I'm a retired professional journalist, from the days when that actually meant something good. I hope Sandmann collects all kinds of money from the media outlets. He was viciously defamed, and deserves a tall pile of money as compensation.
Very fun to see how many comments have been hidden because the pathetic "progressives" here complained to the administrators. You must be millennial baristas living on stimulus checks while looting stores. LOL
Floyd was a COVID-infected, sickle-cell anemic, heart disease ridden heroin addict, drunk, high, and on meth. Not that "progressives" ever noticed. LOL
Apparently you are a typical "progressive" who is too scattered and too lazy to have read the update this spring. Please tell us that you don't have an occupation where anyone ever has to depend on you. LOL
Actually, yes there was a control arm. Apparently, as a "progressive," your ADD gets in the way. Oh ye of a limited attention span. No wonder you don't actually know anything. LOL
Thanks for proving the Iron Law: "You can always tell a 'progressive' but you can never tell a 'progressive' a single thing. They think they know everything." LOL
Facebook tossed a good friend of mine for a month for linking to a peer-reviewed, double-blind study with a control group showing the ineffectiveness of masks. Your kind loves censorship, even of carefully documented, scientific studies. It's pathetic.
Nice dodge. Your far-left newspapers and TV networks routinely lie through their teeth, and now the major social media platforms are censoring the right wing. And you are all for it, not stopping to think that once your wish comes true, that worm can turn overnight.
Too diligent to actually read the study, I see. It found that cloth masks were worse than wearing nothing at all. Reading is fundamental, lazy "progressive." LOL
She's a documented liar -- even the far-left Washington Post nailed her for it. But you love your liars as long as you think the liar is on your side. LOL
Okey doke, then. Speaking of science, how about a peer-reviewed, double-blind study of 1,600 health care workers in high-risk units in 14 hospitals, showing that the common cloth masks block only 3% of particles, and that surgical masks only block 44%?
Sorry, "progressive," but your mandatory masks do NOTHING to stop the spread of the virus. You couldn't care less about science. This is entirely about your politics and your insatiable need to engage in self-righteous virtue signaling.
Now, I'm sure you will dump on the study. Why? The Iron Law: "You can always tell a 'progressive,' but you can never tell a 'progressive' a single thing. They think they know everything."
Comparing it to a shop sign is dilatory and non-serious on your part, which is oh so typical of today's "progressives" who are demanding censorship of anything you don't like. Liberals used to be the strongest advocates of free speech, and now you are censors. That worm can turn.
I get it. You're a fragile "progressive" who cannot stand opposing views, and supports censorship. You'd be best off being careful what you wish for, because once censorship becomes accepted, that worm can turn very quickly.
On Sandmann's Side
I'm a retired professional journalist, from the days when that actually meant something good. I hope Sandmann collects all kinds of money from the media outlets. He was viciously defamed, and deserves a tall pile of money as compensation.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
What terroristic threats got your panties in a twist, poor "progressive" scaredy cat? LOL
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The truth hurts, doesn't it, poor thing? Did you save your pussy hat?
(untitled comment)
Very fun to see how many comments have been hidden because the pathetic "progressives" here complained to the administrators. You must be millennial baristas living on stimulus checks while looting stores. LOL
Re:
Always good to see Another Scared, Pathethic "Progressive" For Censorship.
Re:
Floyd was a COVID-infected, sickle-cell anemic, heart disease ridden heroin addict, drunk, high, and on meth. Not that "progressives" ever noticed. LOL
Re: Re:
No it didn't, but you are a "progressive," so why not lie? It's what you people do. LOL
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Apparently you are a typical "progressive" who is too scattered and too lazy to have read the update this spring. Please tell us that you don't have an occupation where anyone ever has to depend on you. LOL
Re: Re: Re:
Actually, yes there was a control arm. Apparently, as a "progressive," your ADD gets in the way. Oh ye of a limited attention span. No wonder you don't actually know anything. LOL
Re: Re:
Thanks for proving the Iron Law: "You can always tell a 'progressive' but you can never tell a 'progressive' a single thing. They think they know everything." LOL
Re: Re: Re:
That you don't think they're far left shows that you're an out and out communist. LOL
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
Facebook tossed a good friend of mine for a month for linking to a peer-reviewed, double-blind study with a control group showing the ineffectiveness of masks. Your kind loves censorship, even of carefully documented, scientific studies. It's pathetic.
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577
Re:
Nice dodge. Your far-left newspapers and TV networks routinely lie through their teeth, and now the major social media platforms are censoring the right wing. And you are all for it, not stopping to think that once your wish comes true, that worm can turn overnight.
Re:
Too diligent to actually read the study, I see. It found that cloth masks were worse than wearing nothing at all. Reading is fundamental, lazy "progressive." LOL
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, right. They don't work in high-risk hospital settings, but they work in grocery stores. LOL. "Progressive" "logic" on display.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
She's a documented liar -- even the far-left Washington Post nailed her for it. But you love your liars as long as you think the liar is on your side. LOL
Re:
Thanks much for your "progressive" arrogance and smugness. We expect no less from your kind.
Re:
Okey doke, then. Speaking of science, how about a peer-reviewed, double-blind study of 1,600 health care workers in high-risk units in 14 hospitals, showing that the common cloth masks block only 3% of particles, and that surgical masks only block 44%?
Sorry, "progressive," but your mandatory masks do NOTHING to stop the spread of the virus. You couldn't care less about science. This is entirely about your politics and your insatiable need to engage in self-righteous virtue signaling.
Now, I'm sure you will dump on the study. Why? The Iron Law: "You can always tell a 'progressive,' but you can never tell a 'progressive' a single thing. They think they know everything."
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
Comparing it to a shop sign is dilatory and non-serious on your part, which is oh so typical of today's "progressives" who are demanding censorship of anything you don't like. Liberals used to be the strongest advocates of free speech, and now you are censors. That worm can turn.
Re:
I get it. You're a fragile "progressive" who cannot stand opposing views, and supports censorship. You'd be best off being careful what you wish for, because once censorship becomes accepted, that worm can turn very quickly.
More comments from TBTop >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by TBTop.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt