Saw that blurb about Scott Adams and while I'm glad he's sort of come around, the _way_ he does that is ... condescending. It's like a "well, this time you just happened to be right" and still thinks those who didn't want an experimental, little-tested, no-long-term-effects-known shot are "anti-vaxxers". Most I know read up on the true r…
Saw that blurb about Scott Adams and while I'm glad he's sort of come around, the _way_ he does that is ... condescending. It's like a "well, this time you just happened to be right" and still thinks those who didn't want an experimental, little-tested, no-long-term-effects-known shot are "anti-vaxxers". Most I know read up on the true risks of the virus (negligible) and did a real risk-reward calculation of taking a drug that had no long term studies. Yes, we didn't know that there would be horrible side-effects at the time, but many took a "let's see what the long term effects are" approach. I was one of those - if there were _actual_ benefits from taking that drug and no horrible side-effects after longer-term studies, I'd have considered it at some point. As it stands, well, I think it's pretty obvious by now how that went.
He has also been dragged to this position, kicking and screaming (and whining, lots of whining) whole the way. Better than not, sure. But he also showed people clearly who he is.
He'll continue to try to work his word spells to make people forget. Don't forget.
Exaclty. Adam’s chalks it up to good old fashioned stubbornness (of which I am guilty I admit) and fails to acknowledge all the data, science, evidence, and good old fashioned logic that we took our sweet time to sift through and analyze to come to our conclusions. Of course that would force him to admit why he didn’t read the same stuff and that would prove two things: 1 that the government was censoring the facts and 2. That he was too lazy to do independent research and use his own brain.
Much like Sam Harris said recently in an interview. We just "happened" to be correct this time. Bizarrely, he went on to create a hypothetical scenario in which mass numbers of children had died and lamented its absence which would have made his team the clear winners...
At least Adams stuck with luck and condescension. 👌
The intelligence community has officially kicked off the narrative shift we all knew was coming and Scott Adams is a textbook egomaniac perfect for the role. He's leaving room for the possibility that when it happens again, Team Reality is just as susceptible to his "misfortune" as he was.
Sam Harris had a similar grating attitude, that if kids had been dying, then he would have been right to force the jabs on us and they will when it happens. WTF?
Saw that blurb about Scott Adams and while I'm glad he's sort of come around, the _way_ he does that is ... condescending. It's like a "well, this time you just happened to be right" and still thinks those who didn't want an experimental, little-tested, no-long-term-effects-known shot are "anti-vaxxers". Most I know read up on the true risks of the virus (negligible) and did a real risk-reward calculation of taking a drug that had no long term studies. Yes, we didn't know that there would be horrible side-effects at the time, but many took a "let's see what the long term effects are" approach. I was one of those - if there were _actual_ benefits from taking that drug and no horrible side-effects after longer-term studies, I'd have considered it at some point. As it stands, well, I think it's pretty obvious by now how that went.
I’m struggling with the Scott Adams thing too. It comes across as “sorry you misunderstood my intent when I said ‘@#$& you!’.
He has also been dragged to this position, kicking and screaming (and whining, lots of whining) whole the way. Better than not, sure. But he also showed people clearly who he is.
He'll continue to try to work his word spells to make people forget. Don't forget.
He is jab injured, I don’t think he will forget.
Exaclty. Adam’s chalks it up to good old fashioned stubbornness (of which I am guilty I admit) and fails to acknowledge all the data, science, evidence, and good old fashioned logic that we took our sweet time to sift through and analyze to come to our conclusions. Of course that would force him to admit why he didn’t read the same stuff and that would prove two things: 1 that the government was censoring the facts and 2. That he was too lazy to do independent research and use his own brain.
Much like Sam Harris said recently in an interview. We just "happened" to be correct this time. Bizarrely, he went on to create a hypothetical scenario in which mass numbers of children had died and lamented its absence which would have made his team the clear winners...
At least Adams stuck with luck and condescension. 👌
Sorry, just commented same before seeing this.
They are both unrepentant, condescending morons.
He is doing it for the maximum attention to him.
The intelligence community has officially kicked off the narrative shift we all knew was coming and Scott Adams is a textbook egomaniac perfect for the role. He's leaving room for the possibility that when it happens again, Team Reality is just as susceptible to his "misfortune" as he was.
The perfect narcissist.
Sam Harris had a similar grating attitude, that if kids had been dying, then he would have been right to force the jabs on us and they will when it happens. WTF?
Same for me.