Reason Roundup

Employers Can Require Workers To Get COVID-19 Vaccine, Says EEOC

Plus: The best International Whores' Day writing, FIRE fights expansive interpretation of critical race theory law, and more...

|

U.S. employers may require existing workers and new hires to be vaccinated against COVID-19, per new guidance from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Companies can also offer their employees incentives to get vaccinated, the EEOC said. The legality of such moves was previously unclear.

Federal labor laws "do not prevent an employer from requiring all employees physically entering the workplace to be vaccinated for COVID-19, so long as employers comply with the reasonable accommodation provisions of the [Americans With Disabilities Act] and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other EEO considerations," said the commission.

Nor do federal laws "prevent or limit employers from offering incentives to employees to voluntarily provide documentation or other confirmation of vaccination obtained from a third party (not the employer) in the community, such as a pharmacy, personal health care provider, or public clinic."

In addition, "employers that are administering vaccines to their employees may offer incentives for employees to be vaccinated, as long as the incentives are not coercive," the EEOC stipulated.

Coercive in this case can be fairly open to interpretation—and lawsuits.

"What is 'coercive' is unclear because, just as with anything else, one person's view of what is a coercive incentive is not the same as another person's," employment attorney Helen Rella told CBS News. "You might find an incentive of $100 coercive and another person might find an incentive of $10,000 coercive. That's where the door is left open [where] we don't have the detailed guidance we were hoping to receive."

There are some circumstances in which an employer cannot require an employee to be vaccinated:

In some circumstances, Title VII and the ADA require an employer to provide reasonable accommodations for employees who, because of a disability or a sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance, do not get vaccinated for COVID-19, unless providing an accommodation would pose an undue hardship on the operation of the employer's business. The analysis for undue hardship depends on whether the accommodation is for a disability (including pregnancy-related conditions that constitute a disability) (see K.6) or for religion (see K.12).

As examples of reasonable accommodations, the EEOC says that "an unvaccinated employee entering the workplace might wear a face mask, work at a social distance from coworkers or non-employees, work a modified shift, get periodic tests for COVID-19, be given the opportunity to telework, or finally, accept a reassignment."

The EEOC also cautions that "it would also be unlawful to apply a vaccination requirement to employees in a way that treats employees differently based on disability, race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation and gender identity), national origin, age, or genetic information, unless there is a legitimate non-discriminatory reason."

In previous pandemic-related guidance, the EEOC specified that employers "may choose to administer COVID-19 testing to employees before initially permitting them to enter the workplace and/or periodically to determine if their presence in the workplace poses a direct threat to others." However, "requiring antibody testing before allowing employees to re-enter the workplace is not allowed."


FOLLOW-UP

Sex workers still calling for decriminalization and destigmatization. Yesterday was "International Whores' Day," a day commemorating the start of the modern sex worker rights movement. Here are some of the day's best writings, talks, and threads:


FREE MINDS

An Oklahoma college drops "race and ethnicities" course because of critical race theory law. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) explores how laws banning "critical race theory" could chill all sorts of race-related speech on college campuses:

On May 18, Oklahoma City Community College adjunct professor Melissa Smith received an email — her fully enrolled summer course on "race and ethnicities" had been cancelled because it was "facing challenges (and specific complaints) in light of HB 1775."

In the sociology course, which Smith has been teaching for several years, students "examine[] sociological theories of contact between minority and majority groups in a multicultural society, including topics such as prejudice, discrimination, acculturation, and pluralism."

In a statement to the Washington Post, college spokesperson Erick Worrell said the course had been cancelled because Oklahoma HB 1775, signed by Governor Kevin Stitt on May 7, "would require substantial changes to the curriculum" for Smith's course because HB 1775 "essentially revokes any ability to teach critical race theory, including discussions of white privilege" in required courses.

But, as FIRE pointed out in a letter to the college today, the new law doesn't actually mandate that any college courses be cancelled or their curricula altered.


FREE MARKETS

We don't need more publicly funded media in the U.S.:


QUICK HITS

• "There's never been a better time to be LGBT in America," argues Scott Shackford.

• Though his blog went live less than a month ago, former President Donald Trump has shut it down.

• "Even as U.S. troops come home" from Afghanistan, "ongoing operations could allow a covert conflict to continue," points out Fiona Harrigan.

• "Porn makes for an easy target," writes Olga Khazan. "But legislators focused on labeling it as a public-health crisis should consider what problems they are actually trying to solve."

• Biden's $6 trillion budget plan is even more expensive than it looks, warns Peter Suderman.

• Pennsylvania is considering a bill that would give amnesty to sex workers and sex trafficking victims who report crimes.

• "Cincinnati police are changing their policy for no-knock warrants and eliminating their use unless someone is at risk of serious harm," the city has announced.

NEXT: Wittgenstein vs. the Woke

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. U.S. employers may require existing workers and new hires to be vaccinated against COVID-19…

    Capitalism fail.

    1. I wonder if they can be sued for the side effects of an unapproved drug like the vaccine.

      1. This. I informed my managers that if forced to vaccine I will hold the company liable for any adverse affects of the vaccine.

        1. Unless they are forcing you to work for them, they are not forcing you to get vaccinated.

          1. “Unless they’re forcing you to be straight, they are not forcing you to not be gay”.

            Identical mindset.

            1. I suppose, if the place of employment is located on a really, really slippery slope.

              1. Yeah, I too hate it when I get my idiotic excuse for an argument blown up my fucking ass and have to pretend I don’t understand analogies to cope.

                Hint: it’s illegal for an employer to hire only straight people. A law that you were furiously masturbating your clit-dick about when it was instituted by the Supreme Court.

                1. Chuckle. Poor White Mike.

                  1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much DDS better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
                    on this page…..VISIT HERE

          2. The same logic would also apply if I decided to only hire men. Women can get gender reassignment or go find another job. Not coercive at all.

            1. I’m espousing a fairly standard libertarian position about freedom of association between employer and employee.

              Yes, that would include the freedom to only hire men.

              1. Except that you and every other “libertarian” at Reason vociferously supported the Supreme Court instituting regulations preventing employers from hiring only men. Such are the perils of being a disingenuous lying piece of Marxist subhuman shit.

                1. Did they? Do you have any proof of their actual comments they supported this or are you just saying they did because they disagree with you on something?

          3. No vaccines were a condition of my employment. Not childhood, not the annual flu, and nothing for international travel. If they violate the terms I reserve the right to sue for damages.

            1. That’s good for you that you were able to negotiate such a term. Sounds like you have nothing to worry about as far as being forced to get a COVID-19 vaccination.

              Why are you opposed to vaccinations, at least for yourself?

              1. Depends on the vaccine. My kids have been vaccinated, but I balked at the HPV for my adolescent daughter. At the time, it was too new and it was pushed similarly how Covid is pushed now. Including threats of child endangerment charges. FYI – I renew my tetanus every ten years, but I refuse the annual flu.

                1. I see. Thanks for the explanation.

            2. Read your employment agreement or contract.

              I have a contract. It is very easy for the company to get out of it. They basically subcontract me out. So if the new contract they have requires something like a drug test I have to do it or find another job.

              Besides. Consider the vaxx anyway. They really work.

              1. They work so well the cdc even uses different criteria to determine if someone vaccinated is counted as a positive

              2. Besides. Consider the vaxx anyway. They really work.

                Products so good they have to be mandatory. And the manufacturer has to be released from all liability for their product.

                1. Only 4000+ deaths (VAERS) and side effects to this mRNA genetic warfare agent – it’s NOT a vaccine.

                  Jon Rappaport debunks the whole thing. Search it.

                  1. Found one article by the guy:

                    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/altering-human-genetics-through-vaccination/

                    He’s confused about the difference between how DNA therapy is delivered via a virus and using mRNA to induce an allergic response.

      2. I wonder if we can all sue Infowars and Alex Jones for all the claptrap bullshit he peddles and that you gobble up like a good drone.

        1. Alex Jones did not tell me I cannot sue a vax manufacturer for side effects. The manufacturers of said vax, informed me I cannot sue for damages.

        2. Yep, no regular people have concerns about getting a provisionally approved vaccine (it hasn’t gotten actual approval, just temporary emergency approval). It’s all the fault of Alex Jones and the gay frogs.

          1. Pfizer and Moderna have applied for full approval. It is a longer process but they will get it.

            Out of the ones out there over 2 billion doses worldwide. I would call that a pretty good clinical trial.

            1. I would not necessarily disagree with you about 2 billion doses being a good clinical trial.

              There will still be plenty of people that are wary about it due to any number of factors. Maybe they’re being overly cautious, but that doesn’t make them conspiracy nuts (the ones that think they’re gonna get microchipped on the other hand…)

              1. There is nothing more neurotic than obsessing over the vaccination status of other people for a virus we now know isn’t especially more dangerous or contagious than other common viruses like colds or flus.

              2. They have lied about every other aspect of covid19, but we can totes trust their word on vaccines intended to reduce the .001% chance of having complications from one particular respiratory virus.

            2. I would call that a pretty good clinical trial.

              That’s a perfect characterization of what it is. So what other clinical trials do you think an employer should be able to force their employees to participate in?

        3. Pay your mortgage.

    2. What about sexworkers? Can we require they be vaccinated?

      1. Just don’t breathe the same air as them & you’ll be fine. If you smell semen, you’re too close.

        1. I imagine this is a good rule to live by. Regardless of context.

        2. There theoretically children reading this thread.

          Ah, who am I kidding.

          1. Just fill up their baby bottle with some Everclear & Ambian and prop them up in front of this commentary and they’ll be fine too.

    3. How about those people who can’t get the vaccine because of health (disability) reasons? I guess those people can just fuck off? If you provide exemptions you now put a burden of proof on the employee to provide the exception. What if the employer disagrees with the reason? No, fuck the people who think that your employer has any business being involved in these decisions.

      1. What health condition prevents anyone from getting the vaccine? I didn’t see any listed the last time I looked.

        https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/recommendations/underlying-conditions.html

      2. For many types of businesses it is absolutely in the employer’s legitimate interest to know if their employee might be spreading disease to other employees or to customers.

        1. So, mandatory AIDS tests?

          1. I suppose so, for certain types of businesses.

        2. Which is why a positive antibody test is sufficient, right?

          Which other experimental pre-approval drugs should employers be able to force their employees to take?

        3. So, you’re saying an employer should be able to require annual flu vaccines?

    4. Actually it’s where it succeeds. A common criticism of the free market is that it allows individuals to externalize costs, including risk. But the fact that many employers are willing to require their employees to get vaccinated shows we don’t need the government to do so. And since nobody has a right to employment the employee’s rights are not violated in the way they would be if the government were to force them to get vaccinated – or at least the government would have to meet a high burden of proof that the individual in question would harm others by not being vaccinated.

    5. How is it a fail? It’s private companies having the right to set their hiring conditions to how they want. That sounds pretty pro-capitalist to me.

  2. In addition, “employers that are administering vaccines to their employees may offer incentives for employees to be vaccinated, as long as the incentives are not coercive,” the EEOC stipulated.

    To the casual observer the idea of requiring an employee or hire be vaccinated is coercive. Unless ‘require’ has a whole other definition for the EEOC.

    1. “coercive” must be in that same EEOC dictionary. The newspeak grows ever stronger.

      1. It must be from the Book of Woke = new definition of coercive. It comes just before ‘Karen’ and ‘Ken’.

    2. This is a classic case of mission creep.

      1. And of creepy mission.

    3. Like filing your tax returns with the IRS is voluntary.

    4. the government can’t require vaccines so they make it such that business will require it for fear of being sued by the potential of someone getting sick. next step businesses will require yearly vaccines for whatever Fauci says

      1. For a lot of businesses, it makes total sense to require employees to be vaccinated. No government coercion necessary.

        1. Are any of your arguments ever honest?

          1. Sometimes it’s worth asking Dee what day it is.

        2. I see you don’t actually believe in a right to privacy for people’s medical history.

        3. No, it doesn’t make sense as for the majority of people the virus is not a large issue. Likewise people now have the ability to choose to get a vaccine, and it is even free! Now you are lobbying for employer coercion of a personal choice that has no reasonable effect on their business.

        4. How will black people get jobs then? If they can’t get an ID to vote, they surely can’t get one to prove the name on their vaccine card is actually them.

          In fact, according to the left re voter I’d, no black or minority person will ever be able to do anything requiring proof of vaccination.

          Why are you so racist?

          1. I needed photo ID to get the vaccine.

    5. Yes to your typical leftist who thinks employment is a human right it would seem coercive. But libertarians should know better.

  3. “The legality of such moves was previously unclear.”

    I didn’t realize that the EEOC is part of the judicial branch.

    1. The reasoning that the law doesn’t explicitly state a business can’t have medical information on an employee therefore they can ask for it is a but mind boggling as well. Vaccination status has no effect on the running of a business at this point. We don’t hold companies liable for disease spread.

      1. In previous pandemic-related guidance, the EEOC specified that employers “may… determine if their presence in the workplace poses a direct threat to others

        The EEOC let that cat out of the bag last year. The jeffys of the world have already won.

        And not a single damned judge will stand up against it.

      2. Even if liability for disease spread did exist it wouldn’t be a pandemic’s biggest impact on a business.

        A substantial portion of their workforce getting sick all at once could cripple many businesses.

        There are also potential impacts to medical insurance costs.

        1. That can be true woth the flu or any communicable disease. We don’t require this any other time. It is fear.

          My company stayed open all year last year. Not even one event of covid caught at work.

          Your fears are unjustified.

          1. Jesse agreed – I’m not sure this can be anything but fear based reasoning at this point. Coercive is correctly pointed out as subjective so really it’s a legal morass.

            Question for the more enlightened in this area what’s the rule if I wanted to ban flip flops at work because of bacteria spread and it came back that it was related to religious attire? Could I require staph testing before allowing them in?

            1. And that is the issue that people won’t weight against it. If the EEOC says an employer has domain for medical issues, can that domain be extended to race based medical risks? Can they then extend it to other areas of a person’s personal life?

          2. Yeah, if people don’t go to work sick, the risk is tiny. There is no reason to think that asymptomatic spread has been significant at all.

    2. If it is true that POC are refusing the jab at higher rates, (as has been reported) then the EEOC just gave employers permission to fire a lot o’ black folk.

      Lovely.

      1. I mean, Biden and Harris are pretty fucking racist, so would that really surprise you?

        1. Feature not a bug!

      2. And the fact that the left says minorities can’t get an ID to vote, then how can they get one to verify they’re actually the person on their covid card?

        Clearly requiring verification of vaccination is racist.

    3. The legality from the point of view of the employer trying to comply with the law.

  4. https://twitter.com/RpwWilliams/status/1400228872289984520?s=19

    “Cleanest presidential election in history” is the political equivalent of “It wasn’t a lab leak”

    1. Classic….that was hilarious.

    2. The election fraud theory has been debunked over and over by every judge who threw out election cases because OMB /jeff

      1. As long as one ignores the more than a dozen lawsuits that ruled changes and actions of election officials were illegal.. and ignores abnormally high adjudicated ballot numbers… and refuses to acknowledge any audit, the thousands of wrong votes already discovered, etc….

        Cleanest election ever.

  5. The legality of such moves was previously unclear.

    And it still is.

  6. Sex workers still calling for decriminalization and destigmatization.

    You’re owed one of those things.

    1. Well stated.

      I wish more people realized Law != Personal Values

      You can tell me you’re following the law driving below the speed limit in the left lane. You may be technically right. If you regularly do it, I’ll still think you’re a dick.

      1. Actually in a lot of states driving slow in the left lane is a traffic violation.

  7. In addition, “employers that are administering vaccines to their employees may offer incentives for employees to be vaccinated, as long as the incentives are not coercive,” the EEOC stipulated.

    The requirement itself is coercive. And forcing employees to do something that has adverse effects creates a new set of problems. But, I get it – FYTW.

    Long-term question: will the vaccine become the new mesothelioma, sparking class action lawsuits.

    1. What about liability for employers making people get it if something bad happens down the road?

      1. Yup. It’s springtime for labor and personal injury lawyers.

      2. they will make it impossible to prove any problems were from the vaccine

    2. As libertarians, do we not believe that employers and employees are free to work out the conditions of employment?

      1. Yes, independent of government influence or coercion. Which means that a company can’t willy nilly add some new thing to the employment contract, like a Covid vaccine.

      2. You just keep white knighting for the state. Don’t act confused when people tell you to fuck off.

      3. If you remain consistent in this view and also apply it to gender/race based decisions, then sure.

        But as a libertarian you should be against any coercion that is not specific to the transaction you are participating in. you shouldn’t allow coercion to happen just to allow it to happen.

        You’re a sophist.

  8. Though his blog went live less than a month ago, former President Donald Trump has shut it down.

    This is why I thought it was stupid for the Democrats, neocons, Bush Republicans, and liberaltarians to continue with their obsession over the Bad Orange Man. Republican voters are notorious for moving on from a candidate once he or she has lost their election race, and they typically don’t make comebacks elsewhere.

    Republican voters might like Trump, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they want him running for President again. If that was the case, he wouldn’t have shut this down after a month. The GOP base is moving on to new waifus now.

    1. It is about time for another Bush to mesmerize the GOP for a cycle.

      1. Is that a formal prediction? Because I heard you repeatedly predicted Jeb would be the 2016 nominee and we all know how that turned out.

        1. You have to admit the Bush name is practically synonymous with the Republican Party.

          1. Just like yours is synonymous with pedophilia.

          2. So he completely refutes your point and you just double down on it? Are you retarded?

            1. “…Are you retarded?

              Don’t insult ‘tards!

          3. Weren’t you just arguing last week that the GOP was a cult of Trump?

          4. Currently, about half the Republican Party. The other half is now the Trump Party.

      2. Back to the future with a Bush-Clinton showdown.

    2. “The GOP base is moving on to new waifus now.”

      Hopefully they realize Liz Cheney should be the future of the party.

      #LibertariansForABetterGOP
      #PutTheNeoconsBackInCharge

    3. I think they would be fine with him running for president again. But a blog is extremely difficult to sustain. I imagine it would be next to impossible to sustain if you weren’t allowed to have a social media presence.

  9. https://twitter.com/robkhenderson/status/1400192898763825158?s=19

    In the Soviet Union, facts and figures in the historical record were subject to modification

    Old Soviet joke: “The future is certain; but the past keeps changing.”

  10. require an employer to provide reasonable accommodations for … a sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance

    Emphasis added. How about for a sincerely held *scientific* belief, practice, or observance?

    1. Well, scientism is a sort of religion.

      1. Ah, but is it recognized by the EEOC?

    2. What would that scientific belief be?

      1. I’ll bite. Maybe something like Newtonian mechanics.

        Technically, Newton’s laws are not universally correct. They don’t take relativity into account, they break down in the subatomic realm, etc. But, they’re good enough that we can predict amazing things accurately enough. I mean, we send a probe to Mars and it flies millions of miles over a couple of years arriving almost precisely where it was calculated to arrive because not taking relativity into account means exactly nothing at non relativistic speeds, in the real universe, doing real orbital mechanics calculations.

        As a layman, I believe in Newton’s laws. The most I’ll ever use them is when shooting pool, and I’m not a mathematician so I can’t even understand the details anyway. I just accept the basics.

        1. Considering that millions of people have been vaccinated with little side effects seen, it seems that you just made an argument in favor of being vaccinated.

          Under typical conditions Newton’s laws work, and under typical conditions the COVID-19 vaccines work.

          1. Considering that millions of people have been vaccinated with little side effects seen…

            So far. No one has any clue about long term issues.

            1. Why would there be long-term issues from a substance that works by stimulating the body’s own immune system, and is so short-lived and unstable it has to be specially refrigerated just to get it to last long enough to give someone a vaccination?

              1. You can’t be serious. As Bob just said, we don’t have any data on the long term effects (if any). Just because the source material is ephemeral does not entail that it cannot lead to delayed (and/or lingering) contingencies. We’ll only have that data when the time passes.

      2. The formula for water is H2O.

        1. Wait, i’ve been told that on Quora, it is H02. mike told us that.

      3. That 99.8% survivability is a high enough number I don’t need a foreign substance injected in me to cover that extra. 02% chance.

        Not to mention I already had it and my immune response is stronger and longer lasting than any vaccinated person, as numerous studies are now showing and as even described on the nih website.

        And not to mention my overweight, diabetic, hypertensive, 66 year old mother had it. Received monoclonal antibody treatment from Eli Lilly on her 8th day of symptoms and was feeling better in 43 hours.

        If treatments like monoclonal antibodies were pushed earlier we’d have saved thousands of lives and had much less need for vaccines, as natural immunity is much better than the mrna vaccines. And the only reason monoclonal antibodies were pushed at all is because trump received them, felt they really worked which all evidence shows they do, and pushed for their use to be free to patients like the vaccine. And once it was known they work we should have been telling every vulnerable person to seek monoclonal antibody treatment as soon as they showed symptoms.

        Instead we go trump trying his best to inform the public on this treatment as fauci, the fda, and cdc dragged their heals and failed to recognize the effectiveness of monoclonal antibodies. They were focusing only on the vaccine, which we see now was a bone headed move and thousands of lives could have been saved with wider spread adoption of therapeutics.

        1. Amen. It is absolutely disgusting — nay, criminal — how the medical powers-that-be quashed efforts to share data that demonstrated effective early treatments for SARS-COV-2 infection. If you have the patience, watch this long interview with Dr. Peter McCullough, Chief of Internal Medicine at Baylor University: https://rumble.com/vhp7y5-full-interview-world-renowned-doctor-blows-lid-off-of-covid-vaccine.html.

  11. An Oklahoma college drops “race and ethnicities” course because of critical race theory law.

    I’ll be damned if I’m going to allow a doctor to operate on me or an architect to design my house who has no idea the differences in levels of oppression every single social group as inflicted or endured.

    1. So they could not do a race and ethnicities course without critical race theory? This would seem to be like canceling a biology course because you are not allowed to teach Lysenkoism.

      1. LOL! thread winner!

    2. That architect might put in a Master Bedroom instead of Primary Bedroom, the horror.

  12. #BidenBoom update.

    In 2021 Democrats have raised the minimum wage by: $0.00 / hour

    In 2021 Reason.com benefactor Charles Koch’s net worth has increased by: $7.94 billion

    No minimum wage increase. Billionaires rapidly accumulating more wealth. An influx of unaccompanied migrant children. Not even half a year into the Biden Era, and we Koch / Reason libertarians are getting everything we wanted.

    #LibertariansForBiden

  13. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) explores how laws banning “critical race theory” could chill all sorts of race-related speech on college campuses

    Yeah, except no. Here’s exactly what FIRE said:

    It must not just be carefully crafted by legislators but also accurately applied by colleges to avoid chilling academic freedom — and, as in this case, getting both sides of this equation right will too often prove difficult or impossible.

    Guess who got their side of the equation wrong? If college administrators are going to over-react because they’re too chicken-shit to actually follow the law, too fucking bad.

    1. This happened on the fight over Mexican American studies in Arizona about a decade back. The law said no focusing on race as a means for oppression or oppressors and no claiming one race as superior. Schools shut down neutral classes that passed the barriers as a form of retarded protest. They quietly reinstated said classes a month later.

      1. That’s more likely what this is. Performative teeth gnashing in order to virtue signal against the supposed evil of the oppressors. Instead of, you know, actually addressing the specific language of the law.

        1. They’re just following Jo Jorgensen’s credo

  14. We don’t need more publicly funded media in the U.S….

    Mr. Biden, tear down this paywall.

    1. Best one today.

    2. Vouchers for subscribing to news media? Stop throwing things at me, I’m just kidding.

  15. There’s never been a better time to be LGBT in America…

    Tell that to the victims of America’s most influential TERF daughter: J.K. Rowling.

  16. Though his blog went live less than a month ago, former President Donald Trump has shut it down.

    Self impeachment.

    1. I think you meant, self removal, not impeachment. heh, heh.

    2. Another failed enterprise. Along with steaks, vodka, university, airline, magazine, menswear, cologne, casinos.

      1. You should read about Thomas Edison inventing the light bulb sometime. I’m glad he didn’t have your snowflake sensibilities and work ethic.

  17. Cincinnati police are changing their policy for no-knock warrants and eliminating their use unless someone is at risk of serious harm

    However, the officers are *always* at risk of serious harm.

  18. But legislators focused on labeling it as a public-health crisis should consider what problems they are actually trying to solve.

    The problem of not getting the soccer mom vote.

  19. Biden’s $6 trillion budget plan is even more expensive than it looks…

    Getting rid of Donald Trump is even more expensive than it looked.

    1. Who can put a value on being saved from a mean tweet?

      1. Apparently, it’s in the trillions.

  20. Pennsylvania is considering a bill that would give amnesty to sex workers and sex trafficking victims who report crimes.

    Let the snitching on rival sex workers begin.

    1. Probably includes men agreeing to a “date” by said sex worker.

  21. Who started the Gaza war? America started the Gaza war.

    Specifically, Joe “Obama’s Third Term” Biden started the Gaza war, because it’s what Iran wants and, for some strange reason, there seems to be a bi-partisan effort to put America in the service of Islam. Maybe it’s a back-up plan for one-world government.

    1. Hamas started the war for internal political reasons. They are going to increase political power over the PA.

      At the same time Iran suffered an oil terminal fire and another navy accident resulting in the loss of their largest replenishment ship. Just as they sent a flotilla into the Atlantic presumably bound for Venezuela. Odd coincidence.

      1. Odd coincidence.

        The deep state is deep not consistent.

    2. I can’t believe no one has brought up the fact that Obama’s chief of staff for all 8 years was an Iranian.

      1. Yeah, Valarie Jarrett remains untouchable. Interesting.

      2. Are you taking about Rahm Emanuel or ???

  22. Cincinnati police are changing their policy for no-knock warrants and eliminating their use unless someone is at risk of serious harm…

    Sounds like an ironclad ban.

  23. Good news all around then eh?

    1. Not if assholes like you are still here.

  24. And dominos start falling. First Capitol riot case dismissed woth prejudice. Fbi was paying informants without verifying the actual information.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1269239?__twitter_impression=true

    White Mike furious.

    1. Gasp! The courts are requiring evidence? They must be in on the plot to turn us into Nazi Gilead!

  25. “Porn makes for an easy target,” writes Olga Khazan. “But legislators focused on labeling it as a public-health crisis should consider what problems they are actually trying to solve.”

    “Oh, that’s easy. Carpal tunnel syndrome and tennis elbow.”

    1. Anyone named Olga should not be opining on porn.

  26. https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1400198537191772170?s=19

    Exercise your freedom to live without fear. Get vaccinated.

    1. Un-fucking-believable. And yet…an accurate reflection of the leftist mindset regarding risk. Guess what, Uncle Joe? Unvaccinated people aren’t scared. Is it you that’s scared, Uncle Joe? Are the unvaccinated boogey-men going to sneak into your high castle and spread pestilence far and wide until all of your (vaccinated) loved ones die in agony?

      Poor scared old Uncle Joe.

    2. Exercise your freedom to live without fear. Get vaccinated.
      How out of touch can you be?

    3. What is this vaccine against fear of which you speak?

      1. It is more of a mantra than a vaccine.

      2. Something something…fear itself.

  27. Needs moar sex worker stories.

  28. So the Cincinatti police do nothing and get rewarded for it

  29. https://twitter.com/JordanSchachtel/status/1400450532746010640?s=19

    This should be obvious to any thoughtful person, but Big Pharma, China, Gates Inc, and USG “public health experts” didn’t just lie about lab leak. They lied about virtually every major issue surrounding this “pandemic.”

    1. The evidence is overwhelming that Fauci is a quack and a fraud. He should have been fired long ago.

      1. Who was going to fire him? Look at how any skepticism of St. Anthony was treated.

        1. Things are coming around – Amazon and Barnes & Noble scrubbed his book from their sites.

          1. And the sign came down finally in my neighborhood that said Thank you St. Fauci.

  30. https://twitter.com/katrosenfield/status/1400201876239532039?s=19

    I wrote for @TheSpectator about Ellie Kemper and Twitter’s habit of using its sidebar to amplify insane smear campaigns under the guise of “driving engagement” [link]

    the thing driving me crazy is not that a bunch of morons with room temperature IQs got together and called a blameless woman a “KKK princess”; it’s that Twitter *curated* those posts into a moment and did everything they could to promote and amplify them

    1. Here is the irony of this story..

      The ball she attended to has been open to all races since the 1970s. They are attacking her for attending a ball for an organization that used to be linked to racism and merely maybe the KKK. You know what institution was definitely linked to the KKK and also had grand wizards on its ranks? The Democrat Party.

      1. Way to dig up irrelevent history the dems haven’t had a kkk member since 2010

    2. I do enjoy the curated Twitter links in the Reason Roundup comments. But there’s no fucking way I’m ever setting up a Twitter account again. What a horrid cesspool.

    3. IMO, someone decided to go after her because she comes from a wealthy and well-known (locally in Missouri) family. Some woke a-holes decided she must pay for her crime of being born into “white privilege”. She has always seemed like a genuine, nice person though…the kind that you might want to hate for being rich but you can’t… so I don’t think it’s going to stick.

  31. https://twitter.com/catain_america/status/1400252949541052419?s=19

    The US has 13k military helicopters, 9k civilian helicopters.
    43% of the population thinks more socialism is a good thing. That’s roughly 80 million adults.
    So only about 4000 trips and we should solve that problem.

  32. Andy Ngo admits it was him who was beaten up by a conspiracy theory in Portland last week.

    https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/victoria-taft/2021/06/03/they-were-baying-for-my-blood-journalist-andy-ngo-confirms-he-was-beaten-by-antifa-and-blm-in-portland-n1451738

    So far only one minor arrest. Doubt they get charged.

    Mostly peaceful assault.

    1. If you haven’t seen it, Andy Ngo gave a speech at Hillsdale about Antifa’s history and tactics.

    2. https://twitter.com/EarlNoahBernsby/status/1400456816169943047?s=19

      Nothing makes Twitter’s Antifa/BLM simp propaganda machine go brrrr quite like Andy Ngô!

      These people are an absolute, gaslighting disgrace, and everyone who still believes their lies, at this point, are just willfully allowing themselves to be deceived. [Link]

    3. Replies to this are unhinged

      https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1400266501601513475?s=19

      Statement on May 28, 2021 Antifa assault:

      No journalist in America should ever face violence for doing his or her job.

      Yet on Friday, May 28, Antifa tried to kill me again while I was reporting on the ongoing protests and riots in Portland, Ore. for a new chapter of my…
      [Thread]

  33. https://twitter.com/njhochman/status/1400267495202689024?s=19

    So stunning and brave of her to speak truth to power by dutifully repeating the de facto political position of every major institution in America [link]

    1. The world needs much much more of that. The tragic thing is that only a person with the right melanin content can make that video. That’s how awful CRT is.

  34. https://twitter.com/johncardillo/status/1400165839333167104?s=19

    When is the FBI SWAT team’s predawn raid on Fauci’s home for lying to Congress?

    1. Second Thursday next week.

  35. Politico picks up story that was “debunked” last year about a DNC linked lobbying firm that was lobbying Joe about Brisbane at the same time Hunter was on the board.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/03/blue-star-burisma-justice-department-investigation-491681

    This firm is linked to many prominent democrats. It has ties to the Bidens.

    1. Burisma, auto correct is covering it up.

  36. Peter Daszak is the president of EcoHealth Alliance, and they were the subcontractor through which Dr. Fauci’s NIAID (NIH) funded the coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology that’s been the subject of so much speculation about the origin of the covid-19 pandemic.

    When Biden reopened the investigation into the origins of covid-19, he seems to have done so in response to an open letter signed by a who’s who in the world of virology, and one of their big complaints, in that letter, was that the investigation needed to be led by people who had no apparent conflicts of interest.

    That wasn’t the case with the WHO investigation, that determined the pandemic had a natural origin, because Peter Daszak, the man who funded the research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, was also an important part of the WHO investigation. He was effectively investigating himself. If you’re investigating the cause of the Great Chicago Fire, putting Mrs. O’Leary in charge of the investigation can limit the credibility of the conclusions. Well, as it turns out, the World Health Organization weren’t the only ones depending on Peter Daszak for his expertise on the pandemic’s origins when making important decisions.

    There’s an organization called “Science Feedback”, and Facebook (among numerous other media outlets), uses them to help determine what people should or shouldn’t be allowed to talk about on their platforms. Back in March of 2020, they determined that the theory that covid-19 emerged from a lab was, more or less, an unsupported conspiracy theory, and guess who they cited as an authority to help make that determination?

    You guessed it: Peter Daszak!

    Don’t believe me, take it from the source material:

    “Peter Daszak, epidemiologist and president of the EcoHealth Alliance who has collaborated with WIV researchers, warned during an interview with the journal Science: “These rumors and conspiracy theories have real consequences, including threats of violence that have occurred to our colleagues in China”.

    —-Science Feedback, March 5, 2020

    https://sciencefeedback.co/claimreview/scientific-evidence-indicates-virus-that-causes-covid-19-infection-is-of-natural-origin-not-the-result-of-human-engineering/

    1. People get distracted by questions about whether covid-19 started as a result of Dr. Fauci’s NIAID (NIH) and/or Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance funding of research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology or questions about whether covid-19 even escaped from this lab. I suppose those are important questions of fact in their own right, but that isn’t what I’m driving at when I talk about their culpability in this. There are huge principles that have been violated here–regardless of whether this research was the origin of covid-19 and regardless of whether covid-19 escaped from a lab.

      Principle One: Playing with matches was a stupid thing to do–regardless of whether playing with matches was the reason the house burned down–and managers should be held accountable for foolishly playing with matches.

      Fauci and Daszak recklessly took foolish risks with our lives and the world economy when they funded this research at a Chinese lab with a terrible safety record–and that reckless foolishness remains a serious problem for managers regardless of whether covid-19 escaped from a lab.

      Principle Two: Using experts to decide what we can or can’t discuss online is a stupid thing to do for a number or reasons. The way that ultimately undermines the credibility of legitimate expertise and science as more facts become available is only one of many.

      Suffice it to say that principles that have proven true over the course of centuries are not subject to invalidation based on the facts of any one news story, and that, my friends, is why holding Facebook or Fauci accountable for the foolish decisions they made doesn’t depend on the facts of this story or whether covid-19 escaped from a lab.

      Here’s a larger principle that has proven true despite the facts of any particular news story for more than 2,400 years: When our thinking isn’t grounded in principles that can survive a tremendous amount of quality rational scrutiny, we make ourselves vulnerable to manipulation through what Plato called “noble lies”. Wouldn’t it be better if people believed whatever the government tells them–regardless of whether it’s true?

      Every libertarian should answer that question by sticking their middle finger in the faces of those who don’t think we should be free to make choices for ourselves.

      1. “There are huge principles that have been violated here–regardless of whether this research was the origin of covid-19 and regardless of whether covid-19 escaped from a lab.”

        I believe this is called begging the question. It assumes one of two conclusions. The virus was either caused by the research in question or escaped from the lab. It does not consider the strong possibility that it is a natural mutation from a zoonotic source.

        As is this specious argument “ Wouldn’t it be better if people believed whatever the government tells them–regardless of whether it’s true?” The reader is led to believe that the hypothesis of a naturally occurring mutation is “what the government tells them”. Thus a false appeal to authority when it is a legitimate hypothesis not only held by “the government” as other similar viruses have been traced to animal sources. Going further it ends with the ominous “regardless of whether it is true”.

        Nothing has been proven as there is no solid evidence as to the origin of the virus. I cannot conclude either way.

        1. “Nothing has been proven as there is no solid evidence as to the origin of the virus. I cannot conclude either way.”

          If you read that entire post, the central point of which was that the conclusions I reached don’t don’t depend where the virus originated, and somehow found it salient to take issue with where the virus came from, then you may be lost to reason.

          “People get distracted by questions about whether covid-19 started as a result of Dr. Fauci’s NIAID (NIH) and/or Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance funding of research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology or questions about whether covid-19 even escaped from this lab. I suppose those are important questions of fact in their own right, but that isn’t what I’m driving at when I talk about their culpability in this. There are huge principles that have been violated here–regardless of whether this research was the origin of covid-19 and regardless of whether covid-19 escaped from a lab.”

          —-Ken Shultz

          There, I bolded it for you.

          Incidentally, drag racing in traffic is reckless on public streets, too–regardless of whether anyone is injured.

          Funding research in a Chinese lab with a terrible safety record was also foolish and reckless, and the managers who approved that funding should be held accountable for their reckless decisions–no matter where covid-19 originated–like playing with matches is reckless regardless of whether you actually burned the house down. If it turns out that the house burned down because of faulty wiring, playing with matches was still reckless, and managers should be held accountable for their reckless behavior.

          Facebook and other media outlets using experts to decide what we can and can’t talk about on major social media platforms is stupid–regardless of whether covid-19 originated naturally, in a lab, or came from UFOs.

          Do you still not see that the origin of the virus is beside my points?

          If you still can’t see that my conclusions don’t depend on the origin of the virus, then you should ask yourself why. Is there something in your head that makes it hard for you to see these issues objectively and rationally? Are you about to join the Flat Earth Society? I’ve never understood why they want people to believe the earth is flat. I suspect they just like to be contrary! Why do you feel it necessary to take issue with various theories about the origin of the virus in reaction to a post with conclusions that do NOT depend on the origin of the virus?

          1. Not only did they outsource dangerous, controversial research to a lab with a terrible safety record, they also did it to skirt the existing moratorium of GOF research that was instituted in 2014.

            They used the grant process to fund an intermediary, who then funded the Wuhan lab. And then Fauci claimed ignorance as to where and how the grant money was spent. That indicates one of two things to me:

            1) Fauci is lying. He knew what he was doing and he orchestrated it on purpose to get around the ban. Then he tried to cover it up when COVID happened out pf fear it would be discovered.

            2) Fauci is incompetent. He allowed US taxpayer dollars to be spent, with no accounting for how or where they were spent, and that money found its way to the Wuhan lab.

            Neither one of those scenarios is good, and neither one absolves Fauci of his part in the whole process. The COVID part of it is only important onsofar as he blocked any serious inquiry into the possible lab-leak origin in order to avoid getting found out.

            1. They may have done it outside the U.S. because no lab in the U.S. would do that research for regulatory, ethical, or liability reasons.

              Regardless, Fauci’s NIAID can’t credibly claim they were ignorant of what was being done because it’s all spelled out in the publicly available and independently verifiable funding request–that they approved.

              At this point, there’s nothing for Fauci and company to do but stonewall. They won’t be held accountable until the Republicans gain control of the House or Senate anyway.

              He’ll be held accountable sometime after Lois Lerner and Comey.

              1. Just for the record, this is about the wording of the grant application that Fauci’s NIAID approved.

                “By a strange twist in the story, her work was funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), a part of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH). And grant proposals that funded her work, which are a matter of public record, specify exactly what she planned to do with the money.

                The grants were assigned to the prime contractor, Daszak of the EcoHealth Alliance, who subcontracted them to Shi. Here are extracts from the grants for fiscal years 2018 and 2019. (“CoV” stands for coronavirus and “S protein” refers to the virus’s spike protein.)

                “Test predictions of CoV inter-species transmission. Predictive models of host range (i.e. emergence potential) will be tested experimentally using reverse genetics, pseudovirus and receptor binding assays, and virus infection experiments across a range of cell cultures from different species and humanized mice.”

                “We will use S protein sequence data, infectious clone technology, in vitro and in vivo infection experiments and analysis of receptor binding to test the hypothesis that % divergence thresholds in S protein sequences predict spillover potential.”

                What this means, in non-technical language, is that Shi set out to create novel coronaviruses with the highest possible infectivity for human cells. Her plan was to take genes that coded for spike proteins possessing a variety of measured affinities for human cells, ranging from high to low. She would insert these spike genes one by one into the backbone of a number of viral genomes (“reverse genetics” and “infectious clone technology”), creating a series of chimeric viruses. These chimeric viruses would then be tested for their ability to attack human cell cultures (“in vitro”) and humanized mice (“in vivo”). And this information would help predict the likelihood of “spillover,” the jump of a coronavirus from bats to people.

                https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan/

                While it doesn’t appear that Fauci’s NIAID funded the actual creation of the novel viruses, with gain of function enhancements, they were definitely taking those viruses and making them transmissible to humans. And I don’t see how they can credibly claim to be ignorant of that fact–since it’s all spelled out in the application for funding.

                Fauci has played word games in public–claiming that they didn’t fund the gain of function research itself or claiming that if the Chinese lab did gain of function research with their money, it wasn’t spelled out in the funding application. However, that isn’t the question. The question is whether Fauci’s NIAID recklessly funded dangerous research in a Chinese lab with a terrible safety record, and the correct answer is unequivocally “yes”. The correct answer is not a technically precise response that evades rather than answers the question.

          2. I see right through the diversion. Any lab dealing with infectious disease has a “terrible safety record” just as any nuclear facility, commercial fishing operation, or any number of dangerous occupations does.

            But that is not really your point is it? Your post is dissembling and disingenuous.

            “Regardless of whether Rodger knowingly paid for sex with an underage minor, or underage farm animal, these sort of actions are inherently dangerous and harmful.”

            The Flat Earth Society is a joke. Like the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Or “experts on Facebook”.

            Your points are clearly stated. Either “Fauci is lying” or “Fauci is incompetent”. Those are conclusions on your part.

            1. Echospinner, it is a matter of public record that Doctor Fauci did lie to the American public. He lied about masks, presumably to conserve them healthcare workers. That is what he himself has said.

              There are 3K pages of Fauci’s emails that just got dumped into the public domain. We’ll see what else, if anything, Dr. Fauci lied about.

              1. XY
                I just went to a MLB ball game last night. Thousands of people in close proximity and not a mask in sight.

                When this began, before we knew what we were dealing with, there were many missteps. There were things said which turned out incorrect. Masks were always at best a weak defense. We had nothing to fight with. No vaccine, no medications that worked, no idea how to even properly ventilate critical patients.

                There were not enough of them. So docs do triage when the supply is running low.

                Toilet paper. I remember the shelves empty of that and other supplies when this started. You couldn’t get hand sanitizer, Clorox. People dumping canned goods into their carts. That is a panic and potentially worse than the epidemic.

                So yes he lied. Or do masks really do very much?

                We have power now. We have the Iron Dome of defense against this pathogen. Go America. Plus you get a free beer.

                1. Did it feel strange to you? To be surrounded by a sea of unmasked faces, in close proximity? Because we just lifted mandates a week ago and it felt odd to see human faces. The novelty still has not quite worn off.

            2. Yes, Fauci is incompetent!

              Is there any question about that?

              How long did it take you to figure that out?

            3. “Your points are clearly stated. Either “Fauci is lying” or “Fauci is incompetent”. Those are conclusions on your part.”

              I don’t believe I said that Fauci is lying. I said he was telling the truth about a distraction that doesn’t really matter when he said they weren’t funding the gain of function engineering of the virus. They were just funding the part that made those viruses transmissible to humans.

              And just to be clear, are you suggesting that I must be wrong if my conclusion is that Fauci is incompetent? Because that’s not the way the logic thingy works. If the premises support the conclusion that Fauci is incompetent, then that’s what my conclusion should be. If you’re suggesting that my premises must be wrong because there’s no way Fauci could be incompetent, then you’re wrong about that at the very least.

              1. That indicates one of two things to me:

                1) Fauci is lying. He knew what he was doing and he orchestrated it on purpose to get around the ban. Then he tried to cover it up when COVID happened out pf fear it would be discovered.

                2) Fauci is incompetent. He allowed US taxpayer dollars to be spent, with no accounting for how or where they were spent, and that money found its way to the Wuhan lab.

                Neither one of those scenarios is good, and neither one absolves Fauci of his part in the whole process. The COVID part of it is only important onsofar as he blocked any serious inquiry into the possible lab-leak origin in order to avoid getting found out.”

                No? You never said that.

                1. I do not believe there is a lie about Fauci’s NIAID funding the research. The NIAID knew what they were funding. It was all in the application for funding. They funded it on purpose. Fauci denied that they funded the engineering of the viruses with gain of function techniques, and in the technical sense, that does not appear to be a lie.

                  It is being described as a lie by media on the right at the moment, but in order to get there, we need to assume that “gain of function research” means doing anything with a virus that has been enhanced with gain of function techniques. When Fauci says that the NIAID didn’t knowingly fund gain of function research, he’s right about that in the sense that they didn’t fund the actual enhancement of the viruses with those techniques.

                  Rather, the researchers did that to the virus strains they collected from bats–before before before the NIAID funded their research to take those enhanced virus strains and make them transmissible to humans by way of humanized mice (Mice that are engineered to have human cells in their respiratory systems).

                  The NIAID funded the research that took those already enhanced viruses and made them transmissible to humans, but my understanding is that the NIAID funding did not go the engineering the virus using gain of function techniques itself.

                  Fauci is playing a bit of a game of obfuscation and equivocation, but what he’s saying isn’t necessarily false. It’s more like a red herring.

                  Prosecutor: Did you have sex with that underage girl?

                  Defendant: I did not rape her.

                  Prosecutor: I didn’t ask you if she resisted. She’s underage.

                  Defendant: We didn’t do anything that could make a baby.

                  Prosecutor: I didn’t ask if it was biblical sex!

                  Technically, the defendant isn’t lying. He is a scumbag statutory rapist, however, and that’s what the jury wants to know.

                  When Fauci says they didn’t fund gain of function research, in the sense that no gain of function techniques were used during the research that the NIAID funded, he is telling the truth. When average people hear Rand Paul or someone else ask Fauci about that, they aren’t thinking about it in those terms. They want to know if his funding could have been the source of the pandemic–whether it was reckless and dangerous. And the answer is “yes”. They used viruses with gain of function enhancements, and they made them transmissible to human cells. That was the point of the research–so that they could study the way coronaviruses attack human cells in humanized mice.

        2. You spent a year insulting anyone who brought up the possibility of lab origin, and stated that you unequivocally believed it naturally occurred.

        3. Nothing proven, but far more evidence of lab leak than zoonotic. Like…

          Furin cleavage site that exist in no other coronavirus and has a protein sequence not found in any other closely related coronavirus, and instead looks closer TO HIV.

          The ability to bind to human ace2 cells better than bat’s, the apparent natural host.

          No known natural virus that is higher than 96ish % similar, the bat virus from yuanan province a few thousand miles from Wuhan and the bat’s don’t migrate toward Wuhan, and the same virus the WIV published papers about modifying to affect humans.

          No known animal host has ever been found, which there would be many of with a virus this transmittable. And no known intermediary host has ever been found either.

          Wiv workers getting sick in November.

          Wiv scrubbing employee records, virus databases, and all their early research on covid19.

          CCP silencing initial whistle blowers.

          CCP halting domestic flights from Wuhan but allowing international ones.

          CCP lieing about human to human transmission (and the who parroting it) into February.

          I can keep going but I’m tired of typing.

          1. It was revealed by U.S. intelligence that three of the researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology became so sick with the flu that they needed to be hospitalized in November of 2019. Statistically, that’s unlikely on a random basis from an outside, naturally occurring, preexisting virus, and the existence of covid-19 wasn’t confirmed until December of 2019. Furthermore, over the weekend, there were reports that one of those researcher’s wives was among the first people in Wuhan to have died of a confirmed case of covid-19.

            No, that’s not conclusive evidence, but there’s no need to speculate about how the virus might have migrated from a lab to the outside world. That evidence, or piece of the puzzle, is there–even if it isn’t conclusive. Incidentally, hospitals are often vectors for disease.

            “From the outset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, it was clear that hospitals were an important setting for viral transmission. A review of 2 early case series in China estimated that 44% of 179 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections were hospital acquired.1 An illustrative example of the devastating potential for health care transmission of SARS-CoV-2 came from St Augustine’s Hospital in Durban, South Africa, a facility with 469 beds, including 18 wards, 6 intensive care units, and 735 clinical staff.2 Through a detailed epidemiologic study supplemented by phylogenetic analyses, investigators documented how a single unsuspected case of SARS-CoV-2 led to 6 major clusters involving 5 hospital wards and an outside nursing home and dialysis unit, with infection ultimately confirmed among 80 staff members and 39 patients, 15 of whom died.2

            —-Journal of the American Medical Association

            https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2773128

            1. “the U.S. government has reason to believe that several researchers inside the WIV became sick in autumn 2019, before the first identified case of the outbreak, with symptoms consistent with both COVID-19 and common seasonal illnesses.”

              Rock solid there Ken. I called in sick that same week. Might be coincidence.

              Hospitals are vectors for disease? Who knew. Isn’t that where sick people show up?

              1. “Rock solid there Ken. I called in sick that same week. Might be coincidence.”

                Not only did I not say it was conclusive evidence, I specifically said it wasn’t conclusive evidence. But guess what? Evidence is evidence even if it isn’t conclusive.

                The fact is that three researchers on a virus research team suddenly came down with a flu infection that was so serious, they needed to be hospitalized–and the chances of that coming from a preexisting, non-engineered virus? That’s a heck of a coincidence–especially when one of their wives subsequently becomes one of the first people in Wuhan to be officially diagnosed with covid-19.

                I worked in an acute care hospital for seven years. I saw flu viruses run through the staff a number of times. I don’t remember seeing any of them needing to be hospitalized for the flu, much less three of them hospitalized at the same time and then one of their wives dying of the flu.

                Yeah, I think that’s probably unusual. Have you ever worked in an office where three people were hospitalized for the flu at the same time before 2020? Were you working with engineered flu viruses, too?!

                Again, I’m not saying that’s conclusive evidence, but if you were looking for an origin of the virus at a Virology Institute just before a pandemic hit Wuhan in December, seeing three researchers on the team hospitalized for the flu in November would be the kind of thing you’d expect to see. But maybe it’s just a coincidence!

                The coincidences are stacking up, and if they continue to do so, the uncertainty level decreases. How many times do I need to make the same roll before it becomes reasonable to conclude that the dice are probably loaded?

                1. Because the ED, pulmonology, critical care docs see that every day.

                  You never saw your co workers needing to be hospitalized for the flu. That was your point.

                  1. This is where the Flat Earth Society analogy is apt. They have an explanation for everything, too. At some point, however, explanation piled upon explanation drives the odds of their theory surviving as it accidentally jumps through so many dancing hoops extremely miniscule. They even need to explain why the Apollo moon landing was a hoax!

                    You may be in the process of painting yourself into a corner like that, where you may need to start saying some pretty ridiculous things to defend your position. If and when the evidence piles up high enough, I sure hope you thrown in the towel when you should.

                    Some people never give up. Some people are still looking for evidence of Saddam Hussein’s WMDs to prove that he was behind the anthrax attacks and 9/11. Some people think Nicole Brown’s and Ron Goldman’s true murderer will be caught someday, and O.J. Simpson will finally be fully exonerated! Some of the Birthers never gave up. Those Flat Earth Society people never give up. That’s what makes them so funny!

                    That’s not you, though, right? You can be persuaded by facts and logic, and when the time comes, you’ll call a spade a spade–even if the evidence all falls against you and Dr. Fauci, right?

                    Right?

                    I don’t understand why you care so much about Dr. Fauci, but I can tell he’s very important to you.

              2. Rock solid there Ken. I called in sick that same week. Might be coincidence.

                Hospitals are vectors for disease? Who knew. Isn’t that where sick people show up?

                Pretty pathetic deflection, there. Echospinner is certainly an apt screenname.

        4. Ken’s JAQing off and getting off on it. Better to ignore him and let him have his nut.

          1. There’s a reason why you don’t seem to have anything factual or logical to say in response to my post.

          2. Pay your mortgage, faggot.

    2. “Peter Daszak, epidemiologist and president of the EcoHealth Alliance who has collaborated with WIV researchers, warned during an interview with the journal Science: “These rumors and conspiracy theories have real consequences, including threats of violence that have occurred to our colleagues in China”.

      —-Science Feedback, March 5, 2020

      Making it all about racism is kind of a classic, elitist/progressive move at this point, isn’t it?

      Are you in favor of violence against Chinese people or aren’t you? Then shut up about the lab in Wuhan!

      1. Read all this yesterday. Faucis interview yesterday just makes it seem as he is desperate to cover things up.

        1. That Facebook was at least partially relying on Daszak to justify banning the escaped from a lab possibility as a conspiracy or “misinformation” was new to me.

          They literally cite Daszak calling it a “conspiracy theory”!

        2. Remember when were talking yesterday about why certain people keep regurgitating this stuff like the narrative hasn’t been revised yet?

          It’s because of this shit.

          “Our first mission is to help create an Internet where users will have access to scientifically sound and trustworthy information. We also provide feedback to editors and journalists about the credibility of information published by their outlets.”

          https://sciencefeedback.co/about/

          They couldn’t even get the story of the century right. They literally cited the fact that Daszak “collaborated with WIV [Wuhan Institute of Virology] researchers” without mentioning that he was funding the research under consideration. And this is what “editors and journalists” rely on to gauge the credibility of the information they publish?

          That’s why we see people here in comments confidently proclaim shit that we now know not to be true. They don’t know the yellowcake in Niger story turned out to be bogus. They don’t yet know that there were no mobile WMD labs. They don’t know how to use facts and logic and critically think about the things they’re told. They think the emperor’s new clothes are stunning and they really see the clothes, too. They can describe them.

          It’s ridiculous how deluded they are.

          1. The internet started as a free and open exchange if ideas. It has morphed into narrative building and tempered propaganda from powerful and well connected individuals.

            Humans on average are lazy. They want to be told what to think without having any skepticism. Social media curated and grew this behavior. It even paid people to participate. Then corporate and government collided to manipulate the masses.

            1. ^THIS^ strikes me as a nice synopsis
              I approve this message. 😉

      2. Hey Ken,

        Is it a scientific fact now that the virus leaked from the lab in Wuhan or is all this bellyaching that you are doing here about people calling you a racist based upon your conjecture? There’s a well-established mechanism for how viruses can mutant in non-human hosts to become infectious to humans. Until I see evidence to the contrary I’m going with that.

        1. The fact is that we still don’t know about the origin of the virus, although the evidence for a lab leak keeps piling up.

          In regards to the observation about progressives typically making every issue about race, is this the first time you’ve heard someone suggest such a thing?

          For instance, I’m seeing people talk about opposition to inflation as if it were inherently racist–since blacks benefit disproportionately from an overheated inflationary environment with a lower unemployment rate.

          https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2021-federal-reserve-race-inequality/

          But you don’t really need people telling you that progressives tend to make everything about race, do you? Birds fly, actors act, winds blow, water is wet, and progressives make race, sex, orientation, etc. the issue–even when it isn’t.

          And, yes, if this guy was telling us that we shouldn’t bother considering (or discussing) the possibility that the pandemic might have escaped from a Chinese lab–because of anti-Chinese violence–that might be a good example of that kind of thinking. After all, the pandemic either started from a lab in Wuhan or it didn’t–regardless of the stupidity of anti-Chinese racists.

          The idea that we should all pretend something is true because it’s better if people believe certain things regardless of whether they’re true and because they’re more likely to do as they’re told by the government when they believe them is also typical of progressives.

          I am not a progressive.

          1. The thing I see more than liberals calling people racists is conservatives like you endlessly bitching about it. By several fucking orders of magnitude. Maybe you should move on with your life and stop playing the victim. It’s no good for your mental health.

            1. “Peter Daszak, epidemiologist and president of the EcoHealth Alliance who has collaborated with WIV researchers, warned during an interview with the journal Science: “These rumors and conspiracy theories have real consequences, including threats of violence that have occurred to our colleagues in China”.

              —-Science Feedback, March 5, 2020

              That quote doesn’t have anything to do with me and how I feel. It would still say what it says–even if someone else were quoting it and felt something else.

              It’s there. It says what it says. It means what it means in the context of dismissing something that he both “investigated” and funded as a “conspiracy theory”, and nothing you say about me or conservatives will change any of that.

              P.S. And progressives are still obsessed with making issues all about race.

              1. So basically your complaint is that someone somewhere said that promulgating an unsubstantiated theory about the lab leak hypothesis was akin to racism. And that’s all?!? Jesus Christ, Ken, I thought I was the sensitive type, but you definitely need a wobbie to condole yourself more than I do. Do you want mine?

                You do know that Dear Leader and El Jefe in Exile (until that happy day in august that is) used that theory to deflect from his pitiful performance on COVID.

                1. No. That wasn’t what I said.

                  I said that the organization that Facebook and other media outlets use to decide what’s true and what’s a conspiracy theory made the same mistake as the WHO investigation–by citing the person who funded the research at the WIV as an authority on whether a lab leak might be the source of the pandemic.

                  It really wasn’t that hard to follow.

                  I also pointed out that when this person tried to make ignoring the possibility that it might have escaped from a lab in Wuhan about racism, which is a typical move by progressives, but covid-19 either escaped from a lab in Wuhan or not regardless of whether stupid racists are mad at Chinese scientists.

                  That wasn’t hard to follow either.

                  Either you need to work on your reading comprehension, or you don’t want to understand what you read.

                2. I’d say the wuflu was a pretty significant event, wouldn’t you amsoc?

                  And one dude who really, really needs the zoonotic narrative hand waved a plausible (likely) source for said wuflu with the old racism misdirection. And that’s all you need to hear.

                  On your knees, bitch.

          2. “While it doesn’t appear that Fauci’s NIAID funded the actual creation of the novel viruses, with gain of function enhancements, they were definitely taking those viruses and making them transmissible to humans.”

            So it sounds contradictory. If NIAID had nothing to do with funding creation of such virus nor intent to do such a thing, then why bring up the lying/incompetent director at all?

            I assume “they” here refers to the virology lab in China. You use the word “definitely” as having been lab created. Yet elsewhere you are unsure of that conclusion. A point we can agree on.

            1. “So it sounds contradictory. If NIAID had nothing to do with funding creation of such virus nor intent to do such a thing, then why bring up the lying/incompetent director at all?

              Are you joking? He’s claiming not to have done one thing, which is a distraction–because he did the other. And the thing they did was dangerous and reckless. They shouldn’t be in positions of authority if they’re making dangerous and reckless management decisions like that. This wasn’t a rogue NIH employee doing something against policy. This is the actual NIAID making decisions by policy, and what Fauci and company decided to do was dangerous and reckless.

              They technically didn’t fund the creation of a super virus, but they willfully made super viruses transmissible to humans–in a Chinese lab with a terrible safety record. That last part may be the worst of it. That’s what they actually did, and it may have killed 3 million people and destroyed the world economy for a year. Even if the research they funded wasn’t the cause of the pandemic, administrators who make dangerous and reckless decisions like that need to be relieved of their responsibilities.

              Would you recommend funding similar research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology today–given what you know about their safety record now?

              Are you unfamiliar with all the reports that the Wuhan Institute of Virology had a terrible safety record?

              We have reports that the State Department sent two cables back to their superiors in Washington warning them that the Wuhan Institute of Virology had serious safety problems–after touring the facility and meeting with the same lead researcher who had engineered those super viruses and was getting the funding to make them transmissible to humans from Fauci’s department at the NIH.

              And then there’s this from April of 2020:

              “About a year before the coronavirus outbreak, a security review conducted by a Chinese national team found the lab did not meet national standards in five categories.”

              https://www.voanews.com/covid-19-pandemic/chinese-lab-checkered-safety-record-draws-scrutiny-over-covid-19

              There were numerous incidents. They weren’t even passing the Chinese government’s inspections! This never should have been funded. If I were the Chinese government, I might go full propaganda with rage at the United States government for funding dangerous research in Wuhan–that they wouldn’t fund in the United States for being too dangerous, too unethical, or for being too much of a liability threat.

              Whether this research was the origin of covid-19 or not, funding this research–to make souped-up viruses transmissible to humans through humanized mice–in a Chinese lab with a terrible safety record is an excellent example of bureaucratic incompetence.

              If Fauci’s NIAID funded the research in China because no American lab would take on the responsibility or the risk, that makes it worse–but just funding it in a place where they have no control and with a known bad safety record is more than incompetent enough to remove Fauci from his responsibilities.

              He has no business being in charge of an organization that funds sensitive research–overseeing policies and choices about what is and isn’t safe enough to fund–not if the organization he oversees approved this reckless and dangerous garbage. We don’t need him making choices about the extent to which we need to lock our economies down either–not given his poor leadership and apparent poor judgement. Incompetent bureaucrats need to be held accountable for their bad leadership.

        2. It could be a natural mutation that leaked from the lab as well. I think that seems fairly likely at this point. But I’m not certain of anything.

          1. I’m certain that none of my conclusions in that post depend on the origin of the pandemic.

          2. Likely because you pulled it from your arse?

            1. No, likely because they were working with exactly this kind of virus in the lab located right where the whole thing started.
              You don’t like likely, then how about a highly plausible possibility? Why are you so opposed to the notion that it might have been accidentally released?

              1. It’s amazing how lockstep the leftists feel they have to be on this. Just look how upset AmSoc and echospinner are.

                1. What are they upset about?
                  Questioning authorities who have been proved consistently dishonest.

              2. Exactly?

                https://www.factcheck.org/2021/05/the-wuhan-lab-and-the-gain-of-function-disagreement/

                “In an April 2020 statement, University of Sydney professor Edward Holmes, who was involved in mapping the genome of SARS-CoV-2, responded to ‘unfounded speculation’ that the bat virus with 96% similarity was the origin of SARS-CoV-2.”

  37. https://twitter.com/GadSaad/status/1400456760024993798?s=19

    Exactly. They were led by the Tofu Viking and supported by an extremist group of elderly white people armed with selfies. I used to complain about the violence in the Middle East. I no longer do because the January 6 military coup was truly terrifying.

    1. ELDERLY WHITE INSURRECTIONISTS WITH SELFIES WILL BE THE DEATH OF ALL OF US (mostly on Florida highways)

      1. Asshole Mike hardest hit!

    2. Yeah, those guys were cosplaying morons who got caught up in the moment and then found out —the hard way— that trespassing and throwing shit at the police will get you arrested. Also… when their friends and business associates found out that they were behaving like boorish right-wing imbeciles there were repercussions to that as well. Poor them.

      Yeah… also, charging at a cop with a drawn weapon because you think Stacey Abrams was stuffing ballots in Georgia is not terribly smart. That imbecile that tried to jump through a door found out the really hard way. I heard her douche husband was trying to sue the Capitol police for that one. Good luck!

      1. Daddy Gov isn’t going to save you.

    1. GUN CRIME!!!!!

  38. U.S. employers may require existing workers and new hires to be vaccinated against COVID-19, per new guidance from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

    That is what it means to respect the property rights of employers.

    1. Lol. Of course jeff defends this. I bet you were also in agreement when employers started requesting social media passwords.

      In what way is your employer responsible for your health? You want so badly to be controlled.

      1. Lol.

        Employers don’t want a bunch of their staff getting sick. It’s pretty simple, bud.

        1. Wow. Singletons defending simpleton.

          A policy checking for symptoms would be less intrusive than a policy requiring a medical decision.

          Buy statists are going to always bow down to authority.

        2. How many elderly residents died from the coof in your nursing homes, scubunny?

        3. Nor their customers.

  39. https://twitter.com/grayzonewarlord/status/1400122128154955781?s=19

    With the lab leak theory gaining mainstream exposure, it’s time to review Unrestricted Warfare (1999), written by two Chinese PLA colonels, which is effectively a manual on how to defeat the United States.

    A thread. /1

    When published, the authors concluded that unparalleled US conventional military might would force enemies to pursue other forms of warfare, i.e. non-conventional. This was also a point made by Kilcullen: enemies would resort to terrorism instead of a conventional war /2

    After Desert Storm, war was redefined from “the use of armed force to compel the enemy to submit to one’s will” to “using all means, including armed force or non-armed force, military + non-military, and lethal + non-lethal means to compel the enemy to accept one’s interests.” /3

    “To compel the enemy to accept one’s interests” — this is the Chinese understanding of war: by any means necessary.

    “Unrestricted warfare,” therefore, is defined as “non-war actions… constituting future warfare… which transcends all boundaries and limits.” /4

    The authors point out the US military reliance on new technology, which almost always causes more problems that it solves.

    They also describe the myopic view of war held by Americans, largely as tanks and bombs, instead of “non-war actions” that can be used for war. /5

    The authors argue that China should develop new weapons: earthquakes, tsunamis, weather disasters, or “new biological and chemical weapons” that can be characterized as “non-war” but still used to prosecute a real war. /6

    The authors point out that literally anything can be weaponized, including “a man-made stock market crash, a single computer virus invasion, or a single rumor of scandal,” even “media weapons” that can disrupt an adversary. /7

    This revolution in military affairs will produce weapons that will control, not kill, in order “to force the enemy to serve one’s own interests.” /8

    In other words, the Chinese method of war would include subduing the enemy by forcing him to pursue his own self-interests (i.e., survival) instead of his geopolitical or strategic goals (i.e., protecting Taiwan). /9

    “use all means whatsoever — means that involve the force of arms and means that do not involve the force of arms, means that involve military power and means that do not involve military power, means that entail casualties and means that do no entail casualties” /10

    War will increasingly be fought by hackers resulting in “practically no bloodshed.”

    “[W]arfare no longer is an exclusive imperial garden where professional soldiers alone can mingle.” /11

    The authors spend considerable time on “a new concept of weapons,” again: anything can be used as a weapon of war, and most weaponized things won’t be considered war by the Americans.

    And here we are. /12

    They point out that the USSR spent so much money on the military tech race that it collapsed. The US is following in the same footsteps, write the authors, because there is no end to the tech race. At least in 1999, they saw this in America’s future. Prepare accordingly. /fin

    1. This, by the way, is exactly what the iNazi party, controlling almost all American institutions, is doing to the US middle class and independent individuals

      1. The second order effect of that the hostile take over of American institutions by the iNazi party destroys the effectiveness of institutions to carry out their stated missions, and makes the US weak, stupid, and disorganized, and unable to withstand the unrestricted warfare tactics.

  40. Interesting article on conservatives vs. liberals and their reaction to false claims.

    https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/23/eabf1234

    In short, conservatives are more likely to believe false claims than liberals are.

    The authors offer a number of suggestions for why this might be the case, but I think they miss a very important one: post-modernism. Truth on the right (as well as on the left to a certain degree) is not objective, instead it depends on what people believe. So if enough people BELIEVE that there was MASSIVE FRAUD in the election, then sure enough, there was indeed massive fraud. Here is one of the false statements evaluated in the study:

    “In 2018, the U.S. spent almost twice as much money on welfare for households headed by immigrants as it did supporting families headed by someone born in the U.S.”

    It only takes a small amount of mathematical reasoning to recognize that this statement is obviously false. But at the same time it isn’t surprising to see why Team Red members might be inclined to believe it. After all, their discourse in their media bubbles is saturated with coverage about the scourge of immigration and immigrants on this country. So they would be inclined to believe that immigrants are sucking at the welfare teat by huge amounts because that is the narrative that they have been fed over and over again. It gets to the point where it no longer really matters if a statement like this is strictly true or false; Team Red members will act as if the statement were true. Truth is a socially construction and politics is now about pushing your version of the truth on enough people so as to make it a reality in terms of public policy. It is sad, really.

      1. CRT, white supremacists, masks, Russia, covid numbers, asymptomatic spread, hate hoaxes, anthropogenic climate change, gun control, #MeToo, wage gap, transgenderism

        Just a couple off the top of my head while driving.

        https://twitter.com/VallachianR/status/1398715265358045186?s=19
        [Leninthink article]

    1. Lol. Do you know how many times shit like this has been debunked? You are literally believing a false claim. These are studies and polls that ask subjective questions and treat them as objective.

      God damn youre an idiot.

    2. So let’s take Jeff’s example:

      “In 2018, the U.S. spent almost twice as much money on welfare for households headed by immigrants as it did supporting families headed by someone born in the U.S.”

      The key thing here in his example is the keyword twice. So they are leveraging this study as a specific number of welfare usage, whereas many people who take these surveys look at these statements as relative.

      So i can point to a study like such:

      https://cis.org/Report/63-NonCitizen-Households-Access-Welfare-Programs

      Which shows welfare usage is higher in immigrant households.

      Now if the questions was slightly reframed you would more than likely get a different split in yes/no to welfare being more prevalent to immigrants.

      Likewise, the question itself that Jeff used is subjective, as not everyone declares welfare to be the same bucket of money. Some groups, such as left groups, will explicitly only include actual Welfare dollars, and not include things like uncompensated hospital care, child education costs, food stamps for kids, etc. So there is a different measurement of what the term welfare actually means based on Point of View.

      But Jeff is an idiot, so he falls for these studies constantly as a means to rationalize his belief system.

      1. By the way, the link above shows this as the split:

        63% of Non-Citizen Households Access Welfare Programs
        Compared to 35% of native households

        So not quite “twice” but close enough for most people to say twice.

        Again, Jeff is an idiot.

      2. Yeah, ambiguously worded question.

        1. How is it ambiguous? The statement is OBVIOUSLY false as there are far fewer immigrants in this country than native-born citizens. It’s almost mathematically impossible for that small proportion of immigrants to consume so much welfare so that it constitutes twice as much as what native-born citizens consume. But you have right-wing media running around wailing about how much welfare those damn immigrants consume that it can easily become distorted in the minds of the true believers.

          1. Read my post, it tells you why. You are choosing a metric that is ambiguous, what does “twice as much” mean is a subjective equation. Are we discussing number of households, total dollars, dollars normalized to population.

            You’re an idiot though, so I don’t expect you to get it.

            1. Ways to better word:

              In terms of total dollars,

              In terms of total dollars per capita,

              In terms of percentage of households,

              then follow the question up. You are just an idiot Jeffrey.

    3. From the study, here’s another statement that is false:

      “Addressing the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Representative Rashida Tlaib characterized her election as a first step to undermining the U.S. government.”

      Well, “everyone knows” Rashida Tlaib hates America, because that is what is repeated over and over again in right-wing media bubbles. So whether she actually said those exact words to that exact group is immaterial, right? We know that that is what is in her heart. So right-wingers will not just vote against her position, as is their right, but will treat her as if she were some type of traitor, bringing reality to that type of statement.

      1. Hey, another subjective view treated by idiots like jeff as objective.

        Congrats buddy!

      2. So wait did they just include a bunch of statements that easily fooled conservatives would naturally want to agree with while easily fooled liberals would want to disagree with? Its almost like they designed their study to get the results they wanted…

        Were there any statements like “a trans woman really is female” or “trans women in sports is objectively fair competition”, or “covid death rate is about 10%, with hospitalization rate 40-50%” or “Due to white supremacies effect on all black bodies, immigrants from Africa have the same financial and career outcomes as African Americans” or “Critical race theory definitely isnt just about revenge racism against whites” ? Because I bet the conservatives would easily get those right and the liberals would miss just about every one.

        1. Read the study yourself, I linked to it. The authors presented a bunch of false statements that they believed would fool conservatives, as well as a bunch of false statements that they believed would fool liberals. The self-described conservatives were more easily fooled than the self-described liberals.

          1. The authors presented subjective statements that were ambiguous and could be interpreted differently based on how the question was interpreted.

            I hate to keep harping on it, but you are actually the easily fooled person the study was trying to convince.

      3. Oh I got another good one! You could do “Police shootings are one of the most common causes of death for young black men” or “Homicide between blacks is a minor cause of death in males age 18-30”. 9/10 liberals would eat that shit up and fall for it.

      4. Hasn’t taleb stated that she want to dismantal America?

    4. “…The authors offer a number of suggestions for why this might be the case, but I think they miss a very important one: post-modernism…”

      The authors (and you) miss the obvious one: Their (and your) lefty bias and the dishonesty inherent in it.

  41. reasonable accommodations for employees who, because of a disability or a sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance, do not get vaccinated for COVID-19,

    There is no sincerely held religious belief re vaccinations. I’m looking forward to the onslaught of R’s claiming to be disabled in search of their special privileges.

    1. Chicken little persists.

    2. I’m looking forward to cowardly pieces of lefty shit fucking off and dying.

    3. BTW, let’s call you on your bullshit on top of your idiocy:

      “There is no sincerely held religious belief re vaccinations…”

      You can start with Christian Science and they are not alone.

    4. I do personally know one person, not sure if she is conservative or not, who is against vaccination because she believes God and nature provides protection against disease.

      1. Christian Science perhaps?

        1. Here’s the Christian Science perspective on vaccinations and public health

        2. I don’t think she is. Honestly, I wouldn’t want to ask her too many detailed questions about her beliefs.

    5. Is there a Sincere-O-Meter that measures these things?

      1. Yes.

        If commenters here make the case, there is nothing sincere about it.

    6. If someone claims it is a sincerely held religious belief, then it is. You can’t have freedom of religion otherwise.

      1. Figures that there is still a wing of libertarians who think there are religious rationales for slavery based on freedom.

        Sorry bud – no you do not have the freedom to enslave infect someone else.

        1. And you’re a walking contagion.

        2. Funny how that wasn’t a concern for you until last year, JFart.

        3. Jfree is actually against people having religious beliefs he disagrees with. While defending uniform invasive policies of medical choices pushed onto people.

    7. J&J vaccine developed in part using aborted tissue.

      1. That I can understand assuming you are talking about the actual ethical issues re the cell line here v just the simplistic political bs which involves no actual religious argument at all.

    8. “Long COVID” munchie diagnosis is already a thing amongst chemtard and his lefty boos, so the Rs have some catching up to do.

  42. Excellent article on mythology vs. history.

    https://dailymontanan.com/2021/06/03/ignoring-our-history-at-the-expense-of-our-mythology/

    The backlash over Critical Race Theory illustrates that a lot of people don’t actually want to learn the actual history of the US, they want to learn a comforting mythology.

    I am reminded of an interview I once saw with a tour guide at Monticello. He said that when he got to the part of the tour when he told the crowd that Jefferson owned slaves, and about his relationship with Sally Hemmings, that a very common reaction from the crowd was either (a) anger or (b) utter disbelief. Anger that the mythologized version of Jefferson was being punctured, and disbelief that the mythology that they learned in school about Jefferson wasn’t the complete story. It is much the same here. A lot of people don’t want to be told that the US has a racist past that lingers to this day. They don’t want to hear it because they prefer to believe the mythology instead.

    1. The backlash over Critical Race Theory illustrates that a lot of people don’t actually want to learn the actual history of the US, they want to learn a comforting mythology.

      Instead of asking someone why they are against CRT, Jeff attributes another motivation to those people.

      Again, Jeff is an idiot.

    2. >>The backlash over Critical Race Theory illustrates that a lot of people don’t actually want to learn the actual history of the US

      actual lol. actually.

    3. Jeff as Montanan if you want a good tour take the gates of Mountain tour down the Missouri or big horn canyon tour. Not related to your article but figured since you mention this state.

    4. “The backlash over Critical Race Theory illustrates that a lot of people don’t actually want to learn the actual history of the US, they want to learn a comforting mythology.”

      Dont know if that is your words or you are quoting. I ask because its funny being that was the “talking points” take from every uber liberal article I have seen on the subject. Funny how you also throw that out there, without taking into consideration that most people know the ugly history, are OK with their kids knowing it, but dont want their kids indoctrinated with CRT and the overt racism that it entails.

      It seems that you dont actually know what CRT is (nor did the writers of those articles, clearly) and are just regurgitating their overused bad take on it, trying to sell the point “they just dont like it because RACIST”. Not a good look man. That line of reasoning is the new indicator that you have given up and dont have anything useful to say. The left thinks they can use that now to silence any dissent, but more and more, people are just rolling their eyes.

      1. It seems that you dont actually know what CRT is

        Most people who discuss CRT don’t really know what CRT is, least of which state legislators.

        Here is a good introduction to what CRT *actually is*:

        https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/civil-rights-reimagining-policing/a-lesson-on-critical-race-theory/

        It is NOT “whitey is racist”. It is:

        It critiques how the social construction of race and institutionalized racism perpetuate a racial caste system that relegates people of color to the bottom tiers. CRT also recognizes that race intersects with other identities, including sexuality, gender identity, and others. CRT recognizes that racism is not a bygone relic of the past. Instead, it acknowledges that the legacy of slavery, segregation, and the imposition of second-class citizenship on Black Americans and other people of color continue to permeate the social fabric of this nation.

        CRT views racism as a social and structural phenomenon, not necessarily the result of bad people with wicked thoughts and motivations. Saintly people can participate in a structurally racist system which perpetuates unjust results, without those people having any mean or discriminatory intent whatsoever.

        Disagree with it all you want, but that is what CRT actually is.

        1. Most people go look at the actual materials being presented, not the politically cleansed wording from a biased entity. But you wouldn’t know how to to educate yourself like that. This material is all over the internet, you are free to educate yourself with primary sources. You can even just go watch Ibram speeches if you want. But no, you want to pretend it is something different.

          1. It’s not like what he quoted is really all that much better than the end results of that line of thinking.

            1. Agreed. The fact that that definition was the most neutral one he could find while denying all other actual primary examples of the belief system says a ton about jeff.

        2. “It critiques how the social construction of race and institutionalized racism perpetuate a racial caste system that relegates people of color to the bottom tiers. CRT also recognizes that race intersects with other identities, including sexuality, gender identity, and others. CRT recognizes that racism is not a bygone relic of the past. Instead, it acknowledges that the legacy of slavery, segregation, and the imposition of second-class citizenship on Black Americans and other people of color continue to permeate the social fabric of this nation.”

          So in other words, it’s an agenda driven worldview that teaches young people that the world around them is systematically racist owing to past legacies to injustice that apparently thrive as if the 17th century never ended.

          America is not even 300 years old, and for most of that existence it was a stable society. If America is still grappling with “legacies of slavery”, then what do you make of most other countries, which are centuries old and put ordinary citizens through unspeakable atrocities in all that time? French school children should be taught that whatever injustice wha affects their poc community owes to their age of serfdom and Napoleonic wars?

          “We are victims, they are oppressors” is not an honest discourse on history. That’s what CRT is, if a black person struggles in society, it’s because residual effects of slavery still exists in society, even though (1) most powerful institutions are ran by progressives and (2) by every objective measure, violence on pocs are committed by other pocs and hate crimes are negligible every other.

          It’s ok that you don’t get things Jeff. But given that CRT inevitably characterizes free market as racist because it centers on individual choice and not on egalitarianism that empowers identity, I would have expected a “principled libertarian” like yourself to realize that CRT will be damaging to the cause you hold dear.

          1. https://twitter.com/MythinformedMKE/status/1400520791599501319?s=19

            Fifth grade social studies teacher shares her Critical Race Theory “anti-racism” curriculum from her classroom. Listen to what these KIDS have been conditioned to say.

            This CRT curriculum is part of a collaboration effort with “Empowering Educators” sponsored by Pizza Hut. [Video]

          2. Yeah. It’s almost like there is no such thing as disparity in sentencing (aka institutional racism) between crack cocaine v powder cocaine – STILL. That resulted in millions of excess prison years and virtually an entire black generation (aka GenX if they were white) that had to start their adult lives in middle age.

            And amazingly the same institutions that put that in place – or deny that it involves tropes from slavery days – are doing the same shit re police killings. Which are the same institutions as during the 50’s/60’s civil rights backlash.

            Same shit – different generations. What is repugnant is that your ilk are now shitting all over a philosophy that purports to be for individual liberty but has in fact become just more same shit different generations.

        3. “It is NOT “whitey is racist”

          That may not be explicitly in the core teachings, but this is the natural conclusion of everything they teach. It is also no surprise that every one of these classes ends up with students of color being labeled as saints for their innate victimhood / oppression (regardless of their actual life circumstances) and white students being labeled as oppressors, writing apology essays, regardless of their life circumstances. It encourages people to necessarily mainly take into account race over all else, and put labels on people based on it. The natural course this takes (every time) is new racism. It just happens to be pointed toward whitey.

        4. So in english, “whitey is racist”.

          Fuck off

  43. >>eliminating their use unless someone is at risk of serious harm

    then Cincinnati is not eliminating their use.

  44. As examples of reasonable accommodations, the EEOC says that “an unvaccinated employee entering the workplace might wear a face mask, work at a social distance from coworkers or non-employees, work a modified shift, get periodic tests for COVID-19, be given the opportunity to telework, or finally, accept a reassignment.”

    Reasonable? This used to be called “shunning”.

    1. The employees feelings should trump making sure they aren’t spreading a virus?

      1. Yes, otherwise everyone would have to be isolated all the time. There are other viruses in the world, you know.

        1. You are being disingenuous. Realistically, no employer out there is going to go such lengths for just any virus.

            1. Yes, it is likely they care about just this one.

      2. Your neurotic conformity should trump rational thinking and self responsibility?

        1. He needs government and powerful corporations to protect him, his wrists are too weak for him to protect himself.

      3. No vaccine needed for survivors of the Communist Chines Virus, for example.

  45. In a statement to the Washington Post, college spokesperson Erick Worrell said the course had been cancelled because Oklahoma HB 1775, signed by Governor Kevin Stitt on May 7, “would require substantial changes to the curriculum” for Smith’s course because HB 1775 “essentially revokes any ability to teach critical race theory, including discussions of white privilege” in required courses.

    Serious question… was the curriculum racist?

    1. depends on who you think can or can not be racist.

    2. >>curriculum racist

      subjective.

  46. I also would like to lodge a complaint that International Whores are not offered an entire month to be celebrated like everyone else.

      1. touche. still like to see more mainstream celebration. Network specials … History Channel documentaries … there is room for creativity

  47. Yay, Whores!

  48. Private employer, nothing liberaltarians have to complain about here. Move along.

    1. Libertarianism doesn’t stop at government. It reacts to all nexus of power. It can also criticize without asking for legal intervention.

  49. So now I can require employees to disclose their medical records to the company before being hired, right? They might have AIDS, Malaria, Ebola, or who knows what!

    And if they didn’t get the flu vaccine this year, they can be summarily fired right?

    So dumb, but that’s where it ends up.

    1. Well, it is called “private property rights” and “at-will employment”.

      What is your alternative suggestion?

      1. Being an actual libertarian. Youre simply asking for people to give up their own decisions to an entity because “private corporations.” A real libertarian would criticize these decisions. But you care more about your presupposed safety due to your obesity.

      2. Maybe, and I’m just spit balling here, don’t have companies prying into people’s private medical histories?

        It’s not like companies were widespread demanding vaccination proof for any other communicable diseases prior to this.

        1. Would you pass a law mandating this?
          Right now employers only get to “pry” into employee’s medical histories only with the employee’s consent, as a condition of employment.

          1. And only if the company self insures for health insurance.

          2. No. I’d prefer the more libertarian route of persuading businesses to not force vaccination on their employees.

            It’s really nobodies business if I got a flu vaccine or had an abortion or have guns in my home (before you say those aren’t the same, all three have been considered public health issues). I don’t understand why that idea is so hard to grasp.

          3. Jeffs old go to. No need to pursue libertarian ideals if a law isn’t being made…. corporate collusion is just fine with him. He also advocates for increasing taxes.

      3. Treat the Communist Chinese Virus like every virus know to man.

  50. EEOC is wrong. Any kind of info regarding vaccination status is protected by HIPAA.

    1. No. It prohibits medical providers from releasing information without your consent.

      1. Also it says an employer can ask for the info if they “need the information for sick leave, workers’ compensation, wellness programs, or health insurance.” How does covid vaccination status fall into that?

  51. I do not think that these workers should be used to get the vaccine
    ICU

  52. Medical privacy dead? You can be forced to show you are vaccinated. On the other end if the employers don’t do this will they be sued if someone gets Covid?
    Let everyone decide for themselves, companies should never be forced into this dilemma.

Please to post comments