Question: Is the deontological or consequentialist lens the correct one to view the Covid-19 mitigation efforts imposed on us by various governments and institutions?
The consequentialist view would approach the question from the point of view of the effectiveness of imposing mitigation measures in accomplishing their stated goals vs the costs imposed by the measures.
The deontological view would approach the question from the point of view of whether the imposition by the state of coercive measures is the right thing to do regardless of any potential benefit from their imposition.
Most of the objections to imposed Covid-19 mitigation efforts have come from the consequentialist (utilitarian) side: The measures dictated by the state were ineffective in preventing Covid-19, Covid-19 was not nearly dangerous enough to justify them, and they simultaneously imposed significant costs a individuals (and thereby the broader society).
On this, the data are firmly on the consequentialist side and have been from the beginning; the data NEVER supported the response.
- Covid-19 mortality rates were known from the beginning to be highly age stratified and low to very low for most age groups. We had the petri dish of the Diamond Princess cruise ship to demonstrate that very early on. Even in Italy, used in the nightly news to frighten people, the impacts were largely restricted to 1 or 2 hospitals in the northern regions with large elderly populations – and note that the Italian minister who drove the lockdowns there admitted recently that he was driven by an admiration of the CCPs authority and a desire to see something similar in the west and less by an effort to mitigate the impact of Covid. The critical importance of co-morbidities (obesity, vitamin-d deficiency, etc) in predicting death came later, but were still very evident very early.
- There was never a danger of overwhelming hospital systems (two weeks to flatten the curve) except in very limited areas; excess capacity built out quickly was never used. So the original justification for lockdowns had no basis. Lockdowns had never been recommended in the past, nor was there any studies/demonstrations of their efficacy in the real world. GIGO models DO NOT COUNT!
- Use of surgical masks (and N-95) have never demonstrated efficacy in preventing viral transmission. Every study in the previous 4 decades demonstrated that. Let’s not even discuss the stupidity of putting the equivalent of a t-shirt over your mouth and nose or just your mouth. Every careful study since has confirmed what we already knew.
- Maintaining a 6-foot spacing – social distancing – was completely made up. Absolutely no data-driven basis.
- Later, with the vaccine mandates, a careful look at the original studies would show that even the claimed effectiveness was small (cast as relative to exaggerate efficacy). A bit deeper look at methodology would make it clear that the pretty close to entirety of the apparent effectiveness could be attributed to study design – see main page image and read the article. There was no data to support mandates at the time; Of course it is now apparent that the people pushing the mandates knew the vaccines were not effective in preventing transmission. But even without being aware of the deception, the available data at the time, if one went even slightly beyond the press-releases, did not justify most people taking the vaccines, let alone a coercive mandate.
The consequentialist arguments are very strong – I’ve made them all myself at various times and in various circumstances – there is no utilitarian argument to justify any of the imposed Covid-19 ‘mitigations’. But I am very nervous about a purely data driven argument against the Covid regime.
So what is the problem with the consequentialist argument?
For one, you cannot use facts and data to argue someone out of a position they have not arrived at using facts and data. I’ve re learned that in the Covid-19 era.
Perhaps more importantly, what happens with a virus that is dangerous enough to perhaps justify extreme measures? One could still make the consequentialist argument that most of the measures described above do not work and hence would not be justified ever. However, if you have no deontological basis to object to the state imposing restrictions on you, if the data are against you, you have limited recourse. You’ve accepted the principle that the government can impose whatever it wants on you if can be justified on a cost-benefit analysis and that incentivizes the development of the worst types of government agencies and structure.
As an example, Assem Malhotra, a British heart doctor who started out a believer in mitigation and vaccines, changed his mind. However, he came at it from a purely consequentialist point of view. This came up in a recent interview with him, he was asked why Australia imposed such draconian restrictions. His response was that they’d had a history of very successful interventions, of which he spoke approvingly – very early seat belt laws, very stringent tobacco restrictions and taxes. He supports very strongly soda taxes, sugar taxes and restrictions, even more stringent tobacco restrictions. This is the essence of the consequentialist view: if one is convinced an intervention is good for you, the state is justified in imposing it (set aside for the moment who decides what is good for you). He is/was good on Covid-19, but it’s illusory – as a consequentialist, the Covid-19 interventions were not useful so it was wrong to impose them. If he were convinced they were, I suspect he’d be at the front of the line forcing you, nevermind the incentive in place for bad actors to fudge data/lie to use the conseqeuntialist paradigm to enact policies they know are unrelated to the stated goals – see the Italian dude and lockdowns above. That’s the danger of a purely consequentialist view unsupported by a deontological substrate.
Brett Weinstien got closer I think; he encapsulated the consequentialist viewpoint when he said ‘not this virus, not these leaders’ with respect to whether mandates were justified; the implication is that in a different situation, the measures would be justified. However, he followed it up with a statement to the effect of ‘I’m not sure there is a virus or set of leaders that could justify it in practice.’ (not exact quote, but the essence).
Whether that last is a stronger statement of the consequentialist argument – the consequences of allowing this sort of power to any leader are dire enough that we cannot justify them – or deontological I haven’t sorted out. Maybe it’s a recognition that the deontological is simply the mathematical limit of consequentialism: we have a set of deontological principles, in the religious and philosophical realms, that derive from 10s of thousands of years of observing the end points of consequentialism.
the consequences of allowing this sort of power to any leader are dire enough that we cannot justify them
If government is allowed to cancel your rights and seize more power during an emergency, then government will create more emergencies.
Ba-da-bing.
Consequentialism will be only be cold comfort in the camps.
“We promise to relinquish power when the emergency is over.”
We saw this in action in the War on Terror. The threat level was permanently on “orange” and never went down.
Right – but that is, at it’s core, a consequentialist argument, isn’t it? The consequences of the virus in the short term are ‘minor’ compared to the long term consequences of giving others that much authority over you.
I started writing this with the idea that the utilitarian argument is too weak to protect us and we need a strong principled argument that is immune to the utilitarian argument going the other way. But in the end, as you reduce to the 0th order, the principled/deontalogical argument requires an axiom. “We are endowed by our creator”, etc. Not being religious, I have to figure out how to justify that as axiomatic. The only logical path I can take is that the principle is the end point (or more properly, ongoing evolution) of 10000 years of human civilization, 100000 years of human evolution and millions of years of evolution – derived from a consequentialist observation. It’s not very satisfying, what with Ghengis, Stalin, pick your poison and all.
Obviously, I don’t have an answer…
One thing I’ve always been curious about.
That first post-vaccine summer they were dropping data everywhere that suggested thousands more unvaccinated people were dying than vaccinated.
I don’t think that’s a justification for anything, but did the remain true? How did that play out?
“Died with” vs. “Died of”
All fucking lies and distortions.
Yeah but were they just lying on one side? Is that the claim?
I don’t know if we will ever know if the powers in government believed what they were saying or not. I tend to fall on the side of “government officials knew they were lying,” because I am cynical, and I could certainly pull proof that the government lies about everything else.
They definitely lied, we know they lied about everything else to do with COVID(origins, various methods of prophylaxis(masks), treatments, funding, etc.), so there is no reason this would be an exception.
If you scratched even a little bit at the data, it was apparent they were lying immediately; pointing it out made you a whacko-bird, conspiratorial, paranoid heathen who just wanted everyone to die.
They were telling whatever lies supported their seizure of power.
Even if true, it doesn’t justify *mandates* of vaccination for ‘public safety’, which is the real key.
I think there is probably a decent case to be made for older adults to get the jab (though effectiveness seems kinda shitty if you need to keep getting ‘boosters’), like flu vaccines.
This is a key of what I know though and I don’t know if my understanding has change since almost being snookered by this tactic(from Putrid’s link: https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/the-illusion-of-vaccine-efficacy):
“Any vaccinated person who becomes infected within the first two weeks of their vaccination is classified as unvaccinated (in fact, as can be seen here, the Office for National Statistics classifies as person infected within the first three weeks of their vaccination as unvaccinated. And also note this is the case in Sweden).”
This nudges the initial infection rates significantly towards those classified as ‘unvaccinated’ in the first few months of administering the ‘vaccines’, and every time you ‘boost’ this effect is reapplied.
If they didn’t have a person’s vax status, it counted as unvaxxed.
Less than 2 weeks after the vax was counted as unvaxxed.
They were also counting all COVID deaths from the time before a vaccine was available to increase the unvaxxed numbers.
Like everything else COVID related, it’s bullshit all the way down.
“They were also counting all COVID deaths from the time before a vaccine was available to increase the unvaxxed numbers.”
That level of dishonesty should have been a huge red flag.
As lack and ron have said, I think that essentially the entirety of the vaccine effectiveness is a statistical slight of hand. Placebo v placebo would give essentially the same result given the conditions of the trials and how hospitals where treating vax status.
Whether there is some advantage at older ages as some still seem to think, we may never know. I’m sure it will take a lot to convince me given the willful corruption of the data.
There were shenanigans with the data. Some of the analysis compared total deaths of unvaxxed (including from the time period before the vax was widely available) with the total deaths of the vaxxed, for example. Of course, you weren’t considered vaccinated for some studies until two weeks after either your first or second vax, which did a lot to hide side effects but also skewed the numbers on efficacy.
Didn’t someone link recently a write-up that showed they claimed a lowered TOTAL death rate from the vax? Not just lowered COVID death rate. Which screams bullshit, but too many people are too fucking illiterate and way too fear-driven to grasp that.
I am not the chattel property of Joe Biden, the government of the United States or any other goddam entity or individual.
Yep, once you start with the premise that 10 people don’t have the authority (individually or collectively) to tell you what you can or can’t do, then scaling that up to 100, 1000, etc. doesn’t change the root of the issue.
“Question: Is the deontological or consequentialist lens the correct one to view the Covid-19 mitigation efforts imposed on us by various governments and institutions?”
Great question. The first response in my mind is ‘whose data?’ right?
‘Most of the objections to imposed Covid-19 mitigation efforts have come from the consequentialist (utilitarian) side: The measures dictated by the state were ineffective in preventing Covid-19, Covid-19 was not nearly dangerous enough to justify them, and they simultaneously imposed significant costs a individuals (and thereby the broader society).
On this, the data are firmly on the consequentialist side and have been from the beginning; the data NEVER supported the response.’
I think because that is where most opponents felt they could change opinions. I myself did so because it is much harder to change the basis for a belief rather than trying to modify one’s concept of the circumstances. In many ways people did not believe there would be substantial costs (I ahve never heard from anyone that they were sorry they messed kids up ‘kids are resilient’ used to be the battle cry of lockdowners, now they don’t even bother to address their culpability in suicide and depression among teens)
‘For one, you cannot use facts and data to argue someone out of a position they have not arrived at using facts and data. I’ve re learned that in the Covid-19 era.’
I guess we’re don’t have much of a chance then because most people don’t believe in freedom anyway. It is very hard to change people’s value system. Many, many of my peers growing up had this POV, and support of all sorts of injustices- the ends justifying the means- is the result. Yes, we need a culture of liberty to have a chance at freedom.
‘Whether that last is a stronger statement of the consequentialist argument – the consequences of allowing this sort of power to any leader are dire enough that we cannot justify them – or deontological I haven’t sorted out. Maybe it’s a recognition that the deontological is simply the mathematical limit of consequentialism: we have a set of deontological principles, in the religious and philosophical realms, that derive from 10s of thousands of years of observing the end points of consequentialism.’
A very Petersonian view. It ain’t wrong, but we also see that many cultures came to different answers… those places suck, but that hasn’t deterred the adherents.
Thanks for writing this Putrid. If we take the Covid years as lost for the people who lived through them, this was one of the greatest tragedies in Human history.
Not specifically counting harms done to people by locking down(reduced life expectancy, emotional issues, etc.), just one year of lost opportunity for 330 million people (at an average life expectancy of 76) translates to killing 4.4 million people. By comparison Covid itself ‘only’ killed 1.1 million people per government statistics (https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#datatracker-home) I know you are arguing against consequentialist takes, but it is worth pointing these things out as well that the lockdowns were at a minimum 4x worse than covid itself.
I suppose the problem with arguing the ‘data’ is of course:
1. It will be fabricated
2. Government ‘experts’ who make stuff up will be believed over and above ‘doing your own research’, which was roundly mocked as foolish, even when done by the eminently qualified
There is no defense against tyranny without a strong culture of liberty, I just don’t know how to get there from here. Seems like the yoots are firmly in the hands of the left as of now and most people don’t change much after a certain age.
3. Data has no emotional appeal and most people are driven by emotion, not rational thought.
Thanks! I needed a three but was coming up blank there.
Just one year? I’d say at least two, with things just starting to get back to “normal” now.
I was trying to be as generous as possible to their side of the argument. As a prison of New York at the time, it certainly felt a lot longer than 2 years even.
Fair enough. I just point out that in my age range, in my friend/acquaintance group, there was a lot more suicides and OD’s (of which some OD’s were suicides) than deaths from/with ‘vid.
In general, I avoid certain inflammatory topics in public. This is one that I bring up anytime I hear one of those fuckers defending the lockdowns.
I’ve given up on being generous to people who have denied me similar consideration.
Good idea. I am too nice.
I guess we’re don’t have much of a chance then because most people don’t believe in freedom anyway.
Yes, thanks for the black pill! I’m not sure the western experiment in individual autonomy will survive its current incarnation, the deck seems stacked against us. One has to make a consequentialist argument for freedom to get through to most people, most don’t have a principled attachement to it, and that’s a very hard sell. Freedom is very easy to abandon for apparent, obvious focused benefits in the short term, whereas its advantages and blessing can be more nebulous and dispersed even it the far outweigh in the aggregate.
Almost like Franklin has some insight with that bit about trading off liberty for safety.
Starvation might turn out to be the best consequentialist argument.
If there is a dubious bright side to what I said there, it is that people generally haven’t believed in freedom, even here in America, under any number of circumstances (whether based on race, religion or whatever) so things can improve. When they did improve it is because people fight for those improvements and made strong arguments in favor of freedom. We need to continue to do that.
“According to my model, you are all going to die unless you obey my orders without question.”
Not a sufficiently compelling argument for me, but it seemed to work like a charm on most people.
I have not read this entire series, just the last few (19-23, since I discovered the substack), but holy fuck – does this cut to the core of the rot.
This is from the latest.
Thanks for the link; was not aware, looks like interesting reading. For my copious free time.
Looks very interesting. Bookmarked.
From Brooks in the morning links:
Several GOP presidential candidates are heading to Philadelphia this week to attend a convention hosted by the right-wing extremist group Moms for Liberty, whose members style themselves as protectors of America’s children.
Members of the organization have been linked to incidents of harassment and threats as well as to the Proud Boys, another far-right extremist group.
It’s a regular Klan confab, man. I suppose any group that is insufficiently left is considered “right-wing extremist.”
And Moms’ members have led some of the most fervent efforts to ban nonwhite (particularly Black) authors from schools.
Show your work.
a planned lecture from a speaker who denies the existence of trans children;
Trans is not real and transing children is child abuse.
a lecture advising conservatives on how to “master the spin” and “control the narrative”
They are trying to beat us at our own game! ///TheLeft
I think from now on I’m going to use the phrase “left-wing extremist group”. As in “left-wing extremist group the Democratic party”.
Or “left-wing extremist group hosts of The View“
I always take the deontological approach. I may make a consequentailist argument, but I decide via deontology.
Not to take away from Putrid’s excellent submission…
You can find the full AA ruling here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf
It is quite verbose so I’m only a little into it, this section in the ____ is pretty damning.
“Recognizing that “[e]nshrining a permanent justification for racial preferences would offend” the Constitution’s unambiguous guarantee of equal protection, the Court expressed its expectation that, in 25 years, “the use of racial preferences will no longer be
necessary to further the interest approved today.”
Translating that: Powell’s ruling in Gruber was that it was acceptable to abridge rights and abuse the citizenry, if only for a generation. Truly a failing of consequentialist thought. (see I tied it back in!)
“____” = “syllabus” I was supposed to go back and fix that before hitting post. XD
I figured you were seeing whether we’d match Brett Sommers and Charles Nelson Reilly.
The answer is always “bazooms”.
Wasn’t that a Sandra Day O’Connor argument 25 years ago?
It doesn’t take a genius to make the argument(since i just did), so I’m sure someone would have applied it.
As I recall, O’Connor reset the 25 year clock after the first one ran out. It’s a miracle it wasn’t reset again.
‘It’s a miracle it wasn’t reset again.’
I really thought they were going to uphold. Roberts wrote the decision so it isn’t throwing out affirmative action in toto, just as currently performed by the colleges in the lawsuits, primarily using the guidelines set in Grutter (at least that is what I’ve gleaned so far)
How many generations of imbeciles are needed to level the playing field?
“However, if you have no deontological basis to object to the state imposing restrictions on you, if the data are against you, you have limited recourse.”
Of course, the “data” that can be cited against you is subject to falsification, misrepresentation, cherry-picking, etc. The COVID death numbers were inflated, by how much we’ll never know because the data is corrupted, by the switch from “died from” to “died with”. The locus of power moves to those who control the data. And just who are those people, anyway?
Right, but that’s the core of what is bothering me – in the case of covid-19, the consequentialist argument is pretty iron-clad if you dig underneath the falsification, misrepresentation, cherry-picking; what if, for a future virus, it is not? If we dig underneath and find they are not lying to us and manipulating us? Do we lose standing to object to and fight against coercive measures? I’m firmly in the camp of no, we do not. But I’m not sure how to justify that without a, perhaps religious, axiom, a la declaration of independence.
In the end it doesn’t matter – they (you know, ‘they’) are going to force it on you regardless with the full support of the population, especially if the consequentialist argument comes down differently than it on this one. But do I have the ‘right’ to be pissed about it? Or is that just the contrarian in me?
‘But I’m not sure how to justify that without a, perhaps religious, axiom, a la declaration of independence.’
They are also using an axiom to justify their oppression, any ethical or philosophical debate needs axioms. The key is getting people to accept yours.
The data won’t matter, one way or the other, to people who respond out of fear. And that is a whole lot of people.
As has been pointed out many times, 1930’s Germans were terrified of Jews.
Human nature being what it is, realistically you have to fight for liberty using both approaches.
Ultimately, the will to power is sufficiently strong in sufficient numbers of people that, if you want to have anything approaching a free society, you have to cull them periodically.
I think we used to recognize psychopaths existed and structured society to control their behavior somewhat. That seems to have disappeared.
Absolutely true; My struggle is with consistency. I tend to be more comfortable with absolutes (dangerous, I know) and tailoring the core of the argument to fit circumstances so I get my desired outcome (“utilitarian works here, but I need to switch over ‘we are endowed by our creator’ over here because the utilitarian argument is weaker, or arrives at the opposite of what I want”) does not sit comfortably with me. That may be shortcoming of how my mind works, not a reflection of the reality of that approach.
“My struggle” – did I just Nazi-fy myself?
No, you were already a Nazi for not accepting the Nazi-esque strategy and tactics of your opponents.
This is the shit at the heart of human existence – we really are fascists, the individual is weak and easily broken, but the collection is not. That we ever conceived of a free society is practically a contradiction in terms.
Geez, I thought Lack was all black-pilling above….
There are degrees of black pills. Come over here, into this alley and I will show you the darkest pill…
https://colourlex.com/project/vantablack/
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/fecal-transplant-pill-fda-approval-rcna81779
Nein!
Libertarian much?
(Please stop me before I turn into Winston.)
That fondness for absolutes – that’s another human flaw. It’s okay to have it, not so okay to deny having it.
Maybe it’s a recognition that the deontological is simply the mathematical limit of consequentialism: we have a set of deontological principles, in the religious and philosophical realms, that derive from 10s of thousands of years of observing the end points of consequentialism.
More and more I think this is where I fall. Facts and logic don’t work against those hell bent on oppression. Even oppression for the so-called greater good.
Thanks, PM. This is a good one.
Of course, the “data” that can be cited against you is subject to falsification, misrepresentation, cherry-picking, etc. The COVID death numbers were inflated, by how much we’ll never know because the data is corrupted, by the switch from “died from” to “died with”. The locus of power moves to those who control the data. And just who are those people, anyway?
Similarly, they made every effort to eliminate anything close to an observed control group, making the vaccine data largely speculative.
Thanks for the feedback and discussion; it really helps me to clarify my thought process. Have to step away for a few hours – these jackalopes around here seem to actually expect work in exchange for that paycheck. Can you imagine?!?! – so I’ll be offline until at least the afternoon links.
Confirmation you work for Cis Patriarchal White Supremacists.
Top Men
Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX) tore into President Joe Biden’s electric vehicle mandate after Environmental Protection Agency official Joseph Goffman struggled to answer questions regarding the nation’s energy needs.
“How much electricity does the United States demand each year?” Pfluger asked Goffman during a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing.
“Um, I don’t know that number off the top of my head,” Goffman replied.
Pfluger informed Goffman that the nation demands four terawatts annually and then chastised the Biden administration for having neither an EPA nor a secretary of energy that could answer that question.
“Who else doesn’t know it in this country, and we’re mandating electric vehicles,” Pfluger said. “What’s the percentage increase in electricity demand if we get to the 2030 and 2035 mandates that your agency is pushing for and the administration is pushing for? What is the percentage increase that we will need?”
Roughly 0.4% in 2030 and 4% in 2050, Goffman answered.
“Okay, so the secretary of energy sat right there two weeks ago, and she said it’s gonna double our electricity demand, and you’re giving me a much more accurate or, at least, much more specific answer,” Pfluger said.
“You guys have no idea how much demand is gonna be.”
The Texan then asked Goffman where all the required electricity is going to come from.
“Uh, it [will] come from a diverse grid,” according to Goffman.
We’ll get it from the magic hat.
Don’t forget electric stoves and electric heat and…
Does a diverse grid mean Black power?
DEI QUILTBAG POWER!
Spin those tassels harder!
*raised fist*
Naw, it means brownout, so it’s clearly white supremacist.
LOL
I think this is pretty much on-topic. All of those greenies are lying. They know there won’t be enough electricity, and they don’t care, because the goal is always less consumption and a lower standard of living. An honest answer would be “We don’t know, and it’s not relevant, because we expect there to be shortages and people will just have to get used to living with less. That’s by design.”
I get really tired of being told how “we’ll figure it out.”
No, shitheads, we won’t. Energy is life. Net zero will kill millions.
Eventually we will figure it out, just as new sources meant we didn’t have to chop down forests or hunt whales. However, those new sources weren’t developed via diktats from “experts” on an artificial deadline.
“We’ll figure it out” is an admission that we haven’t, in fact, figured it out. And should be called out as such.
“So, when you say we’ll figure it out, what you’re telling me is you have no idea.”
“We hate you and want you to die – but only after voting for us” isn’t much of a political strategy.
Working pretty good so far.
Oh, fuck off Bobby.
The pandering makes me sick.
He has the same problem Tulsi had in 2020. Getting one thing right doesn’t mean you arent wrong about 17 other things.
He also isn’t going to get anywhere if he doesn’t pander some.
He wants to burn the CIA and CDC to the ground and end the wars. Good enough for me because I ain’t getting anything better.
pander some
Pandering is as purely political as political ponerology.
I don’t have a copy yet, but it’s on my list.
Interesting. A new word that isn’t stupid.
He gets more than one thing right, but I still probably wouldn’t vote for him because of all the other stuff. On the other hand, if he ran as a third party candidate I’d consider voting for him if I thought it might prevent California’s electoral votes from going to Biden (or Harris or Newsom).
I voted for Tulsi in the D primary in SC.
I tried to Stop Biden’s turning point.
Case in point.
That is odd, given that on FOX news he said he was a strong 2A supporter. Can’t trust anyone, I suppose.
It’s a good reminder that he remains a boilerplate Dem on most issues.
When I think of clean soil, I think of Cleveland.
Clay, shale, sandstone, and salt are clean?
I’m assuming this is the community that drove out the supermarkets that were there (vandalism, theft, violence) and is complaining that no one will open up there now, leaving them to go several miles to a grocery store.
I think I’ve figured out why I don’t rate New Vegas as highly as other people do.
It was all a bad first impression. First objective outside the tutorial area – go North to New Vegas. Heads north – finds Deathclaws. Tries to veer around Deathclaws – finds Cazadors. Tries to cross mountains to shorten bypass – finds invisible walls. Apparently ‘go north to new vegas’ was really ‘go south’. By the time I reached Novac, I felt railroaded. The game never overcame this bad impression of trying to force linearity on what was supposed to be an open world.
Musing more on my commute, I realize that this first impression got reinforced whenever I’d wander off the beaten path and without fail immediately get set upon by Cazadors, or the occassional albino radscorpion for variety. The message it hammered home was that exploration was to be punished and you’d better stay on the quest rails – which is exactly the opposite of how people who love it describe New Vegas. So much so that I wonder if we played the same game. Evidently my playthrough missed half or more of the content and all but two of the companions. Maybe they started by going south instead?
There’s several early hints and conversations that guide you towards the settlement first to follow leads on the man in the suit, which introduces you to the Legion, and provides several stronger weapons, armor, and companions that allow you to start building up your character to the smooth talking death dealing courier that doesn’t worry about deathclaws, super mutants, raiders, armies, or brains in jars.
I didn’t give a rat’s rear end about the guy in the suit.
Everyone tries to kill me, it’s not worth holding a grudge.
I notice you didn’t mention the Cazadors…
Rudy is flipping on Drumpf! ///TheLeft
Rudy Giuliani recently underwent questioning by Jan. 6 prosecutors about former President Donald Trump’s effort to overturn his election loss.
The ex-New York City mayor appeared in what some legal experts say may have been an audition for prosecutors in hopes of winning immunity in exchange for testimony against Trump or others. But it’s not known if special counsel Jack Smith sees Giuliani as a potentially useful witness against Trump, or a target in his own right.
“He’s trying to cut a deal and time is very short,” said Harry Litman, a former prosecutor and MSNBC legal analyst.
Giuliani was tight-lipped about the interview, which several reports said took place in the past few weeks.
“The appearance was entirely voluntary and conducted in a professional manner,” Ted Goodman, a lawyer for Giuliani, said in a statement.
It’s either that or most likely join Donald in jail.
There are hard choices to make when the ruling junta is determined to take down its biggest foe and you’re caught in the middle.
I think this is pretty much on-topic. All of those greenies are lying. They know there won’t be enough electricity, and they don’t care, because the goal is always less consumption and a lower standard of living. An honest answer would be “We don’t know, and it’s not relevant, because we expect there to be shortages and people will just have to get used to living with less. That’s by design.”
The plague-mongers were unquestionably working out of the global warming toolbox.
When the fear mongers got busy I went to the mortality tables and saw that old people seemed to die more than young people. I saw that flu/respiratory problems were the big causes. Then of course covid took over and flu died away.
I knew from the beginning it was all bullshit, every year the old and sickly die more than the young and healthy.. Because the missus and I enjoyed old people good health we skipped the vaccines, even as some friends were adamant. Over the past 18 months those friends have quieted down, some have died because they had health problems. My guess is that some of the same people would jump back on the same bandwagon, given a chance.
It’s tough to be old and wrong, tough to be old and right too. Better to be tough…The Fourscores are behind on all of their vaccines and the doctors never bring it up anymore.
Better to be tough
Yes. Armor up, people.
I haven’t had a chance to read the article. Won’t let that stop me though.
I was clear immediately that COVID was a real threat to a very well defined demographic and not a threat to the vast majority of the population.
Every single step taken by the federal, state, and city governments was wrong and made things much worse than it needed to be.
Even the rollout of an experimental vaccine, which was potentially valuable to the at-risk demographic, was rendered useless by mass vaccinations that accelerated mutation.
Totally agree.
I used to tell people that the colleges should hold a 3-day kegger and lock all the students into the football arena to make sure that most of them got infected. Sure and few people might die, but alcohol poisoning always get a few students each year.
What about the STD’s that would happen if the entire student body were in an arena for a 3-day kegger?
Don’t care.
All I care about is getting herd immunity in place to protect me.
https://www.pennlive.com/business/2023/06/overstockcom-to-rebrand-as-bed-bath-and-beyond.html
But, why?
“Let’s rebrand ourselves as a failed business!”
🙄
Putrid, this is an extremely nice summation, eminently cut-n-pasteable for me to use to piss off people.
https://twitter.com/9mm_smg/status/1674460722229653521?s=20
Heh.
Auntie sounds like an old school racist.
A democrat?
dammit Tundra
*sad trombone*
We need robc comment affirmative action
My very liberal in-laws and I were having a discussion wherein they low-key thought I was a racist. (I might be, I don’t know anymore.)
Anyway, the next day, they were watching Good Morning America and a financial planner came on a guest spot. My FIL pointed at the TV and said, “Honey, look at this black girl! She’s really smart!”
My husband and I looked at each other and kept our mouths shut.
My mom was the keep her mouth shut type but she was not naive in any way.
My stepfather’s side of the family, though. Hoo boy they would let loose.
So incredibly typical
Her argument is that they have much lower IQs in general but still deserve a shot because they’re still equal as human beings. So if we don’t prop them up, they’ll fail and live like they do in Africa. It’s our duty as Christians to help those born without the right tools to navigate the world. She might be more racist than me
The white woman’s burden?
Wow. I imagine that same exchange is being repeated in millions of families.
Anything to avoid addressing real factors at play here.
AWFLs are a plague on blacks. Always have been.
FTFY
https://twitter.com/9mm_smg/status/1674460722229653521
lol
Tundra squeezed that in just a mite before you. 😉
Hey PM, this was just great. This piece and commentary are the best of the web
Good stuff. Never stop talking about this.