To be fair*, they largely seem to think that (a) the number of deaths has been greatly exaggerated; and (b) it’s mostly those people who are dying, not respectable people like them. So of course the number is acceptable – as long as there are enough of those people surviving to maintain the infrastructure they need, and to staff their hospitals, hotels, shops, and other businesses, it really doesn’t matter to them. Especially if those people who are dying would have voted against Trump.
*Not actually being ‘fair’ in the commonly-accepted meaning of the word, you understand.
Acolyte of Sagan
The number that would not be acceptable is one, as long as that one is somebody they care about. Those dead losers from other people’s families? Fuck ’em.
zubanel
Not acceptable. Desirable, particularly if it’s the right people dying.
Comments
4 responses to “Yes sure that’s fine”
To be fair*, they largely seem to think that (a) the number of deaths has been greatly exaggerated; and (b) it’s mostly those people who are dying, not respectable people like them. So of course the number is acceptable – as long as there are enough of those people surviving to maintain the infrastructure they need, and to staff their hospitals, hotels, shops, and other businesses, it really doesn’t matter to them. Especially if those people who are dying would have voted against Trump.
*Not actually being ‘fair’ in the commonly-accepted meaning of the word, you understand.
The number that would not be acceptable is one, as long as that one is somebody they care about. Those dead losers from other people’s families? Fuck ’em.
Not acceptable. Desirable, particularly if it’s the right people dying.
Tigger: it’s mostly those people who are dying, not respectable people like them
I wonder how many of the 43% who said the number was “unacceptable” meant they thought it was unacceptably low.