Are you high? The link I provided showed that his interview with "The Street", was conducted on June 12th.
Anybody get The Rona over Turkey Day?
- Thread starter Brent4AU2
- Start date
You’re really fvcking stupid.
We lead the globe in cases and deaths by a tremendous margin. We break the record for most reported new cases almost every day now. No we haven’t done a “pretty good” job.
if you had 20+ people there from different households unmasked eating and breathing all over each other, I formally revoke your right to use the hashtag #science. When you mixed households and they all go back out into the world, along with all the other people in this world that did the same thing...you ARE putting people at risk. Whether it just happens to be your best friend that you don't 'always' wear a mask around, your kids teacher, or the maid that cleans your home with or without a mask, you are putting some folks in danger. It's the MATH that is the issue. More contact equals more chances for illness. And with over 20 of you...I can guarantee you aren't all perfect at wearing a mask around EVERYONE else you see. I hope none of you get sick and none of your contacts do either. It really isn't anything to brag about.
My husband's closest friend from childhood, who just turned 50, and was the biggest 'no masker' we know, along with her husband, just lost her husband yesterday to Covid. Neither had any pre-existing conditions and weren't 'fat' which I know will be asked. He just died. HIs case was bad, he couldn't breathe, and he died quickly. 49 years old. DEAD with teenage kids. I'm very sad about it and so is she.
Yeah, I do. And every ensuing word out of your mouth is further evidence of your rampant dipshittery.
Hahahaha. I weep that there are people in our society that are so terrified of a glorified flu virus because CNN or Facebook told them to be.
You wear a cloth diaper on your face when you are alone in your car don't you?
275k dead and counting.... BEFORE the holiday surge. CDC estimates between 12k and 60k deaths from the flu annually. This is far more deadly than the flu. In a few months the death toll will reach somewhere around 350k and 400k and you’ll still be screaming the same brainless shit in your echo chamber of stupidity.
Last edited:
I'll still be living my life like I always have, and you will be cowering in your basement screaming that grandmas with 3 or 4 comorbidities are dying WITH a virus.
Imagine how many flu deaths we could count if everyone that died was tested to see if they had in the last 12 weeks? Do you think it would be 12-60k?
Got it, people with comorbidities don’t matter. And since almost 50% or American adults possess a comorbidity that puts them at high risk with COVID, who gives a fvck how many people die.
Now all of your absolutely brain-dead stupid takes make perfect sense. You’re just a selfish piece of shit.
I'm talking about the 60 minutes interview in which he discussed mask wearing that some call a lie.
You really are a fool. It's as simple as that. Totally clueless tough guy bullshit.
You just gave two variables. Those are not the only variables. You must balance commerce and health.
It takes about 10-14 days before it starts to rear it’s head up and the dominoes start to fall
Well I sure as shit am not. He said masks didn’t work in the 60 minutes interview in March. He admitted that he knew they worked, but was trying to keep every day people from going out and buying them due to the low supply, in the June interview with The Street. In other words, he lied.
So you’re essentially stating that 275k dead Americans (and counting...quickly) are just acceptable losses. Absolutely pathetic.
I'm a realist. People die every single fvcking day from any variety of different causes (normally around 3M/year). Yet we don't ruin our economy, destroy people's livelihoods, lock our kids out of schools, or cancel our holiday gatherings over any of them.
Until this year. When we lost our damn minds over a virus that has a survival rate of over 99.75%.
Imagine the harm done every day to kids, small businesses, employees, etc., by scaremongers like you, and you have the nerve to call me selfish. So GFY you world-class POS.
And you are a sheep that lacks any critical thinking skills.
No. I am not saying that. There are 331M Americans. You have to balance the health, safety and welfare of all of them. No deaths are welcome. However, neither are the detrimental impacts of disregarding the health, safety and welfare of 99.9% of the population. You can try your virtue signaling all day long, or you can live in reality that is sometimes harsh, bitter and downright sad. Tough decisions are made daily and must be made. We don't always like them nor do we agree with them, but they are necessary. I hate that I lost family and friends to COVID just as much as Cancer, Alzheimer's, AIDS, Heart Disease, Accidents or any other ailment I have lost them to. However, I understand reality and as much as it pains me I must accept it and move on to be a solution and not a complaining problem.
Look at these good southern Christian men not giving a flying fvck about the well-being of of anyone but themselves. How very... unsurprising.
Spare me the absolutely bullshit sympathy for the sick and dying. You pretend the US has “balanced” commerce and health... yet we lead the globe in cases and deaths and earlier this year we experienced record breaking unemployment. Your argument is not based in reality. The US response has been an unmitigated disaster.
yore truly an idiot. You have proved it today .. it's not just grandmas with 3 or 4 comorbidities. Yesterday, my husband's best childhood friend, who was our most outspoken friend who was just like you..living her life, didn't like masks but wore one when she had to, wasn't scared to 'go about her life'.... her husband had the same beliefs. He got the disease 5 days ago..and died yesterday. he wasn't fat, he didn't have high blood pressure, he just got a bad case of it. And now at 49 years old, he is dead. With teenagers at home. No one knows what to say to her except how sorry we are. Nobody knows what to say to her kids. But ya know what, they told me it was 'like the flu' too back during the summer. Famous last words. And I'm sure that now you will tell me you've been wearing a mask everywhere and are being careful. So which is it big guy? is it the flu? or are you a little bit scared? I hope you have the sense to be a little scared.. but you sure love running folks down on here that know we have a responsibility to not expose everyone and their damn brother.
Like I said. Some people choose to be complaining problems. Others choose to be solutions. Keep your virtue signaling up. I don't fall for it or name calling that is so "woke" these days. I just stick to reality and facts. COVID is a virus that can kill. People should follow guidelines put in place and respect others and especially businesses that are doing their part to operate, provide for their employees and do so safely. Government should balance health, safety and welfare of all citizens and not do so at the detriment of 99.9% of the population. When you shut an economy down you have a temporary shock to the system. That is just a logical outcome. However, the recovery is far ahead of every prediction made in April of where it would be and that is a good thing. Additionally, thanks to work that started by the US Government on February 7, 2020 - we have multiple vaccines available that will get us back on the path to normalcy. Significant challenges faced us and we stared them down, developed solutions and mitigation efforts and have created an overall balance between health and commerce. Key word is balance.
I'm sorry to hear that about your husband's friend. I've also lost people to illnesses in my life, and it sucks.
I wear masks in public because I can't get into any store unless I have it on. But I'm not even a tiny bit scared. At all. Sorry if that hurts your feelings that there are people that are not living in fear.
Sorry for your loss. Hence why we must all follow guidelines and understand that even if we do we could fall ill and die. However, statistically we are more likely to die of something else. It is truly sad to see lives lost and families forever changed. I totally get it unfortunately.
hey you seem like you might not be a complete idiot so I'll give you a clue. Stop with the f'ing 'virtue signaling' BS. you are virtue signaling right now that you won't fall for the 'woke'. It's a dumb phrase used by people who are signaling themselves.... It's lazy and it's also over. It finished awhile back and makes you look 'oulde'. JMO
It has become popular to describe certain behaviour as ‘virtue signalling’. By this people mean, in the words of James Bartholemew (who helped to popularize the term, and who I like very much in every other respect), writing or saying things 'to indicate that they are virtuous'. As popular as it is, it’s a stupid term that misuses the concepts it invokes, it encourages lazy thinking, and it’s hypocritical.
The term signalling does not mean the same thing as 'saying' or 'showing off' when it is used by economists or biologists. Signalling means credibly giving information that is difficult to prove just by saying it. For example, banks used to have very grand buildings. Any bank could claim to be safe, but only a bank that had lots of money could afford a grand office.
Education is a classic example of signalling. It’s difficult to show to a potential employer that you’re smart and hard working, but only smart and hard working people can get a good university degree (in theory). Good university degrees might be partially about signalling ability to potential employers.
That’s what signalling is. It’s a very useful concept. It means exactly the opposite of what virtue signalling means – it’s credible and honest. The whole point of virtue signalling is that it’s disingenuous and cheap. A better term would be ‘showing off’. How many times where the term virtue signalling has been used would ‘showing off’ not have just as accurately sufficed? It’s not exactly a novel concept.
For something to actually be virtue signalling, rather than just showing off, it would need some sort of sacrifice, like a sacrifice of knowledge by pretending some obvious falsehood is true.
The other problem with the term is that it assumes your opponents are disingenuous. This is of course very common but it is probably the single worst thing about political debate.
It comes from an underlying assumption that the world is straightforward and your views are obviously correct. To many people it’s obvious that letting Syrian refugees in to Britain is a bad idea, because if even a few of them are terrorists we’re endangering our own people's lives. The people who ignore this are most likely trying to show off how much they care and what good people they are – hence virtue signalling.
To many people it’s obvious that welfare cuts are cruel and unnecessary, and indeed hold back the recovery by taking money out of the economy. If you support those cuts you’re putting ideology ahead of real people, and that makes you a heartless scumbag.
But it’s possible to disagree honestly and sincerely about complicated questions with lots of different moving parts. In a world as complex as we libertarians say it is, it would be astonishing if the truth was obvious about almost any contentious policy issue. Disagreeing with me and being a bit right-on does not mean you are disingenuous. Voting Labour while not spending your life doing volunteer work doesn’t either, nor does being a libertarian but not signing up to join an anarcho-capitalist seastead.
Giving money to wasteful charities might count as virtue signalling, but only if you know that the charities are wasteful. I suspect most virtue signalling accusers assume that it’s obvious that groups like Fairtrade are wasteful or harmful. In fact it probably doesn’t even cross most people’s minds that that might be the case.
Accusing others of virtue signalling encourages you to not interrogate your own beliefs. If you think people only disagree with you because they’re trying to show off how nice they are to their mates, why would you even consider that what’s obvious to you might actually be wrong? As well as being rude and stupid, virtue signalling gives people another mental shortcut to dogmatism.
Finally, saying virtue signalling is hypocritical. It’s often used to try to show that the accuser is above virtue signalling and that their own arguments really are sincere. Of course, this is really just another example of virtue signalling!
Dismissing other people’s false beliefs as virtue signalling means you won’t consider them properly and means they have every right to do the same to your beliefs, which as far as they’re concerned are also obviously false. Sometimes beliefs are honestly, sincerely held, however stupid they seem to you, and if there’s any value to debate at all it requires that we at least consider the possibility that we might be the stupid ones.
At best, virtue signalling is a pretentious way of saying 'showing off'. At worst, it is mental armour against self-doubt. People should stop saying it.
(Credit to libertarian Sam Bowman who wrote this in 2016! so it's OLD. And I"m not a Libertarian but I read alot)
The term signalling does not mean the same thing as 'saying' or 'showing off' when it is used by economists or biologists. Signalling means credibly giving information that is difficult to prove just by saying it. For example, banks used to have very grand buildings. Any bank could claim to be safe, but only a bank that had lots of money could afford a grand office.
Education is a classic example of signalling. It’s difficult to show to a potential employer that you’re smart and hard working, but only smart and hard working people can get a good university degree (in theory). Good university degrees might be partially about signalling ability to potential employers.
That’s what signalling is. It’s a very useful concept. It means exactly the opposite of what virtue signalling means – it’s credible and honest. The whole point of virtue signalling is that it’s disingenuous and cheap. A better term would be ‘showing off’. How many times where the term virtue signalling has been used would ‘showing off’ not have just as accurately sufficed? It’s not exactly a novel concept.
For something to actually be virtue signalling, rather than just showing off, it would need some sort of sacrifice, like a sacrifice of knowledge by pretending some obvious falsehood is true.
The other problem with the term is that it assumes your opponents are disingenuous. This is of course very common but it is probably the single worst thing about political debate.
It comes from an underlying assumption that the world is straightforward and your views are obviously correct. To many people it’s obvious that letting Syrian refugees in to Britain is a bad idea, because if even a few of them are terrorists we’re endangering our own people's lives. The people who ignore this are most likely trying to show off how much they care and what good people they are – hence virtue signalling.
To many people it’s obvious that welfare cuts are cruel and unnecessary, and indeed hold back the recovery by taking money out of the economy. If you support those cuts you’re putting ideology ahead of real people, and that makes you a heartless scumbag.
But it’s possible to disagree honestly and sincerely about complicated questions with lots of different moving parts. In a world as complex as we libertarians say it is, it would be astonishing if the truth was obvious about almost any contentious policy issue. Disagreeing with me and being a bit right-on does not mean you are disingenuous. Voting Labour while not spending your life doing volunteer work doesn’t either, nor does being a libertarian but not signing up to join an anarcho-capitalist seastead.
Giving money to wasteful charities might count as virtue signalling, but only if you know that the charities are wasteful. I suspect most virtue signalling accusers assume that it’s obvious that groups like Fairtrade are wasteful or harmful. In fact it probably doesn’t even cross most people’s minds that that might be the case.
Accusing others of virtue signalling encourages you to not interrogate your own beliefs. If you think people only disagree with you because they’re trying to show off how nice they are to their mates, why would you even consider that what’s obvious to you might actually be wrong? As well as being rude and stupid, virtue signalling gives people another mental shortcut to dogmatism.
Finally, saying virtue signalling is hypocritical. It’s often used to try to show that the accuser is above virtue signalling and that their own arguments really are sincere. Of course, this is really just another example of virtue signalling!
Dismissing other people’s false beliefs as virtue signalling means you won’t consider them properly and means they have every right to do the same to your beliefs, which as far as they’re concerned are also obviously false. Sometimes beliefs are honestly, sincerely held, however stupid they seem to you, and if there’s any value to debate at all it requires that we at least consider the possibility that we might be the stupid ones.
At best, virtue signalling is a pretentious way of saying 'showing off'. At worst, it is mental armour against self-doubt. People should stop saying it.
(Credit to libertarian Sam Bowman who wrote this in 2016! so it's OLD. And I"m not a Libertarian but I read alot)
quiet. 4 of us and my dad had just died and we were all apart as a family. But we ate well, drank a good bit, and we had fun with the micro fam. I missed my oldest, her husband and my most amazing grandson...
It’s quite apparent it’s a new addition to his vocabulary. It’s overuse in his responses is quite unnatural.
I'm just amused that @SigBitty thinks I'm some good southern Christian man. I have no clue where he came up with that nonsense.
It's necessary for people like you who resort to name calling because you cannot engage in a debate on the facts. I get it.
