Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Your developing better reading comprehension, which would preclude your arguing against a point that was not made, would be more productive.
And the suggestion you make here - that she and I are in disagreement of some sort - isn’t any more accurate than the misreading that led to your prior post.
I think you assume (or try to state regardless of accuracy) what I’m thinking because that would neatly fit into a binary argument. I’m usually not thinking what you think I’m thinking. And I’m not disagreeing with you.
The public messaging about Covid was a monstrous fuck-up. Much of that was Trump’s fault, but it was also the media’s fault, the experts’ fault, and the fault of two credulous audiences - the unlettered and dishonest skeptics, and the unlettered and annoying virtue signalers.
|
What about the audiences who, while not unlettered, still engaged in denial and skepticism, claiming (for example) that the virus was not that big a deal, would be nothing more than a mild flu, and would cause at most 2-3,000 deaths in the U.S.? I’m not sure where they fit into your binary argument. Are they blameless? It seems like they should bear more fault than the “unlettered” — they should have known better.
