Remember that Scott Wiener, a state senator in California, is very pleased by the fact that 12 year-olds in his state can get their STDs and unwanted pregnancies taken care of without their parents knowing about it:
I don't even agree with everything RFK Jr says, but I'm now much more predisposed to believe RFK Jr after the way Dr Hotez and his supporters have acted over the idea (that crazy idea) of actually just hashing things out in a civil debate between Hotez and RFK Jr.
If you've got the goods, you should be able to defend your stance. This is not a hard concept to understand.
Giving experimental injections to pregnant women is a bad idea: not a hard concept to understand, either. Ditto: natural immunity trumps vax. The list is long.
It's simple: Hotez retails criminal crap, and now he's trying to throw up a fog and hide.
This is great also by Glenn Greenwald - so many inconsistencies that Peter Hotez said. Of course they will never ever let anyone debate not just RFK (also Dr Peter McCullough offered to debate Hotez) - they'll never let anyone debate publicly - they will be seen for how lying and empty they are. https://rumble.com/v2vkcco-system-update-show-103.html
RFK Jr is a good, good human. And he understands the levers of power that would be in the way of any honest person who could make it that far, and he's prepared to actually dismantle / uncorrupt them. https://rumble.com/v2trjzi-system-update-97.html
I'm old enough to remember... I forget what. But didn't the Left, where I misspent my youth, always want to "have a conversation" about things? Things of which they disapproved? Never about abortion or immigration, but, you know, Nazi stuff? I seem to recall something about a "National Conversation on Race". Wyoming and West Virginia really getting into it over Pacific Islander issues. I'd listen to that (suggested title "Let's Hear it for the Poi"). But there's been no "conversation", even though it was their idea. We've had lectures on race, tirades and harangues on race, re-education camps and show trials on race, but no I talk/you talk conversations on race. It's almost like they had no intention of "conversing" about race or anything else (suggested title "Let's Hear it for the Ploy"). For black Americans, this may have been just the latest in Democrat Party exploitation (I know, right?). I noticed in the most recent census, black Americans had gone from 13% of the population, as they had long been, to 12%. Recent "immigration" will only dilute their percentage more, as Democrats pivot away from one abused minority to another. The Right was always serious about having a conversation, the Left never. That would have become clear... had we "had the conversation".
The key word in the phrase "we need to have a conversation" isn't "conversation" or "need" or even "have", it's "we".
By phrasing it thus, instead of the clearer "you and I should/ought to/must/shall have...", the speaker has already established that you and him are really after all part of the same whole or the same side, and therefore (sub-/unconsciously) all your counter-claims, retorts, and criticisms will be perceived as you betraying that "we" and being overly contrarian and oppositional just for the sake of it.
In short, by using "we" in such a sentence (the same way salesman does, incidentally) you and the audience is trapped in a false frame of reference.
When someone says that, the immediate retort should be - even if you interrupt! - "What do you mean 'we''? You and I you mean, there's no 'we' here and I reject your attempts at creating false consensus by implicating it is so!"
You will most certainly get a very violent, very emotional response which is good; whle they get emotional and screech and yell and open their potty mouths wide open, you remain calm, collected and focues of the topic at hand.
That's a win in the eyes of any audience save those so far gone they cannot be reached/helped anyway.
Precisely Sir. Sales 101. Control the conversation to ensure EVERY statement assumes the mark has already agreed to the purchase. Never discuss the item being sold, or the sales transaction. Debate instead the colour, the trim, or delivery options.
Had a brief stint being Igor to a salesman selling art to companies, when I was 19-20ish. When we had down-time, I read his entire library on sale-techniques and related behaviouralism/psychology; pre-internet days it was and "mobile phone" meant lugging around a 10kilo battery-and-antenna unit...
"We need to have a conversation" is just the large-scale version of your spouse saying "we need to have a talk". It's not going to be a talk, it's going to be a lecture, and if you say one word in your defense you're an abusive shitheel.
As a man who's been working in a woman-dominated field for decades (teaching), I can testify that marriage is not a requirement.
Simply being a man sticking to the actual topic is enough to set off hysterics when appeal to emotion isn't allowed to trump provable empirical fact.
Incidentally, there's a direct correlation between percentage of women in post-compulsory level education and lowered standards, poor discipline, lowered bars for entry/graduation and so on.
I often wonder if it's women that's the driving force behind that development, or if it's men enabling them (or being the insitigators)? Perhaps that thought itself is irrelevant and is instead some kind of feature of the institutions and the field of peagogy/didactics in its own right.
Words mean what the humpty-dumpty left say they mean at any given moment. Subject to change w/o notice. 'Conversation' is no exception from this opportunistic dynamics ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
JDP: We’ll said! I wish more people would understand that most of the racial stuff is simply pandering to buy votes. The minorities aren’t actually ‘abused’, though…that’s a myth manufactured by propaganda, of course. Funny…no one ever seems to pander to our family. Is it because we are Caucasian, middle-class heterosexuals, who worked our whole life and paid taxes? The nerve of us to even exist!
You don’t even need to go far back. I seem to remember everything under Obama was about nuance. Now it’s all black or white (wait...was that racist of me?)
What bothers me is not these people. These people are just children that learned that they could stand there by a broken cookie jar with crumbs all over their faces and blame the dog and the parents would, well, blame the dog with them because the parents are either stupid or they just can't take the tantrum.
Last paragraph however. I snorted my coffee. This may not end well, but we will go down laughing, thanks to people like you.
How about using clips of Peter Hotez’s “big ideas” and having RFK Jr. response point by point? Hotez can only do stump speech and doesn’t have the intellect or cajones to debate RFK Jr. live. I want to see an accounting of who bought Hotez besides MSNBC.
You just nailed this whole concept of RFK Jr & Hotez debate with a few sentences rather than rambling on with a several paragraphs of philosophical bull💩Hotez sounds like a broken record regurgitating false narrative.
We do live in parallel realities, there’s just no other way to go about it 🤔
The baddest cat catches the vibe in his inimitable style 🙂:
🗨 their kid just came from school having learned that the second law of thermodynamics is a patriarchal plot to prevent racial equality and ravage the earth with climate change so that no one can have free healthcare. cuz fascism.
Chris! I come here for your sense of humor “Peter Hotez as a conqueror has a plaque at the bottom that says HIS ENEMIES ALL WANDERED AWAY TO GO FIND A BAR BECAUSE THEY LITERALLY JUST COULDN’T EVEN.”🤣😂🤣
I actually laughed out loud when I read this. These poor souls, including opinion writers at WaPo, are in their figurative death throes. They should be met with the derision they deserve. There are things I don't appreciate about RFK, Jr. but I could get past them because a national conversation about vaccines and health care in general would be worth the compromise.
It occurs to me that we should be hounding our congressional "representatives" to overturn the dangerous and idiotic National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act that was stupidly foisted upon the country in 1986.
Are we so blind that we cannot see, even now, the harms of protecting an entire industry no matter what poisons they force upon American children? No other country forces unproven vaccines on children the way the U.S. does and then protects the industry even if they use kids as guinea pigs!
Oh hell, let's just defund the HHS, the DOE and the DOJ. The entire country would be better off....
Just look at the “threat to our democracy” screechers, mouthing the magic phrase as they brazenly go about subverting elections, fostering an in-your-face dual-track “justice” system, destroying property rights, asserting state supremacy in the parent/child relationship, plundering the treasury to wage illegal and deeply immoral wars, and poisoning millions of people under threat of violence. And that’s just for openers.
I don't even agree with everything RFK Jr says, but I'm now much more predisposed to believe RFK Jr after the way Dr Hotez and his supporters have acted over the idea (that crazy idea) of actually just hashing things out in a civil debate between Hotez and RFK Jr.
If you've got the goods, you should be able to defend your stance. This is not a hard concept to understand.
Giving experimental injections to pregnant women is a bad idea: not a hard concept to understand, either. Ditto: natural immunity trumps vax. The list is long.
It's simple: Hotez retails criminal crap, and now he's trying to throw up a fog and hide.
This is great also by Glenn Greenwald - so many inconsistencies that Peter Hotez said. Of course they will never ever let anyone debate not just RFK (also Dr Peter McCullough offered to debate Hotez) - they'll never let anyone debate publicly - they will be seen for how lying and empty they are. https://rumble.com/v2vkcco-system-update-show-103.html
RFK Jr is a good, good human. And he understands the levers of power that would be in the way of any honest person who could make it that far, and he's prepared to actually dismantle / uncorrupt them. https://rumble.com/v2trjzi-system-update-97.html
I'm old enough to remember... I forget what. But didn't the Left, where I misspent my youth, always want to "have a conversation" about things? Things of which they disapproved? Never about abortion or immigration, but, you know, Nazi stuff? I seem to recall something about a "National Conversation on Race". Wyoming and West Virginia really getting into it over Pacific Islander issues. I'd listen to that (suggested title "Let's Hear it for the Poi"). But there's been no "conversation", even though it was their idea. We've had lectures on race, tirades and harangues on race, re-education camps and show trials on race, but no I talk/you talk conversations on race. It's almost like they had no intention of "conversing" about race or anything else (suggested title "Let's Hear it for the Ploy"). For black Americans, this may have been just the latest in Democrat Party exploitation (I know, right?). I noticed in the most recent census, black Americans had gone from 13% of the population, as they had long been, to 12%. Recent "immigration" will only dilute their percentage more, as Democrats pivot away from one abused minority to another. The Right was always serious about having a conversation, the Left never. That would have become clear... had we "had the conversation".
The key word in the phrase "we need to have a conversation" isn't "conversation" or "need" or even "have", it's "we".
By phrasing it thus, instead of the clearer "you and I should/ought to/must/shall have...", the speaker has already established that you and him are really after all part of the same whole or the same side, and therefore (sub-/unconsciously) all your counter-claims, retorts, and criticisms will be perceived as you betraying that "we" and being overly contrarian and oppositional just for the sake of it.
In short, by using "we" in such a sentence (the same way salesman does, incidentally) you and the audience is trapped in a false frame of reference.
When someone says that, the immediate retort should be - even if you interrupt! - "What do you mean 'we''? You and I you mean, there's no 'we' here and I reject your attempts at creating false consensus by implicating it is so!"
You will most certainly get a very violent, very emotional response which is good; whle they get emotional and screech and yell and open their potty mouths wide open, you remain calm, collected and focues of the topic at hand.
That's a win in the eyes of any audience save those so far gone they cannot be reached/helped anyway.
Precisely Sir. Sales 101. Control the conversation to ensure EVERY statement assumes the mark has already agreed to the purchase. Never discuss the item being sold, or the sales transaction. Debate instead the colour, the trim, or delivery options.
Had a brief stint being Igor to a salesman selling art to companies, when I was 19-20ish. When we had down-time, I read his entire library on sale-techniques and related behaviouralism/psychology; pre-internet days it was and "mobile phone" meant lugging around a 10kilo battery-and-antenna unit...
"We need to have a conversation" is just the large-scale version of your spouse saying "we need to have a talk". It's not going to be a talk, it's going to be a lecture, and if you say one word in your defense you're an abusive shitheel.
As a man who's been working in a woman-dominated field for decades (teaching), I can testify that marriage is not a requirement.
Simply being a man sticking to the actual topic is enough to set off hysterics when appeal to emotion isn't allowed to trump provable empirical fact.
Incidentally, there's a direct correlation between percentage of women in post-compulsory level education and lowered standards, poor discipline, lowered bars for entry/graduation and so on.
I often wonder if it's women that's the driving force behind that development, or if it's men enabling them (or being the insitigators)? Perhaps that thought itself is irrelevant and is instead some kind of feature of the institutions and the field of peagogy/didactics in its own right.
Words mean what the humpty-dumpty left say they mean at any given moment. Subject to change w/o notice. 'Conversation' is no exception from this opportunistic dynamics ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I think Obama still holds the record for shortest time between "we need to have a conversation" to "the time for debate is over". Greased lightning.
JDP: We’ll said! I wish more people would understand that most of the racial stuff is simply pandering to buy votes. The minorities aren’t actually ‘abused’, though…that’s a myth manufactured by propaganda, of course. Funny…no one ever seems to pander to our family. Is it because we are Caucasian, middle-class heterosexuals, who worked our whole life and paid taxes? The nerve of us to even exist!
Either “abused”, or abused by exploitative Democrats.
So true. They simply can not have those discussions.
Here is one example:
How can you defend the fact that 6% of the population represents the vast majority of inmates in prison?
Easy!
1. Ignore that inconvenient factoid.
2. Refuse to discuss the issue.
Because they commit 52% of violent crimes.
Because racism!
You don’t even need to go far back. I seem to remember everything under Obama was about nuance. Now it’s all black or white (wait...was that racist of me?)
summed up in the title of the Vine DeLoria book - "We Talk, You Listen"
I laughed out loud at this column....I didn't LOL...I freakin LAUGHED out loud.
You are a wordsmith extraordinaire....please take a bow.
Mee too - scared the birds this morning, LOL.
Ditto!
What bothers me is not these people. These people are just children that learned that they could stand there by a broken cookie jar with crumbs all over their faces and blame the dog and the parents would, well, blame the dog with them because the parents are either stupid or they just can't take the tantrum.
Last paragraph however. I snorted my coffee. This may not end well, but we will go down laughing, thanks to people like you.
Like so much of modern life, "You have to laugh ... Or you would cry."
How about using clips of Peter Hotez’s “big ideas” and having RFK Jr. response point by point? Hotez can only do stump speech and doesn’t have the intellect or cajones to debate RFK Jr. live. I want to see an accounting of who bought Hotez besides MSNBC.
You just nailed this whole concept of RFK Jr & Hotez debate with a few sentences rather than rambling on with a several paragraphs of philosophical bull💩Hotez sounds like a broken record regurgitating false narrative.
Love it!
We do live in parallel realities, there’s just no other way to go about it 🤔
The baddest cat catches the vibe in his inimitable style 🙂:
🗨 their kid just came from school having learned that the second law of thermodynamics is a patriarchal plot to prevent racial equality and ravage the earth with climate change so that no one can have free healthcare. cuz fascism.
Chris! I come here for your sense of humor “Peter Hotez as a conqueror has a plaque at the bottom that says HIS ENEMIES ALL WANDERED AWAY TO GO FIND A BAR BECAUSE THEY LITERALLY JUST COULDN’T EVEN.”🤣😂🤣
Please consider stand up
Forget about debate. Just listening to and watching Hotez ramble should convince everyone of how tenuous their "science" is.
I took four years of Latin in high school and still had to look up "sinecurists." You definitely expand my vocabulary Chris. Thanks!!
From title to closing line, a masterpiece of hilarious, deservedly vicious skewering. Wow, thanks for this, Chris.
I actually laughed out loud when I read this. These poor souls, including opinion writers at WaPo, are in their figurative death throes. They should be met with the derision they deserve. There are things I don't appreciate about RFK, Jr. but I could get past them because a national conversation about vaccines and health care in general would be worth the compromise.
A-freaking-men. What do ANY politics mean if we’ve physically destroyed everyone past the point of rational functionality?
It occurs to me that we should be hounding our congressional "representatives" to overturn the dangerous and idiotic National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act that was stupidly foisted upon the country in 1986.
Are we so blind that we cannot see, even now, the harms of protecting an entire industry no matter what poisons they force upon American children? No other country forces unproven vaccines on children the way the U.S. does and then protects the industry even if they use kids as guinea pigs!
Oh hell, let's just defund the HHS, the DOE and the DOJ. The entire country would be better off....
My Pavlovian response to any mention of Peter Hotez:
"Crafting your scientist brand" by Peter Hotez (2018) https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3000024
Kind of says it all.
Yep! Says it all.
Good grief, how do you do it? Take a stupidly painful situation and make us legitimately laugh about it? I so needed that. 😂
“The complete severing of act and representation”
Just look at the “threat to our democracy” screechers, mouthing the magic phrase as they brazenly go about subverting elections, fostering an in-your-face dual-track “justice” system, destroying property rights, asserting state supremacy in the parent/child relationship, plundering the treasury to wage illegal and deeply immoral wars, and poisoning millions of people under threat of violence. And that’s just for openers.
“sinecurists” also I learned another great new word that describes every state run office in Massachusetts. 👍