One of the difficulties with most forms of media is that its creator are continually seeking to manipulate you into adopting their position. For this reason, I greatly prefer written content as opposed to audio or visual content as it is much easier for me to rapidly filter out the manipulative rhetoric built into what I am reading. Similarly, this is why, to the best of my ability, I try to avoid inserting manipulative language into my writing (as best as I can I try to follow the
You picked out exactly the key passage to highlight what I think the Atlantic article really is: a cult intervention. When a cult member starts to express some doubts, other members have to intervene. They need to explain that the abuse suffered or perpetrated is part of some larger picture.
Then the doubting member has to perform some symbolic act or sacrament to demonstrate their continued obedience to the cult. In this case, as you point out, the obeisance is to get that vaccination rate back up.
"Forget past mistakes. Show your loyalty. Inject."
Do you have any idea, how one can try to heal the bridge between family and friends, who had a different view about covid?
I know some people who approached the dissolution of some of their friendships with the attitude "good riddance, they never were real friends at all and have shown their face, I have found friends who share my worldview now".
I can understand that view with recent friends, but in my case the problem is rather close family-members. I still love them and I also have forgiven them, but have lost a lot trust in them and frankly I am shocked how easy it was to incite hatred for the unvaccinated in them.
This professor and those of her ilk will be the first to pounce on those who question the climate policies that will soon be forthcoming. Same circus, different tent.
Thank you--I had read this Atlantic article just an hour ago, then came upon yours. In it, I was struck by the author's effort to portray her virtue--both on her own, and on her family's behalf, by having followed carefully (slavishly? mindlessly?) all restrictions imposed. I circle back (thanks, Jen) to the question of, "Why, then, did my husband and I see through this from the start? We had purchased tickets to "Plandemic, the movie" which was to come to a nearby theater in ...April? That movie showing was later cancelled...... I remember that on May 5, give or take one day, I typed into my phone the query "Is Covid a scam?". Neither of us is a medical person; I was then still teaching Latin (a discipline which requires one to look carefully at each word and at its particular use in a text), my husband a research physicist. We troubled to investigate for ourselves: to the distress of our live-in daughter, we spent all our evening hours watching Dr. John Campbell, Dr. Robert Malone, Dr. Keith Moran, Dr. Peter McCullough et alii, searching, reading FDA approval-for-drug papers on their website. Now here's the teacher in me speaking: that Atlantic author wants forgiveness for not doing her homework? No. She will have learned nothing from that experience if she is allowed not to pay a penalty for her choice.
IMO, one of the dirtiest tactics the proponents of lockdowns/mandates/school-closures etc. did was to constantly lie about what their critics actually said and instead construct strawman after strawman, which essentially made any debate impossible.
People who warned about the damages of lockdowns and advocated for policies like the Great Barrington Declaration were called "covid deniers", people who were hesitant to inject themselves with largely untested novel gene therapy were called "needle-phobics" and everyone who warned of the dangers of lockdowns for the children wanted to kill grandma. (This is the way the covid-debate was done in Germany, I do not know, whether the same things were said in the US as well.)
Since this tactic only works if you censor the other side, this was accompanied by using Big Tech and the media to exclude the critics from mainstream media and attempts to even criminalize this speech.
I know understand why Free Speech is the First Amendment, because without it it is quite easy to use that tactic with any topic (other topics where I have seen this topic been used before are for instance "climate change" and the war in Ukraine).
Excellent analysis here. My one quibble would be the following where you state:
"The author is demanding to receive forgiveness for their conduct, but in their apology, is refusing to admit they did anything wrong."
I believe it would be more accurate and depictive if it read "refusing to admit they were involved in crimes."
I would also add that that type of "apology" is classic narcissism.
Thank you for reading and posting that article. I knew what it would say just by looking at the title. Your comments were spot on. She is asking everyone to "justfuggitaboutit!" Not even an "oopsie, I was wrong." What really got to me was her statement of "some right people were right for the wrong reasons." Nope. If you are right, you are right. The truth is not relative. What she really wanted to say was "some right people were right at the wrong time."
The bottom line is, without true repentance and atonement, nothing changes for the better. She will not change for the better even if the world lets her "forget about it," which I won't.
These "apologies" are starting to bubble to the surface and all at the same time. This is not a coincidence.
Clowns like Oster don't just "think this up" on their own. They are tasked to float these trial balloons by PR firms to gauge public sentiment.
Based on what I have seen so far, they kicked over a hornet's nest, I'm guessing they will back off on it for now and do a nother version of the apologetics around the holiday season.
The only thing that should be discussed is justice. Crimes were and are still being committed. Millions were killed and millions more have had their lives permanently marred. 'Sorry' ain't gonna cut it.
I really appreciate this article and loved the format. Wow, that must have required a lot of work to set up.
Here is another take on the apology tour by a friend of mine who writes an excellent Substack: https://gemstate.substack.com/p/after-such-knowledge-what-forgiveness
P.S. You never need to apologize for delaying one article (Alzheimer’s) while writing another great piece (this one). Everything you write is a labor of love and so carefully reasoned. We want to read it all, whenever you have a chance to write it. Not to mention, you have a practice, a life, and you’re doing all this at no charge. We greatly appreciate your work and share it widely.
Before we "move on",
Powers responsible for bad decisions need to be removed from positions of authority.
Starbucks is hiring.
The incestuous tyrannical relationship between BigMed, BigGov, BigLaw and BigPharma must be dissovled.
Thank you, AMD. So excellent! I saw this Atlantic article yesterday, and it struck me in the same way. And yes, I like your format here, where you analyze the article in detail, point by point. And I agree as to why this dissection of the propaganda is vital...not to gloat about being right, but as an important tool to prevent this from reoccurring. This is where we must have a laser focus: do not comply, do not be afraid to speak up and refuse to allow our free will and individual rights eroded. And, as is done here, call out the bullshit for what it is. If ALL parents refused to mask/jab their children for school, the schools couldn’t enforce it. If ALL employees refuse the mask/jab, the employers would have to back down. If ALL customers refused to mask/jab to patronize a business, they wouldn’t enforce it. If ALL passengers refused to mask/jab to board a plane, the airlines couldn’t enforce it. See? WE have the power to stop this...they’ve just convinced lots of us that we don’t. We must remember that NONE of these ‘rules’ are legal, moral, or right.
A non apology. Sounds like ‘it’s unfortunate you were offended. Let it go’ style victim blaming.
Thanks for dissecting!
Awesome. Love the format and do so appreciate your insights!
Excellent takedown of a truly tone-deaf article!
There are many of us out there who are not buying what the Atlantic is selling. The "oops, my bad, let's just forget this all happened" argument ain't gonna work.
People like this author will the first ones to tell you again to put on that mask, get that shot and stay home for the great good come the next "crisis". This is why it's imperative that we never move on and never forget their evil behavior until those who are responsible for such death and destruction are held accountable in a court of law.
I've dedicated my entire substack to never forgetting what they did to us https://mycovidbubble.substack.com/p/do-it-for-jesus-man
Forgiveness can not be demanded by the perpetrator. It is rediculous gaslighting that we want to gloat that we were right.
Forgiveness can happen when the perpetrators acknowledge they did something wrong, regret it, and have taken the measures it won't happen again. It is still up to the victims to forgive. Nothing of that has happened and I see this piece as a way tro try to silence the critics so truth is longer supressed.
I already see this being used as arguments in discussions "are you still whining about the vax!!? You didn't take it but still talk about it!!?". Or that we live in the past and are attached to victimhood etc etc
This is one big piece of gaslighting.
These politically-correct, crowd-pleasing "bait pieces" like Emily Oster's article (whether from woke magazines, or Twitter/Youtube rockstar doctors, or any other source) are INCREDIBLY frustrating. They are willing to say anything, complain about anything, even admit anything, EXCEPT what is most important by far: "the mRNA vaccines had more total deaths than placebo in the gold-standard randomized clinical trials" (in other words, the mRNA vaccines kill more than they save). Just like the mRNA vaccines do more harm than good, I believe these types of articles absolutely do more harm than good by shrewdly trying to appease and win people over through pushing all of the right emotional buttons, a.k.a. "telling people what they would like to hear", while carefully covering up and distracting from the biggest, most harmful problems.