politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
So apparently they really suck at it? That's kind of hilarious
They don't mention what the propagandists push about COVID. The usual line from weirdo propagandists is that COVID is a secret bioweapon and was released from the Wuhan labs intentionally. I assume China wouldn't sign on to that one? Do they just push the scientific consensus, which is that the origin is unknown but is probably natural, and possibly an unintentional lab leak? Or an exaggeration thereof which completely discounts the lab leak theory but still asserts what is most probable -- it's from animals? That's pretty weak sauce for propaganda. Maybe they push some nuance about COVID that only the Chinese government cares about. Or maybe they go buck wild and say it was developed by NATO biolabs in Ukraine.
So in the report by Meta, they go into a little more detail. One post in particular claimed that Fort Detrick is the origin of Covid. Fort Detrick is located in Maryland, and a quick google shows that it hasn't worked on biological weapons since the late 60s.
Here's Meta's full report: https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.8562-6/10000000_180063885098584_6098733693167598956_n.pdf?_nc_cat=110&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=ae5e01&_nc_ohc=xfoti16XMyMAX_H1sjP&_nc_ht=scontent-lga3-1.xx&oh=00_AfBw-FF6-NEqznOXr7ZYyGNvrEZbb-9FFm6Bw6K8eZJ_pg&oe=64F1F5AE
So basically they tried to do what Russia did but worse
Idk if this is propaganda or just some fucking idiot online LMAO
I don't imagine that the boss of whoever would be responsible for this supposed project would look at the responses and go "yep, looks about right"
It's not like being bilingual is that rare in intelligence positions in China. The evidence for being state-sponsored is weak.
~~Consensus has always been likely lab leak,~~ higher ups were just covering for fauci and his involvement in funding the lab. And others were silenced by the whole “lab leak theory is racist” mob.
Edit: Why am I getting downvoted? Have yall not been keeping up on the news on the topic. Am I misinformed?
Yes. You are misinformed.
Would... you... mind... sharing your source of information? I don't recall precisely where I got my information from, but it was definitely along the lines of CNN/MSNBC/NYT and not Breitbart or Trump, jic its that cultural identity that people are downvoting.
Can you give me a source from CNN/MSNBC/NYT where the meat market origin was created to cover up for Fauci? Your entire premise, save the idea that a lab "might" have been the source, is all conspiracy theory and not at all consensus.
The most recent lab leak stuff, as far as I'm aware, which did make the news was a thing published by some federal agency detailing the lab leak. However, what they didn't (and rarely do) report was that it had a low confidence rating. It was basically them exploring the idea, but they don't believe that was the cause. Just one possible cause out of many.
My understanding was that “low confidence” meant more like 51% chance… not 1% chance. And even that is a far cry from what most liberals are willing to even discuss.
I just wish we could actually have more discussion on these things, but everyone just lumps everything into good guys vs bad guys. If you don’t instantly 110% agree with me, ur the bad guy.
I’m just a fucking guy. And so are most people.
Low confidence generally means questionable or implausible information was used, the information is too fragmented or poorly corroborated to make solid analytic inferences, or significant concerns or problems with sources existed.
Basically, it means not reliable. It's not a percentage thing, just a thing that says we can't verify much, if any, of what was said. Someone said it though.
I don't think a possible lab leak has been ruled out, however, my understanding is that we really just don't know (at least publicly).
I think the downvotes are a reaction to the amount of COVID-19 misinformation that has been pumped out over the years, with the lab leak theory being pushed by people who didn't even believe in COVID in the first place.
The lab leak theory has never Bene more than a theory and there has certainly been no scientific consensus in favor of it.
While I'm open to the lab leak (on accident) theory, pointing the blame at one guy, Fauci, for funding them is really a bad basis for the idea. You've probably been misinformed at some point in yoir search for answers.
Looking back for sources, I think it was a Johnny Harris video that I’m thinking of. And while he’s done some work for NYT, this piece wasn’t done for them. also his bias and factuality, I now see, are questionable.
Still, I’ve got to be at least a little questioning of scientific leaders like Fauci who will tell us what he thinks we need to hear for our own good. Like he told us not to wear masks. His current reasoning is because he learned more about the virus and updates his view on masks… but his initial reasoning was to protect the supply of masks for healthcare workers.
I really wish he didn’t do that, because it’s people like him I look to to understand all the research, and explain it to us. When I read about the situation, the parts I understand at least…. Largely comprise of circumstantial evidence that is explained away by experts. Experts with an interest if GoF research, experts who … fuck man…. I’m tired and I’m not going to convince anyone that they should even do as much as be 1% more skeptical.
I read several NYT and CNN articles, I read through much of this Snopes piece, watched some recent BBC commentary… and I’m just not sure anyone should be so certain in either direction about the origin of Covid.
Just don’t lump me in with covidiots saying there are microchips in the vaccines.
Of course not! We've all come across misinformation on this topic. It's unavoidable. Even now I have questions about current messaging, new strains, etc. It's so shit.
Nobody just trusts what they read anymore, whether its the news or the state. I wish I could be 1% less skeptical, I'd still be perfectly fine.
This does seem like a huge fuck-up in hindsight. Thankfully while Fauci is still a popular interview guest, he's no longer in charge.
Jeanne Marrazzo will take NIAID lead, NIH Lead Hearing is Delayed
I've never understood the resistance to discussing the origins of Covid. It's pretty important for understanding possible future risks. As far as being racist, I don't get that either. We have to be able to criticize other nations regardless of who they are. I have a lot of respect for what China has done over the last few decades, it doesn't mean they might not have screwed up and leaked a deadly disease out of a lab.
The reality is that we'll probably never know for sure what happened because China blocked anyone else from investigating until long after the fact.
The lab leak theory isn't racist, but lots of racists really love pushing it. And even if it was true, it wouldn't mean anything. China was doing research on the viral strains they are most vulnerable to and it got out... so what? It was already in the wild. That's the point of research.
Now if someone had actual proof it was a bioweapon program, that would be worth talking about, but no one does.
You don't think that a lab leak might suggest a need for more robust standards at such labs? It's flawed to suggest that there aren't differing future mitigation implications depending on how Covid started.
As far as racists clinging to certain theories, that doesn't preclude rational people from talking about them as well. It's the same kind of reasoning that produces arguments like, "Well, we can't criticize Israel, because... Nazis!"
And, frankly, I have always found the idea that Covid started in a wet market much more racially charged than the idea of a lab leak.
The reasoning doesn't make sense to me on multiple levels.
Even if it was a protocol failure, they'd have fixed it afterwards.
The obsession with the theory with no proof is just conspiracy thinking at best, for what? They're fucking genociding millions of people as it is, why is a potential accident the issue at hand?
That's what doesn't make sense to me.
We have proof of a genocide, but the viral outbreak we've known was coming for twenty years is the problem?
Yeah, I just think the resistance to even discussing it is very strange. Not suggesting conspiracy, just good old fashioned human irrationally.
The problem, to me, is that the wet market in Wuhan has been studied for decades as a possible location where a viral outbreak could happen. And china shit it down for a short time but let it reopen. And scientists are just right back to studying this dangerous petri dish.
Edit: Scientists and science journalists have shared this opinion, read good sources.
The possible origins should be discussed. By experts. What kind of discussion are you looking for? I'm not a bioweapons expert. Are you? What possible conclusion can we come to that actual experts might not have considered?
I just see this idea that everyone's viewpoint is equivalently valid everywhere and it drives me crazy. This is a scientific question. Real experts study this stuff their entire lives. The one guy with a Ph.D. in Microbiology has an opinion that's worth more than a million random idiots with a keyboard and internet. Maybe instead of coming to our own conclusions, we listen.
Of course. Again, I just don't understand the weird polarizing effect even bringing it up causes. By your own reasoning there would be almost nothing most of us average people should even talk about. I find that highly questionable as a blanket statement. We can certainly talk about what we think the experts should be considering without making our own conclusions about it.
Edit: Just to clarify, you mentioned bioweapons. I haven't heard anything to support that. I just wanted to be clear. I'm not promoting any extreme theories or indeed any theory.
You totally misunderstood what I suggested. Your statement that we can't discuss anything proves it.
There are a myriad of things we can discuss. Politics, religion, whether Kirk or Picard was better. None of these are provably right or wrong. However, if someone was dispensing medical advice or legal advice, I would hope you'd talk to a real expert. This is the same. I'm not qualified to determine what is right in regards to Covid's origin so I listen to the consensus of experts.
But can we talk about climate change? Because we sure do. We talk about complicated economics topics, social issues, human biology... I just don't see why the line is drawn at where Covid might have originated.
No. We can't talk about whether climate change is real. There's an overwhelming amount of evidence proving it's happening. Where do we draw the line in your world? Do you suffer all the fools who don't believe in gravity too? How about geocentrism? Flat earthers?
There's no line at Covid. I'm saying there should be a line at hard sciences and questions that are verifiable. We can discuss whether gravity exists but it's just wasted breath if neither one of us knows all that much about gravity.
Fair enough. Climate change was a bad example. Maybe I could have said something like aliens. I'm far from an expert on anything to do with anything related to aliens, but I'm willing to recognize that it's an open question. Similarly, I'm not really saying we should imagine we have the answer with Covid, I just don't think there's anything wrong with recognizing that it's an open question. In one of my first comments in this thread in fact (I have apparently been talking to multiple people and not always realizing they're different...), I stated up front that I doubt we'll ever have an answer. I suppose the point has been belabored quite a bit at this point. I appreciate your insights and that you took the time to share them without getting too... um... Reddity?
What you should have posted was nothing.