admitting gross negligence/wrong doing?
According to Meriam Webster’s 1828 dictionary, amnesty is defined as [a]n act of oblivion; a general pardon of the offenses of subjects against the government, or the proclamation of such pardon.
The government certainly was NOT the victim of these heinous crimes perpetrated during the COVID response (and still currently being perpetrated, by the way).
https://rebel2tyrants.substack.com/p/as-the-worm-turns
You are right. This was ghostwritten. It is a trial balloon.
The best we can do is a military tribunal.
You can't ever give an inch to psychopaths. I wrote a book about it. Here's a free download: https://dl.bookfunnel.com/t2feeen29q
Excellent theory! Excellent analysis. Any rhetoric class could do an entire year on this article! The narcissist cabal floating test narratives while dropping the clues of what they're going to do, just as they always do. No we do not agree, and we do not buy in. Oh, and, h/t to history, give them no quarter.
Great piece! Thanks Chris Bray for pointing you out.
I read Jeff Childers' piece on the Oster kerfuffle this morning.
https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/c-and-c-news-wednesday-november-2
As a lawyer, he's supposed to know some things about justice. As a Christian, he has some strong beliefs about forgiveness, too. I think his take is pretty well-considered.
In short, we need some kind of "truth and reconciliation" for people who were on the wrong side but didn't do anything genuinely criminal. Maybe they were just scared or weak. We need them on our side now, and going forward. We need a process by which they can genuinely atone and be forgiven.
I don't think Oster is in that category, but I think a big chunk of the population is.
This is brilliant. Thanks so much for the analysis.
Justice before any forgiveness...in a cartoon world we can learn about proper sequencing.
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0919/5686/products/pillage_burn_1024x1024.png?v=1457035909
Wanting amnesty is admitting to wrongdoing, criminal or not. You ain't a professor no more. Emily. You're a gangster now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40XhIvqO3M8
Subscribing now...