Please explain this sentence: That number speaks for itself.
My comments:
That number, whatever that is, should be enough… enough to explain everything.
In other words, that number tells the whole story. No further explanation is needed.
When we speak, we try to make a statement, explain something or express a feeling. In some cases, we use numbers as evidence in support of a point.
For example, fans of Michael Jordan the erstwhile basketball player are used to using the six championship rings he won as evidence that His Airness is the greatest basketball player of all time. When younger fans try to argue that, say, the late Kobe Bryant or LeBron James is a better player than His Airness, Jordan fans like to say: Six (championships) is bigger than five (the number of titles Kobe won), or four (the number of titles to King James’s name).
In other words, numbers don’t lie, as they say.
There’s more to it, of course, than numbers and statistics when it comes to honoring the greatest basketball player and the debate doesn’t end there, but Michael Jordan being Michael Jordan, I’ll give him a pass, for now.
Jordan fans have a point. Six is bigger than five, or four. Case closed, for now.
Wait till LeBron James gets his fifth or even sixth championship – King James isn’t done yet. The debate will open again.
Let me give you another example where a number should be sufficient to explain itself. Donald Trump, the former President of the United States, used to brag about what a fine job he’d done overseeing the fight against the spread of the coronavirus pandemic.
Trump being Trump, he’s not going to take responsibility for anything but 400,000 people had died before he left office in January.
Four hundred thousand.
Yeah, you read that right, four hundred thousand.
And, sure, that number speaks for itself.
It’s obvious.
Nothing more to say.
Okay, I won’t say anything anymore. Here are examples of something speaking for itself in the media:
1. Dr. Anthony Fauci said in an interview with CBS News that referring to a cure for COVID-19 may cause “confusion,” and he also weighed in on the health status of President Trump, who contracted the virus but is eager to return to in-person events as the presidential campaign reaches its closing weeks. Fauci also identified the White House ceremony for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett as a “super-spreader” event.
Fauci, director of the National institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, was asked by CBS News' Steven Portnoy about Mr. Trump’s penchant in recent media appearances for referring to the treatment he received for COVID-19 as a “cure.” Portnoy, CBS News’ White House radio correspondent, observed that until recently, most of the president’s aides have not worn masks, and he asked what people can learn about the efficacy of that strategy in preventing the spread of COVID-19.
“I think the —the data speaks for themselves,” Fauci said of mask-wearing. “We had a super-spreader event in the White House and it was in a situation where people were crowded together and were not wearing masks.So the data speak for themselves.”
And talk of a “cure” is inaccurate, Fauci suggested, since there currently is no cure for COVID-19 — only therapeutics.
“We don’t have any indication — I think you really have to depend on what you mean by a ‘cure,’ because that’s a word that leads to a lot of confusion,” Fauci said. “We have good treatments for people with advanced disease who are in the hospital.”
- Fauci says data on masks “speaks for itself” after “super-spreader” White House event, CBSNews, October 9, 2021.
2. Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos said in a Monday interview that the hotly-debated new movie “Cuties” is misunderstood.
“It’s a little surprising in 2021 America that we’re having a discussion about censoring storytelling,” Sarandos said Monday, according to Deadline.
“It’s a film that is very misunderstood with some audiences, uniquely within the United States,” he continued. “The film speaks for itself. It’s a very personal coming of age film, it’s the director’s story and the film has obviously played very well at Sundance without any of this controversy and played in theaters throughout Europe without any of this controversy.”
His comments come after news that a Texas grand jury has indicted Netflix, Inc. for “lewd visual material” in the film that “appeals to the prurient interest in sex, and has no serious, literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”
A Netflix spokeswoman told the DCNF Oct. 6 that “Cuties is a social commentary against the sexualization of young children. This charge is without merit and we stand by the film.”
“Cuties” not only includes many close up shots of little girl’s crotches and buttocks, but also depicts them viewing pornography and discussing sexual acts and shows one girl photographing her genitalia, among other explicit scenes, a review by the DCNF found.
