The Atlantic gets ridiculed and ratioed for demanding 'amnesty' for COVID tyrants, claiming dehumanization 'wasn't a moral failing'



The Atlantic started the week off with an audacious demand in an article entitled, "Let's Declare a Pandemic Amnesty." Emily Oster, an economist at Brown University, wrote, "We need to forgive one another for what we did and said when we were in the dark about COVID." Oster's proposal was met with ridicule and contempt.

Judging by the overwhelmingly negative response to the article on Twitter, many are not yet ready to absolve those who for years championed and partook in oppressive and discriminatory pandemic laws and social conventions — laws and conventions that had family members die alone, persons wary about experimental vaccines lose their jobs, children isolated and academically stunted, and Americans segregated.

No consequences, thanks

In the article published Monday, Oster noted that she and her family had taken "misguided" precautions such as wearing bandanas as masks that "wouldn't have done anything, anyway" on empty hiking trails.

While largely ignoring the more severe measures taken and rules enforced in the name of public safety, Oster referenced the arbitrary closure of beaches and the unjustifiable closure of schools as two examples of "getting it wrong."

"We didn't know," Oster wrote, indicating that ignorance justified the rest.

Oster argued that in "the face of so much uncertainty ... getting something wrong wasn't a moral failing."

Meanwhile, she contended that some of "the right people were right for the wrong reasons."

Oster is keen not to treat "pandemic choices as a scorecard on which some people racked up more points than others." She wants to move forward.

Discussions about how some people were immediately ready to dehumanize their neighbors or castigate fellow citizens for exhibiting wariness about untested medications tend to be "heated, unpleasant and, ultimately, unproductive" so why, suggested Oster, have them?

Oster's solution: "Put these fights aside and declare a pandemic amnesty."

"We need to learn from our mistakes and then let them go. We need to forgive the attacks, too," Oster declared, suggesting that expecting accountability for the "complicated choices" some people made "can lead to a repetitive doom loop."

No, we insist

Oster got ratioed when she linked to her article on Twitter. The post received 2,300 likes and over 32,300 replies. Many of the replies indicated that justice must be given priority over forgiveness.

\u201cMy latest in @TheAtlantic \n\nhttps://t.co/w6GIOEMhZv\u201d
— ProfEmilyOster (@ProfEmilyOster) 1667212895

Oster had recommended forgiving but not forgetting. Fox News meteorologist Janice Dean indicated that she would do neither, writing, "Many of us won't ever forgive or forget. Especially when it comes to the seniors who died in nursing homes after leaders flooded their residences with covid patients and never told us or protected them. They knew better. We deserve justice first."

\u201cOh no, @ProfEmilyOster. Many of us won\u2019t ever forgive or forget. Especially when it comes to the seniors who died in nursing homes after leaders flooded their residences with covid patients and never told us or protected them. They knew better. We deserve justice first.\u201d
— Janice Dean (@Janice Dean) 1667232795

The rapper Nzube Olisaebuka Udezue (Zuby) wrote, "People want justice and accountability. Nobody has properly acknowledged nor apologised for the immense pain, grief, and harm they caused to others. People who never wronged them at all. Including you. We have receipts."

\u201c@ProfEmilyOster @TheAtlantic No. People want justice and accountability.\n\nNobody has properly acknowledged nor apologised for the immense pain, grief, and harm they caused to others. People who never wronged them at all. \n\nIncluding you. We have receipts.\u201d
— ProfEmilyOster (@ProfEmilyOster) 1667212895

Libs of TikTok replied to Oster: "I'll never forget what the Democrats did - how they destroyed thousands of lives by forcing school/business closures, people died alone in hospitals while nurses danced because they didn't allow visitors, thousands lost their jobs for refusing a vax, list goes on and on."

Ukrainian-American podcaster Michael Malice noted that it is hard to forgive when those in apparent need of forgiveness have never apologized.

Turning Point USA contributor Laura Chen highlighted how the "pandemic amnesty" advocate had previously recommended the unvaccinated be shamed and segregated.

\u201c@ProfEmilyOster @TheAtlantic Forgiveness usually comes after an apology.\n\nI see no apology in this piece.\n\nRemember how you encouraged family members to pressure each other and the unvaxxed to be fired?\n\nPerhaps a little "I'm sorry for that" would be a good place to start.\u201d
— ProfEmilyOster (@ProfEmilyOster) 1667212895

Others called the proposed amnesty into question, suggesting — in many cases with the aid of graphic videos depicting how people were treated for not wearing masks or being found without vaccine passports — that the offenses for which Oster demands forgiveness weren't simply a matter of not knowing "any better."

\u201cAmnesty?\u201d
— Ian Miles Cheong (@Ian Miles Cheong) 1667265590

John Haar provided Oster with a reminder from Rasmussen Reports that some "mistakes" may prove too great for such swift and simple "amnesty."

The Rasmussen report referenced by Haar indicated that as of January 13, 2022, "nearly half (48%) of Democratic voters th[ought] Federal and state governments should be able to fine or imprison individuals who publicly question the efficacy of the existing COVID-19 vaccines on social media, television, radio, or in online or digital publications."

The report also revealed that "Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Democratic voters would favor a government policy requiring that citizens remain confined to their homes at all times, except for emergencies, if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine." 79% of Republicans were opposed.

\u201c@ProfEmilyOster @TheAtlantic Emily Oster: let's just forget this happened.\u201d
— ProfEmilyOster (@ProfEmilyOster) 1667212895

Mary Harrington wrote in UnHerd that Oster's request and similar recommendations are driven by self-interest: "Those who drove Covid policy presented themselves not just as people doing their best, but as the sole bearers of rational truth and life-saving moral authority."

"Doubtless the laptop class would prefer that we judge Covid policy by intention," wrote Harrington, "not results, lest too close an evaluation result in their fingers being prised from the baton of public righteousness."

Liberals are having complete meltdowns over Elon Musk possibly buying Twitter, comparing him to Adolf Hitler and comic book supervillains: 'It could result in World War 3'



Elon Musk made a proposal to acquire Twitter – which made many blue-check liberals suffer complete meltdowns. Liberals shrieked that the potential purchase would end democracy and start World War III. Some leftists compared Musk's actions with the rise of Adolf Hitler and comic book supervillains.

Musk – who is already the largest shareholder of the social media platform – announced on Thursday that he made an offer to purchase Twitter for nearly $42 billion.

There was a flood of Twitter reactions from liberals freaking out that Musk could own the platform.

  • Washington Post columnist Max Boot: "I am frightened by the impact on society and politics if Elon Musk acquires Twitter. He seems to believe that on social media anything goes. For democracy to survive, we need more content moderation, not less."
  • Journalist Jeff Jarvis: "Today on Twitter feels like the last evening in a Berlin nightclub at the twilight of Weimar Germany."
  • Political commentator Robert Reich: "I hate to break it to the so-called defenders of capitalism out there, but oligarchy isn't good for markets or freedom. It's one step removed from feudalism. We are watching a hostile takeover of Twitter by the richest man in the world who regularly tries to silence critics. This is what oligarchy looks like."
  • Journalist Anand Giridharadas: "Elon Musk is why to abolish billionaires. Asking them to chip in their fair share isn't enough. Regulating them isn't enough. When people are allowed to acquire this much concentrated influence, they will inevitably manspread economic power into every other form of power."
  • Correspondent Elie Mystal: "I'm not *really* worried about the racist white man buying this dumb platform because all the racist white man wants to do with it is make it easier for his friends to be racist. Which, like, they already are, all the time. And I make fun of them and they block me so whatever. Besides, if they make it too bad Black people will just leave to some other platform owned by white people who have access to venture capital. And we will make the culture there. And whites will follow us because racists are boring an unimaginative."
  • CEO Christopher Bouzy: "This game Elon Musk is playing with Twitter is dangerous. Twitter isn't just another social media platform, and Elon clearly recognizes that."
  • Political analyst Jared Yates Sexton: "I don’t know. Maybe a society where billionaires have enough money lying around to start space programs and control communication while people starve and ration their medicine isn’t the best system."
  • Journalist Sarah Stierch: "Please no Elon Musk buying Twitter. Please no."
  • Writer Dave Pell: "Elon Musk is Donald Trump with money. If he owns Twitter, I’m out."
  • Writer Matthew Rozsa: "If Elon Musk allows Trump back on Twitter, it will be a death blow to the free world. Trump's Big Lie will spread like a virus. I discussed the danger of Trump's Big Lie for @Salon. Like Hitler's Big Lie, it must not be normalized, lest fascism return."
  • Technology analyst Lauren Weinstein: "Elon Musk makes $41.4 billion cash offer to buy Twitter, presumably to turn it into a hate speech and disinformation playground in line with his sensibilities. Oh, and to get Trump elected president again. If Elon succeeds, a mass exodus from Twitter is appropriate."
  • Educator Morten Rand-Hendriksen: "Here we go: Elon Musk targets Twitter with $41 billion cash takeover offer. This could mean the end of content moderation and the platform descending into disinformation and far-right extremism."
  • Journalist David Leavitt: "If Elon Musk successfully purchases Twitter, it could result in World War 3 and the destruction of our planet."
  • Activist Bree Newsome: "Y’all we knew Twitter wasn’t gonna last lol."
  • Political activist Pam Keith: "I love you all, but I am 100% OUT if Musk takes over Twitter."
  • Social justice activist Whitney Dawn Carlson: "F*** you, @elonmusk."
  • The USA Singers: "Twitter should tell Elon Musk to go f*** himself, then delete his account. That’s how you deal with an out of control narcissistic bully."
  • Tech writer Michael Crider: "Oh f*** right off Elon. There are cheaper ways to stroke your ego, pay for another cartoon guest spot or something."
  • Attorney Walter Shaub: "Elon Musk making a play for Twitter out of his petty cash drawer is one more example of why the pooling of so much wealth in the hands of a few is a societal disease."
  • Columnist David Rothkopf: "We are the assets of @Twitter. If we walk out the door the moment @ElonMusk takes it over, it is nothing. And, I can tell you, I for one, have no desire to participate in the social engineering experiment of that particular out-of-control megalomaniac."
  • Researcher Ahmed Ali: "Elon Musk launching a hostile takeover bid for Twitter is giving Lex Luthor buying the Daily Planet vibes."
  • Axios: "The world's richest man — someone who used to be compared to Marvel's Iron Man — is increasingly behaving like a movie supervillain, commanding seemingly unlimited resources with which to finance his mischief-making."
  • The Washington Post: "Musk's appointment board to Twitter's board shows that we need regulation of social-media platforms to prevent rich people from controlling our channels of communication. For starters, we need consistent definitions of harassment and of content that violates personal privacy."
  • Ezra Levant pointed out that wealthy individuals own some of the most influential media outlets: "I'm excited to hear objections to Elon Musk buying Twitter from: @nytimes (owned by Carlos Slim, Mexico's richest man) @washingtonpost (owned by Amazon's Jeff Bezos) @TheAtlantic (owned by Steve Jobs' widow) @globeandmail (owned by Canada's richest man) Etc."

The Kings College professor and Acton Institute Research Fellow Dr. Anthony Bradley shared a graphic of rich people buying media outlets.

What's the big deal with @elonmusk buying Twitter? #ElonMuskpic.twitter.com/Hp5Y3aeoDO
— Anthony B. Bradley, PhD (@Anthony B. Bradley, PhD) 1649949319

As hyperbolic as the Twitter reactions were, billionaire Mark Cuban cautioned it could possibly get worse for left-leaning individuals if Musk teamed up with Republican venture capitalist Peter Thiel. Cuban tweeted, "Want to see the whole world lose their sh*t? Get Peter Thiel to partner with Elon and raise the bid for Twitter."

There were people who supported Musk in his quest to purchase Twitter.

Liberal commentator Jimmy Dore mocked, "'I’m leaving Twitter cuz I’m scared that if Elon Musk buys Twitter he will protect free speech rights of people I don’t like & won’t censor enough, censorship is what everyone wants….I mean, it’s what every tweet that I’m allowed to see wants.'"

Congressional candidate Dr. Willie J. Montague tweeted, "A man willing to spend $41,000,000,000 for free speech is a good man that I can admire."

Author Frank Fleming joked, "Elon Musk has also offered to buy CNN+ for twenty-eight bucks."

The Atlantic floats idea of getting rid of Nobel Peace Prize after Trump nominations



A staff writer at The Atlantic argued in the publication's "ideas" section Friday that the Nobel Peace Prize should be scrapped now that President Donald Trump has received nominations for the honor, saying that "it's better to shut it down" altogether than to allow "wacky nominations like Trump's."

What are the details?

President Trump was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize earlier this week for brokering a peace treaty between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, and was graced with a second nomination Friday for overseeing an economic agreement between Kosovo and Serbia that also included Kosovo — a mostly Muslim nation — recognizing Israel.

In reaction, The Atlantic staff writer Graeme Wood wrote a piece calling for an "end to the Nobel Peace Prize," claiming "the Trump nomination shows that peace had its chance, and blew it."

Wood dismissed Trump's diplomatic achievements, and pointed to a number of winners of the esteemed award who received the honor because of similar agreements that later fell apart.

He concludes:

All of this points to one of two conclusions: The Nobel Committee can either give the prize to do-gooder organizations such as the Red Cross or Doctors Without Borders (and play things extra safe), or it can keep the prize locked away for a while, and reevaluate its reasoning for a modern era. I suspect that that reevaluation will end, if the committee is honest, with the admission that peace can be recognized only by its fruits, which take decades to mature, and not by its seeds. To keep giving awards for the seeds is to court embarrassment, and to make yourself hostage to wacky attention-seeking nominations like Trump's. Better to shut it down, before the trolls do first.

Anything else?

Wood's piece comes just days after The Atlantic published a controversial and disputed report citing four anonymous sources claiming that the president referred to fallen U.S. soldiers as "losers" and "suckers." The outlet was accused of bias and its reporter was lambasted for poor journalism for basing the story on the accounts of nameless individuals.

Other outlets, including Fox News, also cited unnamed sources who purportedly backed up some of claims made in The Atlantic's report, but no one has yet gone on record. Several current and former Trump administration officials — including former national security advisor John Bolton and former White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders — have said the claims made in the story are false.

The timing of left-leaning magazine publishing a piece arguing for getting rid of the Nobel Peace Prize over Trump being nominated after publishing the anonymously-sourced story blasting the president was not lost on social media users.

Benny Johnson, chief creative director for conservative group Turning Point USA quipped on Twitter, "Trump has officially broken @TheAtlantic."

Trump has officially broken @TheAtlantic https://t.co/QvLZzJ8mNK
— Benny (@Benny)1599857025.0