Thread by @ChrisHohnholz

Some thoughts on #PandemicAmnesty: Amnesty, as @D_B_Harrison said in a comment, is a pardoning by an offended party (predominantly one in official authority) for an offense committed by another. It means someone did something wrong (typically criminal in nature) and the one 1/

authority pardons the guilty party. Forgiveness is similar in that it is giving of grace toward one who hurts or offends you. Instead of holding the offense against the person indefinitely, you graciously forgive the person, remembering the harm no more. However, in both 2/

matters, a charge of guilt is necessary. This means that someone did something wrong. The persons or authorities granting amnesty/forgiveness need to have an offense to show grace toward. If no offense occurred, no amnesty is needed. In the case of the @TheAtlantic article, 3/

the author, @ProfEmilyOster, claims that everyone is guilty of an offense and that we all need to forgive each other. She claims this is because we were all "in the dark" about COVID and we all said or did things wrong. Now, in one respect, there is truth that not all of us 4/

knew everything there was to know. But the issue is not one of knowledge but one of action. Those who opposed draconian COVID mandates did not advocate for forced masking, lockdowns, mandatory vaccines, or loss of jobs, travel, or societal privileges. One may try to argue that 5/

opposing such draconian measures could possibly have been ill-informed; however, objecting to action is not the same as demanding action. Those, like Ms. Oster, who took the side of pro-vaccine mandates, took or demanded action. And those actions impacted all of us. One may 6/

try to argue that opposing such measures was POSSIBLY harmful insomuch as it MAY have contributed to the spread of COVID; however, according to Ms. Oster, we were all in the dark at that time. Opposing mandates cannot be considered harm as everyone was “in the dark” and could 7/

not know if the measures were good or bad. According to the “in the dark” argument at least. Additionally, the claims that these measures would, unquestionably, limit the spread of COVID have never been proven to be true and, in some cases, have been shown to be arbitrary 8/

acts that had no measurable effect. So, again, those who opposed mandates committed no act that would need to be forgiven. Perhaps we may argue harsh comments were made (and that would be true to some extent), so, yes, forgiveness for words expressed in frustration would be 9/

appreciated. But, what of the actions of the pro-COVID measures side? Ms. Oster says they were in the dark when they advocated for these things. But, those measures lead to a great deal of loss, division, misery, and harm. Jobs lost, education slowed, economic fallout, 10/

families torn, and now, as we learn, possible medical harm to those who took an experimental mRNA treatment. Would it not seem prudent to now admit that supporting such measures, while “in the dark,” was, at best, unwise and’ at worst, destructive to society? 11/

Yes, forgiveness/amnesty can be extended but it must be extended to the side that caused offense and harm. It has become increasingly clear that those whose rhetoric and behavior demanded actions are the party of offense. Yet, they seem very reticent to admit or apologize for 12/

those actions. Rather, they choose to mischaracterize those in opposition. To claim they are somehow guilty of offenses that need amnesty. And the pro-mandate side now demands amnesty on their own part, something they are not entitled to require of others. One can seek 13/

forgiveness, but one cannot DEMAND it be given. Amnesty given by force is not amnesty at all.
One final thought: forgiveness does not mean the forgiven party is free from the consequences of their actions. I can forgive a man who assaults me but that does not keep him free 14/

from serving jail time for committing the crime. A just and legal criminal justice system will still hold him accountable. And a culture that seeks to maintain a free society for all must hold accountable those who abused their authority. If no consequences occur, then the 15/

abuse will continue, and the society is no longer free.
Those demanding amnesty today want not merely forgiveness, they want freedom from the consequences of their actions. They don’t want the culture at large to hold them accountable for the rhetoric, actions, and policies 16/

directly responsible for the harm inflicted. They want to hide behind being “in the dark” to excuse what they have done. We can never allow being “in the dark” to excuse behavior that willfully ostracizes, maligns, and divides a people. Such behavior must be brought into 17/

account. Such persons must be willing to receive the consequences they are due. And that really is the key about seeking forgiveness. If you harm another, while it is good to admit wrong and seek forgiveness, you must also be willing to suffer the consequences. If you are 18/

unwilling, then the last offense is greater than the first. Because, not only do did someone wrong, you want to force them to say it’s all OK, and somehow, it was their fault too. COVID manipulation hasn’t ended, it has just changed form. 19/

And that should bother us all the more. 20/End