|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On March 17 2022 15:14 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2022 13:57 WombaT wrote:On March 17 2022 11:37 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 17 2022 10:32 JimmiC wrote:On March 17 2022 10:23 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 17 2022 07:30 NewSunshine wrote:On March 17 2022 06:13 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 17 2022 05:13 NewSunshine wrote:
There's no meaningful distinction if you agree with Trump that trade wars are very good and easy to win. You're burying the lead for the n-th time. The liberal critique of the trade war was that it was an idiotic dumpster fire of a way to get back at China, not that they love China. Troll. Whether I agree with trump on trade wars is irrelevant to the topic under discussion. That's not hard to see. And of course, tuckers critique of the Biden admin w/r/t the Ukraine war is not that Tucker loves Russia. That is just a silly and partisan exaggeration. It's absolutely relevant if you're trying to use it as whataboutism for the Tucker-Russia stuff. You're trying to take the criticism of Tucker the Perpetually Perplexed 'Premacist of the Pasty 'Plexion and paint it as unfounded, on the basis that the criticism of Trump's idiotic trade war was just partisan hysteria. You couldn't be further off the mark. Or as you like to say, just a partisan exaggeration. Regardless of whether I agree with trumps trade war, it's still true that the things said by liberal pundits aligned with the interests of China. So it's not relevant at all. Like most partisan digs on tucker/Republicans, the exact same argument can be turned around on liberal pundits & democrats. No they can not, which is why you keep stating it without any sourcing. This is not the alternative facts thread, put up or shut up. Show us the Chinese governmemt airing liberal pundits, or memos saying to air more, preferably with subtitles unedited, just like Tucker. I don't think it is very important to show that Chinese state media actually aired liberal pundits, because Tucker should not be faulted for what Russian media chooses to do. The point is that the commentary of US pundits sometimes align with the interests of foreign countries, making those pundits "useful idiots" for the foreign countries. For example you are not refuting that liberal pundits' commentary on the trade war aligned with the interests of China. They were useful idiots for China. It may be relevant though to note WaPo's acceptance of Chinese state media advertising dollars. Sounds like WaPo is a useful idiot of an organization if it is actually disseminating Chinese propaganda. Recently the Washington Post has started carrying China Daily's US edition as a physically separate advertising supplement to the printed paper, as described here. Fine: it's clearly labeled, and we've all gotta stay in business. But now the Post is doing the same thing on its website. Look at this part of the "Washington Post"'s site as it appears just now, and tell me how obvious it is that you're seeing a paid presentation of official Chinese government propaganda perspective. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/02/official-chinese-propaganda-now-online-from-the-wapo/70690/ That’s from 2011, is it still the case? Anyway that aside, Tucker Carlson isn’t engaging in nuanced, informative or indeed at times remotely true analyses of foreign policy that has crossover that happens to have some occasional intersection with broad Russian goals. The crossover is with Russian propaganda and their talking points in that domain The left media equivalent over China would be something more akin to a pundit saying shut up about the Uighurs it’s a myth propagated by Western imperialists. Which hey, I don’t recall running into. Note the rather specific charge of Tucker Carlson doing this. One dude, not conservatives as a wider collective. I’ve read many cogent analyses from across the spectrum on foreign policy as it pertains to Russia, with differing conclusions that don’t neatly break down into straight left/right divisions of opinion. I don’t get why the natural retort is always some form of whataboutery rather than just ‘Hm, maybe this guy’s judgement, ethics, or both are bloody awful’. Counterargument: When Trump first raised the idea that maybe the virus came from a lab in China, he was ridiculed. The idea was dismissed as another of Trump's irrational thoughts and an attempt to blame China for his own faults. No respectable media organisation went and did any investigation on the lab leak theory. After Biden was elected, Biden and his advisers were now saying there was a possibility that the virus did leak from a lab in China. The point was still the same. The evidence was just the same as before. Suddenly the left-leaning media were reporting on it, when a year ago they had dismissed it out of hand, just because Trump said it, not Biden. All during this time, China claimed that the virus lab leak idea was a fabricated, baseless attack. That completely matched with the left-leaning / Democrat opinion that the lab leak idea was a fabricated, baseless attack. Can we then say that the media were useful idiots for the Chinese Communist Party?
Are you saying it is unprincipled to treat the claims of a serial liar as less credible than someone who is not? And I thought the lab leak theory has not even been verified now 2 years later and possibly may never be?
|
On March 17 2022 15:14 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2022 13:57 WombaT wrote:On March 17 2022 11:37 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 17 2022 10:32 JimmiC wrote:On March 17 2022 10:23 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 17 2022 07:30 NewSunshine wrote:On March 17 2022 06:13 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 17 2022 05:13 NewSunshine wrote:
There's no meaningful distinction if you agree with Trump that trade wars are very good and easy to win. You're burying the lead for the n-th time. The liberal critique of the trade war was that it was an idiotic dumpster fire of a way to get back at China, not that they love China. Troll. Whether I agree with trump on trade wars is irrelevant to the topic under discussion. That's not hard to see. And of course, tuckers critique of the Biden admin w/r/t the Ukraine war is not that Tucker loves Russia. That is just a silly and partisan exaggeration. It's absolutely relevant if you're trying to use it as whataboutism for the Tucker-Russia stuff. You're trying to take the criticism of Tucker the Perpetually Perplexed 'Premacist of the Pasty 'Plexion and paint it as unfounded, on the basis that the criticism of Trump's idiotic trade war was just partisan hysteria. You couldn't be further off the mark. Or as you like to say, just a partisan exaggeration. Regardless of whether I agree with trumps trade war, it's still true that the things said by liberal pundits aligned with the interests of China. So it's not relevant at all. Like most partisan digs on tucker/Republicans, the exact same argument can be turned around on liberal pundits & democrats. No they can not, which is why you keep stating it without any sourcing. This is not the alternative facts thread, put up or shut up. Show us the Chinese governmemt airing liberal pundits, or memos saying to air more, preferably with subtitles unedited, just like Tucker. I don't think it is very important to show that Chinese state media actually aired liberal pundits, because Tucker should not be faulted for what Russian media chooses to do. The point is that the commentary of US pundits sometimes align with the interests of foreign countries, making those pundits "useful idiots" for the foreign countries. For example you are not refuting that liberal pundits' commentary on the trade war aligned with the interests of China. They were useful idiots for China. It may be relevant though to note WaPo's acceptance of Chinese state media advertising dollars. Sounds like WaPo is a useful idiot of an organization if it is actually disseminating Chinese propaganda. Recently the Washington Post has started carrying China Daily's US edition as a physically separate advertising supplement to the printed paper, as described here. Fine: it's clearly labeled, and we've all gotta stay in business. But now the Post is doing the same thing on its website. Look at this part of the "Washington Post"'s site as it appears just now, and tell me how obvious it is that you're seeing a paid presentation of official Chinese government propaganda perspective. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/02/official-chinese-propaganda-now-online-from-the-wapo/70690/ That’s from 2011, is it still the case? Anyway that aside, Tucker Carlson isn’t engaging in nuanced, informative or indeed at times remotely true analyses of foreign policy that has crossover that happens to have some occasional intersection with broad Russian goals. The crossover is with Russian propaganda and their talking points in that domain The left media equivalent over China would be something more akin to a pundit saying shut up about the Uighurs it’s a myth propagated by Western imperialists. Which hey, I don’t recall running into. Note the rather specific charge of Tucker Carlson doing this. One dude, not conservatives as a wider collective. I’ve read many cogent analyses from across the spectrum on foreign policy as it pertains to Russia, with differing conclusions that don’t neatly break down into straight left/right divisions of opinion. I don’t get why the natural retort is always some form of whataboutery rather than just ‘Hm, maybe this guy’s judgement, ethics, or both are bloody awful’. Counterargument: When Trump first raised the idea that maybe the virus came from a lab in China, he was ridiculed. The idea was dismissed as another of Trump's irrational thoughts and an attempt to blame China for his own faults. No respectable media organisation went and did any investigation on the lab leak theory. After Biden was elected, Biden and his advisers were now saying there was a possibility that the virus did leak from a lab in China. The point was still the same. The evidence was just the same as before. Suddenly the left-leaning media were reporting on it, when a year ago they had dismissed it out of hand, just because Trump said it, not Biden. All during this time, China claimed that the virus lab leak idea was a fabricated, baseless attack. That completely matched with the left-leaning / Democrat opinion that the lab leak idea was a fabricated, baseless attack. Can we then say that the media were useful idiots for the Chinese Communist Party?
The lab leak hypothesis is plausible but hasn't been proven. It's not as neat an example as one would like.
|
On March 17 2022 17:27 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2022 15:14 gobbledydook wrote:On March 17 2022 13:57 WombaT wrote:On March 17 2022 11:37 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 17 2022 10:32 JimmiC wrote:On March 17 2022 10:23 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 17 2022 07:30 NewSunshine wrote:On March 17 2022 06:13 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 17 2022 05:13 NewSunshine wrote:
There's no meaningful distinction if you agree with Trump that trade wars are very good and easy to win. You're burying the lead for the n-th time. The liberal critique of the trade war was that it was an idiotic dumpster fire of a way to get back at China, not that they love China. Troll. Whether I agree with trump on trade wars is irrelevant to the topic under discussion. That's not hard to see. And of course, tuckers critique of the Biden admin w/r/t the Ukraine war is not that Tucker loves Russia. That is just a silly and partisan exaggeration. It's absolutely relevant if you're trying to use it as whataboutism for the Tucker-Russia stuff. You're trying to take the criticism of Tucker the Perpetually Perplexed 'Premacist of the Pasty 'Plexion and paint it as unfounded, on the basis that the criticism of Trump's idiotic trade war was just partisan hysteria. You couldn't be further off the mark. Or as you like to say, just a partisan exaggeration. Regardless of whether I agree with trumps trade war, it's still true that the things said by liberal pundits aligned with the interests of China. So it's not relevant at all. Like most partisan digs on tucker/Republicans, the exact same argument can be turned around on liberal pundits & democrats. No they can not, which is why you keep stating it without any sourcing. This is not the alternative facts thread, put up or shut up. Show us the Chinese governmemt airing liberal pundits, or memos saying to air more, preferably with subtitles unedited, just like Tucker. I don't think it is very important to show that Chinese state media actually aired liberal pundits, because Tucker should not be faulted for what Russian media chooses to do. The point is that the commentary of US pundits sometimes align with the interests of foreign countries, making those pundits "useful idiots" for the foreign countries. For example you are not refuting that liberal pundits' commentary on the trade war aligned with the interests of China. They were useful idiots for China. It may be relevant though to note WaPo's acceptance of Chinese state media advertising dollars. Sounds like WaPo is a useful idiot of an organization if it is actually disseminating Chinese propaganda. Recently the Washington Post has started carrying China Daily's US edition as a physically separate advertising supplement to the printed paper, as described here. Fine: it's clearly labeled, and we've all gotta stay in business. But now the Post is doing the same thing on its website. Look at this part of the "Washington Post"'s site as it appears just now, and tell me how obvious it is that you're seeing a paid presentation of official Chinese government propaganda perspective. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/02/official-chinese-propaganda-now-online-from-the-wapo/70690/ That’s from 2011, is it still the case? Anyway that aside, Tucker Carlson isn’t engaging in nuanced, informative or indeed at times remotely true analyses of foreign policy that has crossover that happens to have some occasional intersection with broad Russian goals. The crossover is with Russian propaganda and their talking points in that domain The left media equivalent over China would be something more akin to a pundit saying shut up about the Uighurs it’s a myth propagated by Western imperialists. Which hey, I don’t recall running into. Note the rather specific charge of Tucker Carlson doing this. One dude, not conservatives as a wider collective. I’ve read many cogent analyses from across the spectrum on foreign policy as it pertains to Russia, with differing conclusions that don’t neatly break down into straight left/right divisions of opinion. I don’t get why the natural retort is always some form of whataboutery rather than just ‘Hm, maybe this guy’s judgement, ethics, or both are bloody awful’. Counterargument: When Trump first raised the idea that maybe the virus came from a lab in China, he was ridiculed. The idea was dismissed as another of Trump's irrational thoughts and an attempt to blame China for his own faults. No respectable media organisation went and did any investigation on the lab leak theory. After Biden was elected, Biden and his advisers were now saying there was a possibility that the virus did leak from a lab in China. The point was still the same. The evidence was just the same as before. Suddenly the left-leaning media were reporting on it, when a year ago they had dismissed it out of hand, just because Trump said it, not Biden. All during this time, China claimed that the virus lab leak idea was a fabricated, baseless attack. That completely matched with the left-leaning / Democrat opinion that the lab leak idea was a fabricated, baseless attack. Can we then say that the media were useful idiots for the Chinese Communist Party? The lab leak hypothesis is plausible but hasn't been proven. It's not as neat an example as one would like.
I am well aware that it is not proven. However, the key point is that the idea was dismissed without any investigation in a partisan manner that followed the party line of China.
This is also not to suggest that Democrats are in bed with China. But if you hold that Republicans who express the same opinions as Russia are Russian assets, I don't see how the same argument could not be used for China and the Democrats.
|
Norway28747 Posts
I'd argue that you'd need examples of democrats supporting/mimicing Chinese arguments in terms of China's treatment of Hong Kong, Taiwan, Tibet and the Uighur minority - areas where there's a lot more contention - before any real parallel can be drawn. Tbh, I haven't listened much to Tucker and I can't weigh in on to what degree his opinions are those of Putin's, but I do have the impression that there's been a lot more overlap between Tucker and Putin on 'various questions' than there is between Democrats and China on 'various questions'.
To me, I don't even know to what degree the lab leak theory (by which I mean accidental lab leak because they are conducting research on corona viruses, not 'it's a manufactured virus aimed at supplanting geopolicial balance' or whatever) would or should have political consequences if it ends up being shown to be true. Whereas 'Russia is entitled to dominate their sphere of influence and Ukraine, being a neighbor of Russia, should not be allowed to choose their own alliance partners' (again, I haven't watched Tucker much, so I'm not saying this is necessarily a fair description of statements he has made) creates a very different political response compared to 'Ukraine is a sovereign country and should be allowed to choose her own bedpartner'.
|
This discussion about Tucker Carlson is getting stale (at least for some one who doesn't know who he is). Can't you instead discuss how The Guardian is on Russia's payroll? Take this 2014 article, for example:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/13/ukraine-us-war-russia-john-pilger#comments
Washington's role in Ukraine is different only in its implications for the rest of us. For the first time since the Reagan years, the US is threatening to take the world to war. With eastern Europe and the Balkans now military outposts of Nato, the last "buffer state" bordering Russia – Ukraine – is being torn apart by fascist forces unleashed by the US and the EU. We in the west are now backing neo-Nazis in a country where Ukrainian Nazis backed Hitler.
Having masterminded the coup in February against the democratically elected government in Kiev, Washington's planned seizure of Russia's historic, legitimate warm-water naval base in Crimea failed. The Russians defended themselves, as they have done against every threat and invasion from the west for almost a century.
But Nato's military encirclement has accelerated, along with US-orchestrated attacks on ethnic Russians in Ukraine. If Putin can be provoked into coming to their aid, his pre-ordained "pariah" role will justify a Nato-run guerrilla war that is likely to spill into Russia itself.
|
On March 17 2022 11:00 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2022 08:06 Artisreal wrote:
Why don't we start school later so kids can be awake?
Why can't we make our roads safe enough so that kids can go to school on their own and build independence and confidence?
Why can't we build our cities in a way that we like living in them?
Oh yeah, cars and the economy. I'd call it racial capitalism.
Not disagreeing in the slightest.
Also, as long as we don't have a criminal case brought forward and a verdict, we should be very careful to jump to conclusions whether the lab is guilty of setting free COVID. It's called innocent until proven guilty for a reason.
|
Norway28747 Posts
On March 17 2022 17:49 Elroi wrote:This discussion about Tucker Carlson is getting stale (at least for some one who doesn't know who he is). Can't you instead discuss how The Guardian is on Russia's payroll? Take this 2014 article, for example: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/13/ukraine-us-war-russia-john-pilger#commentsShow nested quote +Washington's role in Ukraine is different only in its implications for the rest of us. For the first time since the Reagan years, the US is threatening to take the world to war. With eastern Europe and the Balkans now military outposts of Nato, the last "buffer state" bordering Russia – Ukraine – is being torn apart by fascist forces unleashed by the US and the EU. We in the west are now backing neo-Nazis in a country where Ukrainian Nazis backed Hitler.
Having masterminded the coup in February against the democratically elected government in Kiev, Washington's planned seizure of Russia's historic, legitimate warm-water naval base in Crimea failed. The Russians defended themselves, as they have done against every threat and invasion from the west for almost a century.
But Nato's military encirclement has accelerated, along with US-orchestrated attacks on ethnic Russians in Ukraine. If Putin can be provoked into coming to their aid, his pre-ordained "pariah" role will justify a Nato-run guerrilla war that is likely to spill into Russia itself.
I will insist that opinion pieces are not editorials. In fact, I believe newspapers, being one of the arenas for public discourse, have a responsibility to also publish opinion pieces that they themselves disagree with in the spirit of championing healthy debate.
There's a limit, which has to be somewhat arbitrarily defined on a case to case basis and I can't define exactly where the line for what opinion pieces are publishable and what opinion pieces should be silent goes, but publishing an opinion piece is not the same as an endorsement of said opinion.
|
|
|
On March 17 2022 21:26 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2022 15:14 gobbledydook wrote:On March 17 2022 13:57 WombaT wrote:On March 17 2022 11:37 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 17 2022 10:32 JimmiC wrote:On March 17 2022 10:23 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 17 2022 07:30 NewSunshine wrote:On March 17 2022 06:13 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 17 2022 05:13 NewSunshine wrote:
There's no meaningful distinction if you agree with Trump that trade wars are very good and easy to win. You're burying the lead for the n-th time. The liberal critique of the trade war was that it was an idiotic dumpster fire of a way to get back at China, not that they love China. Troll. Whether I agree with trump on trade wars is irrelevant to the topic under discussion. That's not hard to see. And of course, tuckers critique of the Biden admin w/r/t the Ukraine war is not that Tucker loves Russia. That is just a silly and partisan exaggeration. It's absolutely relevant if you're trying to use it as whataboutism for the Tucker-Russia stuff. You're trying to take the criticism of Tucker the Perpetually Perplexed 'Premacist of the Pasty 'Plexion and paint it as unfounded, on the basis that the criticism of Trump's idiotic trade war was just partisan hysteria. You couldn't be further off the mark. Or as you like to say, just a partisan exaggeration. Regardless of whether I agree with trumps trade war, it's still true that the things said by liberal pundits aligned with the interests of China. So it's not relevant at all. Like most partisan digs on tucker/Republicans, the exact same argument can be turned around on liberal pundits & democrats. No they can not, which is why you keep stating it without any sourcing. This is not the alternative facts thread, put up or shut up. Show us the Chinese governmemt airing liberal pundits, or memos saying to air more, preferably with subtitles unedited, just like Tucker. I don't think it is very important to show that Chinese state media actually aired liberal pundits, because Tucker should not be faulted for what Russian media chooses to do. The point is that the commentary of US pundits sometimes align with the interests of foreign countries, making those pundits "useful idiots" for the foreign countries. For example you are not refuting that liberal pundits' commentary on the trade war aligned with the interests of China. They were useful idiots for China. It may be relevant though to note WaPo's acceptance of Chinese state media advertising dollars. Sounds like WaPo is a useful idiot of an organization if it is actually disseminating Chinese propaganda. Recently the Washington Post has started carrying China Daily's US edition as a physically separate advertising supplement to the printed paper, as described here. Fine: it's clearly labeled, and we've all gotta stay in business. But now the Post is doing the same thing on its website. Look at this part of the "Washington Post"'s site as it appears just now, and tell me how obvious it is that you're seeing a paid presentation of official Chinese government propaganda perspective. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/02/official-chinese-propaganda-now-online-from-the-wapo/70690/ That’s from 2011, is it still the case? Anyway that aside, Tucker Carlson isn’t engaging in nuanced, informative or indeed at times remotely true analyses of foreign policy that has crossover that happens to have some occasional intersection with broad Russian goals. The crossover is with Russian propaganda and their talking points in that domain The left media equivalent over China would be something more akin to a pundit saying shut up about the Uighurs it’s a myth propagated by Western imperialists. Which hey, I don’t recall running into. Note the rather specific charge of Tucker Carlson doing this. One dude, not conservatives as a wider collective. I’ve read many cogent analyses from across the spectrum on foreign policy as it pertains to Russia, with differing conclusions that don’t neatly break down into straight left/right divisions of opinion. I don’t get why the natural retort is always some form of whataboutery rather than just ‘Hm, maybe this guy’s judgement, ethics, or both are bloody awful’. Counterargument: When Trump first raised the idea that maybe the virus came from a lab in China, he was ridiculed. The idea was dismissed as another of Trump's irrational thoughts and an attempt to blame China for his own faults. No respectable media organisation went and did any investigation on the lab leak theory. After Biden was elected, Biden and his advisers were now saying there was a possibility that the virus did leak from a lab in China. The point was still the same. The evidence was just the same as before. Suddenly the left-leaning media were reporting on it, when a year ago they had dismissed it out of hand, just because Trump said it, not Biden. All during this time, China claimed that the virus lab leak idea was a fabricated, baseless attack. That completely matched with the left-leaning / Democrat opinion that the lab leak idea was a fabricated, baseless attack. Can we then say that the media were useful idiots for the Chinese Communist Party? The Liberal media was reporting what the doctors were saying. Whether you agree with their choices and reasons is separate from this discussion as it was not their opinion. Also the last two big studies on the animal are coming back as way more likely from animal. https://www.newsweek.com/wuhan-lab-leak-theory-undermined-new-research-points-wet-market-1683005https://fortune.com/2022/02/28/covid-wuhan-trump-lab-leak-study-market-animal-human-transmission/https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-lab-leak-hypothesis-made-it-harder-for-scientists-to-seek-the-truth/https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2022/03/14/covid-19-may-not-have-leaked-from-a-lab-its-still-a-problem-for-china/?sh=767eb54702c6Show nested quote +The first paper, by George Gao et al., is a summary of extensive virus testing at the Huanan Seafood Market, on samples collected in early 2020. They found SARS-CoV-2 in 73 environmental samples (collected from locations in the market but not in people or animals), and yet “no virus was detected in the animal swabs covering 18 species of animals in the market.” In other words, the virus was found at the marketplace, but not in any of the animals, suggesting that infected people walking through the market were the source of those positive samples. Where did those people get the virus? This paper doesn’t answer that question.
The paper by Michael Worobey et al. shows more, however: not only do they show that all of the early cases were clustered in or very near the Huanan Seafood Market, but also that “positive environmental samples were strongly associated with vendors selling live animals.” In other words, even though we haven’t found the original animal source of the virus, the locations are all centered on live animal vendors. They conclude that the Huanan market was “the unambiguous epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic.”
The third paper, by Jonathan Pekar et al., reports that there were actually two distinct events where the original SARS-CoV-2 virus jumped from animals to humans, both at the very beginning of the pandemic, probably in late November 2019. These authors also point the finger at the Huanan Seafood Market, and they implicate another animal, raccoon dogs, as a likely source. Raccoon dogs are closely related to foxes (not raccoons, despite the name), and were being sold as food in the Huanan market. Scientists have known since at least 2003 that raccoon dogs can carry SARS coronaviruses. This paper illustrates yet again why live-animal markets represent a threat to human health.
I would add that dismissing what sounded like another one of Trump's conspiracy theories out of hand is justifiable, considering at the time he uttered those comments, the only known facts were that covid started in/near Wuhan and that there was a lab doing research on viruses in Wuhan.
|
|
|
On March 17 2022 13:55 lestye wrote:
I’ll defer to NewSunshine when it comes to DST, as they are TL’s resident expert on sunshine.
I prefer the later sunset from DST, but the mornings will be pretty tough in Winter. Whatever, they suck anyway.
|
Northern Ireland26301 Posts
On March 17 2022 17:34 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2022 17:27 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 17 2022 15:14 gobbledydook wrote:On March 17 2022 13:57 WombaT wrote:On March 17 2022 11:37 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 17 2022 10:32 JimmiC wrote:On March 17 2022 10:23 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 17 2022 07:30 NewSunshine wrote:On March 17 2022 06:13 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 17 2022 05:13 NewSunshine wrote:
There's no meaningful distinction if you agree with Trump that trade wars are very good and easy to win. You're burying the lead for the n-th time. The liberal critique of the trade war was that it was an idiotic dumpster fire of a way to get back at China, not that they love China. Troll. Whether I agree with trump on trade wars is irrelevant to the topic under discussion. That's not hard to see. And of course, tuckers critique of the Biden admin w/r/t the Ukraine war is not that Tucker loves Russia. That is just a silly and partisan exaggeration. It's absolutely relevant if you're trying to use it as whataboutism for the Tucker-Russia stuff. You're trying to take the criticism of Tucker the Perpetually Perplexed 'Premacist of the Pasty 'Plexion and paint it as unfounded, on the basis that the criticism of Trump's idiotic trade war was just partisan hysteria. You couldn't be further off the mark. Or as you like to say, just a partisan exaggeration. Regardless of whether I agree with trumps trade war, it's still true that the things said by liberal pundits aligned with the interests of China. So it's not relevant at all. Like most partisan digs on tucker/Republicans, the exact same argument can be turned around on liberal pundits & democrats. No they can not, which is why you keep stating it without any sourcing. This is not the alternative facts thread, put up or shut up. Show us the Chinese governmemt airing liberal pundits, or memos saying to air more, preferably with subtitles unedited, just like Tucker. I don't think it is very important to show that Chinese state media actually aired liberal pundits, because Tucker should not be faulted for what Russian media chooses to do. The point is that the commentary of US pundits sometimes align with the interests of foreign countries, making those pundits "useful idiots" for the foreign countries. For example you are not refuting that liberal pundits' commentary on the trade war aligned with the interests of China. They were useful idiots for China. It may be relevant though to note WaPo's acceptance of Chinese state media advertising dollars. Sounds like WaPo is a useful idiot of an organization if it is actually disseminating Chinese propaganda. Recently the Washington Post has started carrying China Daily's US edition as a physically separate advertising supplement to the printed paper, as described here. Fine: it's clearly labeled, and we've all gotta stay in business. But now the Post is doing the same thing on its website. Look at this part of the "Washington Post"'s site as it appears just now, and tell me how obvious it is that you're seeing a paid presentation of official Chinese government propaganda perspective. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/02/official-chinese-propaganda-now-online-from-the-wapo/70690/ That’s from 2011, is it still the case? Anyway that aside, Tucker Carlson isn’t engaging in nuanced, informative or indeed at times remotely true analyses of foreign policy that has crossover that happens to have some occasional intersection with broad Russian goals. The crossover is with Russian propaganda and their talking points in that domain The left media equivalent over China would be something more akin to a pundit saying shut up about the Uighurs it’s a myth propagated by Western imperialists. Which hey, I don’t recall running into. Note the rather specific charge of Tucker Carlson doing this. One dude, not conservatives as a wider collective. I’ve read many cogent analyses from across the spectrum on foreign policy as it pertains to Russia, with differing conclusions that don’t neatly break down into straight left/right divisions of opinion. I don’t get why the natural retort is always some form of whataboutery rather than just ‘Hm, maybe this guy’s judgement, ethics, or both are bloody awful’. Counterargument: When Trump first raised the idea that maybe the virus came from a lab in China, he was ridiculed. The idea was dismissed as another of Trump's irrational thoughts and an attempt to blame China for his own faults. No respectable media organisation went and did any investigation on the lab leak theory. After Biden was elected, Biden and his advisers were now saying there was a possibility that the virus did leak from a lab in China. The point was still the same. The evidence was just the same as before. Suddenly the left-leaning media were reporting on it, when a year ago they had dismissed it out of hand, just because Trump said it, not Biden. All during this time, China claimed that the virus lab leak idea was a fabricated, baseless attack. That completely matched with the left-leaning / Democrat opinion that the lab leak idea was a fabricated, baseless attack. Can we then say that the media were useful idiots for the Chinese Communist Party? The lab leak hypothesis is plausible but hasn't been proven. It's not as neat an example as one would like. I am well aware that it is not proven. However, the key point is that the idea was dismissed without any investigation in a partisan manner that followed the party line of China. This is also not to suggest that Democrats are in bed with China. But if you hold that Republicans who express the same opinions as Russia are Russian assets, I don't see how the same argument could not be used for China and the Democrats.
Propaganda is a bit like pornography, as that judge once remarked, ‘I know it when I see it.’
Trump made that rod for his own back, and people dismissing him out of hand were entirely validated. I’m sure there are heaps of good examples that act as a counterpoint to this Carlson discussion, I’m just not sure these are it.
It smelled of an attack vector to get some digs in at China, coming from the guy who made political hay out of stirring that pot. People can smell what he does from a mile off.
In isolation the lab leaky stuff isn’t implausible, and in retrospect especially a travel ban on China could have been wise. Although to what degree it was containable to a meaningful extent back then I’m unsure.
If Trump in a parallel universe actually consulted epidemiologists and had a press conference where he announced that ‘in cooperation with the Chinese leadership we’re bringing in a travel ban to help beat this thing’ then, the response would likely be totally different.
Trump was almost wholly ‘right’ on COVID issues that involved China, and inadequate across the board.
Both at the time and especially in retrospect people merely recognised that Trump was augmenting his generally anti-China shtick with COVID responses. If it made China look bad in some way he’d propose things that independently weren’t terrible ideas, but if it didn’t involve bashing China, or the WHO or whoever then he didn’t really give a shit.
|
Northern Ireland26301 Posts
On March 17 2022 17:49 Elroi wrote:This discussion about Tucker Carlson is getting stale (at least for some one who doesn't know who he is). Can't you instead discuss how The Guardian is on Russia's payroll? Take this 2014 article, for example: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/13/ukraine-us-war-russia-john-pilger#commentsShow nested quote +Washington's role in Ukraine is different only in its implications for the rest of us. For the first time since the Reagan years, the US is threatening to take the world to war. With eastern Europe and the Balkans now military outposts of Nato, the last "buffer state" bordering Russia – Ukraine – is being torn apart by fascist forces unleashed by the US and the EU. We in the west are now backing neo-Nazis in a country where Ukrainian Nazis backed Hitler.
Having masterminded the coup in February against the democratically elected government in Kiev, Washington's planned seizure of Russia's historic, legitimate warm-water naval base in Crimea failed. The Russians defended themselves, as they have done against every threat and invasion from the west for almost a century.
But Nato's military encirclement has accelerated, along with US-orchestrated attacks on ethnic Russians in Ukraine. If Putin can be provoked into coming to their aid, his pre-ordained "pariah" role will justify a Nato-run guerrilla war that is likely to spill into Russia itself.
What Drone said basically.
I do like the Guardian flagging if an article is old too, small touch but prevents stuff being displayed in a manner that shifts their context.
I have no great issue, short of red lines which, like Drone I kind of only know when I see them crossed, having a newspaper’s less rigorous opinion section hosting articles which have a different slant from that their paid writers put out.
The issue I have with Pilger on this, and a cursory Google of his views seems to align here is that he’s cramming his overall US/NATO bad narrative in first, and picking what facts support that while discarding those that don’t. There is no room left in the trunk for any considerations that Russia has ill intent, much less still for the pesky issue of what Ukrainians themselves want or think.
Which is a perspective I run into with reasonable regularity, and is a tad frustrating. I don’t think that’s a reason not to publish some of these narratives.
There does seem little space for nuance, especially now.
|
On March 17 2022 11:51 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2022 11:37 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 17 2022 10:32 JimmiC wrote:On March 17 2022 10:23 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 17 2022 07:30 NewSunshine wrote:On March 17 2022 06:13 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 17 2022 05:13 NewSunshine wrote:
There's no meaningful distinction if you agree with Trump that trade wars are very good and easy to win. You're burying the lead for the n-th time. The liberal critique of the trade war was that it was an idiotic dumpster fire of a way to get back at China, not that they love China. Troll. Whether I agree with trump on trade wars is irrelevant to the topic under discussion. That's not hard to see. And of course, tuckers critique of the Biden admin w/r/t the Ukraine war is not that Tucker loves Russia. That is just a silly and partisan exaggeration. It's absolutely relevant if you're trying to use it as whataboutism for the Tucker-Russia stuff. You're trying to take the criticism of Tucker the Perpetually Perplexed 'Premacist of the Pasty 'Plexion and paint it as unfounded, on the basis that the criticism of Trump's idiotic trade war was just partisan hysteria. You couldn't be further off the mark. Or as you like to say, just a partisan exaggeration. Regardless of whether I agree with trumps trade war, it's still true that the things said by liberal pundits aligned with the interests of China. So it's not relevant at all. Like most partisan digs on tucker/Republicans, the exact same argument can be turned around on liberal pundits & democrats. No they can not, which is why you keep stating it without any sourcing. This is not the alternative facts thread, put up or shut up. Show us the Chinese governmemt airing liberal pundits, or memos saying to air more, preferably with subtitles unedited, just like Tucker. I don't think it is very important to show that Chinese state media actually aired liberal pundits, because Tucker should not be faulted for what Russian media chooses to do. The point is that the commentary of US pundits sometimes align with the interests of foreign countries, making those pundits "useful idiots" for the foreign countries. For example you are not refuting that liberal pundits' commentary on the trade war aligned with the interests of China. They were useful idiots for China. First of course you can, you should not have aligned opinion with Vlad Putin as a person who values democracy. Basically everyone who was not a trumper thought the trade war was a terrible idea, conservatives included. Most felt there was better ways to weaken China, shockingly China did not align with that. You might want to look for something slightly comparable before you do your Danglars2 impression, the schtick is tired. Saying things smugly does not make them facts. This thread requires you to not use arguments in absentia but to prove them with sources. So do or move on. Edit: not related no as the newspaper is not a pundit, they actually have people who write opinion pieces from different spots. At least your looking and going back over a decade so that is something! And to think we had someone here say WaPO was a good news souce. + Show Spoiler +On January 03 2022 02:34 Doc.Rivers wrote: Highly relevant article out from WaPo today. WaPo deserves some credit for being fair and balanced lately. I will link Greenwald only for the WaPo content:
[/QUOTE]
I won't belabor this argument further but I don't think you've shown a meaningful distinction between Tucker saying things that align with Russia and other instances of people saying things that align with foreign countries (including the guardian opinion piece).
|
On March 17 2022 21:39 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2022 21:26 JimmiC wrote:On March 17 2022 15:14 gobbledydook wrote:On March 17 2022 13:57 WombaT wrote:On March 17 2022 11:37 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 17 2022 10:32 JimmiC wrote:On March 17 2022 10:23 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 17 2022 07:30 NewSunshine wrote:On March 17 2022 06:13 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 17 2022 05:13 NewSunshine wrote:
There's no meaningful distinction if you agree with Trump that trade wars are very good and easy to win. You're burying the lead for the n-th time. The liberal critique of the trade war was that it was an idiotic dumpster fire of a way to get back at China, not that they love China. Troll. Whether I agree with trump on trade wars is irrelevant to the topic under discussion. That's not hard to see. And of course, tuckers critique of the Biden admin w/r/t the Ukraine war is not that Tucker loves Russia. That is just a silly and partisan exaggeration. It's absolutely relevant if you're trying to use it as whataboutism for the Tucker-Russia stuff. You're trying to take the criticism of Tucker the Perpetually Perplexed 'Premacist of the Pasty 'Plexion and paint it as unfounded, on the basis that the criticism of Trump's idiotic trade war was just partisan hysteria. You couldn't be further off the mark. Or as you like to say, just a partisan exaggeration. Regardless of whether I agree with trumps trade war, it's still true that the things said by liberal pundits aligned with the interests of China. So it's not relevant at all. Like most partisan digs on tucker/Republicans, the exact same argument can be turned around on liberal pundits & democrats. No they can not, which is why you keep stating it without any sourcing. This is not the alternative facts thread, put up or shut up. Show us the Chinese governmemt airing liberal pundits, or memos saying to air more, preferably with subtitles unedited, just like Tucker. I don't think it is very important to show that Chinese state media actually aired liberal pundits, because Tucker should not be faulted for what Russian media chooses to do. The point is that the commentary of US pundits sometimes align with the interests of foreign countries, making those pundits "useful idiots" for the foreign countries. For example you are not refuting that liberal pundits' commentary on the trade war aligned with the interests of China. They were useful idiots for China. It may be relevant though to note WaPo's acceptance of Chinese state media advertising dollars. Sounds like WaPo is a useful idiot of an organization if it is actually disseminating Chinese propaganda. Recently the Washington Post has started carrying China Daily's US edition as a physically separate advertising supplement to the printed paper, as described here. Fine: it's clearly labeled, and we've all gotta stay in business. But now the Post is doing the same thing on its website. Look at this part of the "Washington Post"'s site as it appears just now, and tell me how obvious it is that you're seeing a paid presentation of official Chinese government propaganda perspective. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/02/official-chinese-propaganda-now-online-from-the-wapo/70690/ That’s from 2011, is it still the case? Anyway that aside, Tucker Carlson isn’t engaging in nuanced, informative or indeed at times remotely true analyses of foreign policy that has crossover that happens to have some occasional intersection with broad Russian goals. The crossover is with Russian propaganda and their talking points in that domain The left media equivalent over China would be something more akin to a pundit saying shut up about the Uighurs it’s a myth propagated by Western imperialists. Which hey, I don’t recall running into. Note the rather specific charge of Tucker Carlson doing this. One dude, not conservatives as a wider collective. I’ve read many cogent analyses from across the spectrum on foreign policy as it pertains to Russia, with differing conclusions that don’t neatly break down into straight left/right divisions of opinion. I don’t get why the natural retort is always some form of whataboutery rather than just ‘Hm, maybe this guy’s judgement, ethics, or both are bloody awful’. Counterargument: When Trump first raised the idea that maybe the virus came from a lab in China, he was ridiculed. The idea was dismissed as another of Trump's irrational thoughts and an attempt to blame China for his own faults. No respectable media organisation went and did any investigation on the lab leak theory. After Biden was elected, Biden and his advisers were now saying there was a possibility that the virus did leak from a lab in China. The point was still the same. The evidence was just the same as before. Suddenly the left-leaning media were reporting on it, when a year ago they had dismissed it out of hand, just because Trump said it, not Biden. All during this time, China claimed that the virus lab leak idea was a fabricated, baseless attack. That completely matched with the left-leaning / Democrat opinion that the lab leak idea was a fabricated, baseless attack. Can we then say that the media were useful idiots for the Chinese Communist Party? The Liberal media was reporting what the doctors were saying. Whether you agree with their choices and reasons is separate from this discussion as it was not their opinion. Also the last two big studies on the animal are coming back as way more likely from animal. https://www.newsweek.com/wuhan-lab-leak-theory-undermined-new-research-points-wet-market-1683005https://fortune.com/2022/02/28/covid-wuhan-trump-lab-leak-study-market-animal-human-transmission/https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-lab-leak-hypothesis-made-it-harder-for-scientists-to-seek-the-truth/https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2022/03/14/covid-19-may-not-have-leaked-from-a-lab-its-still-a-problem-for-china/?sh=767eb54702c6The first paper, by George Gao et al., is a summary of extensive virus testing at the Huanan Seafood Market, on samples collected in early 2020. They found SARS-CoV-2 in 73 environmental samples (collected from locations in the market but not in people or animals), and yet “no virus was detected in the animal swabs covering 18 species of animals in the market.” In other words, the virus was found at the marketplace, but not in any of the animals, suggesting that infected people walking through the market were the source of those positive samples. Where did those people get the virus? This paper doesn’t answer that question.
The paper by Michael Worobey et al. shows more, however: not only do they show that all of the early cases were clustered in or very near the Huanan Seafood Market, but also that “positive environmental samples were strongly associated with vendors selling live animals.” In other words, even though we haven’t found the original animal source of the virus, the locations are all centered on live animal vendors. They conclude that the Huanan market was “the unambiguous epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic.”
The third paper, by Jonathan Pekar et al., reports that there were actually two distinct events where the original SARS-CoV-2 virus jumped from animals to humans, both at the very beginning of the pandemic, probably in late November 2019. These authors also point the finger at the Huanan Seafood Market, and they implicate another animal, raccoon dogs, as a likely source. Raccoon dogs are closely related to foxes (not raccoons, despite the name), and were being sold as food in the Huanan market. Scientists have known since at least 2003 that raccoon dogs can carry SARS coronaviruses. This paper illustrates yet again why live-animal markets represent a threat to human health. I would add that dismissing what sounded like another one of Trump's conspiracy theories out of hand is justifiable, considering at the time he uttered those comments, the only known facts were that covid started in/near Wuhan and that there was a lab doing research on viruses in Wuhan.
The only known facts were precisely what made what Trump was saying possible. At a basic common sense level, it was possible. Meaning, it was not justified to dismiss it out of hand. It was just knee jerk partisanship.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland26301 Posts
On March 18 2022 02:52 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2022 21:39 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 17 2022 21:26 JimmiC wrote:On March 17 2022 15:14 gobbledydook wrote:On March 17 2022 13:57 WombaT wrote:On March 17 2022 11:37 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 17 2022 10:32 JimmiC wrote:On March 17 2022 10:23 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 17 2022 07:30 NewSunshine wrote:On March 17 2022 06:13 Doc.Rivers wrote:
[quote]
Whether I agree with trump on trade wars is irrelevant to the topic under discussion. That's not hard to see. And of course, tuckers critique of the Biden admin w/r/t the Ukraine war is not that Tucker loves Russia. That is just a silly and partisan exaggeration.
It's absolutely relevant if you're trying to use it as whataboutism for the Tucker-Russia stuff. You're trying to take the criticism of Tucker the Perpetually Perplexed 'Premacist of the Pasty 'Plexion and paint it as unfounded, on the basis that the criticism of Trump's idiotic trade war was just partisan hysteria. You couldn't be further off the mark. Or as you like to say, just a partisan exaggeration. Regardless of whether I agree with trumps trade war, it's still true that the things said by liberal pundits aligned with the interests of China. So it's not relevant at all. Like most partisan digs on tucker/Republicans, the exact same argument can be turned around on liberal pundits & democrats. No they can not, which is why you keep stating it without any sourcing. This is not the alternative facts thread, put up or shut up. Show us the Chinese governmemt airing liberal pundits, or memos saying to air more, preferably with subtitles unedited, just like Tucker. I don't think it is very important to show that Chinese state media actually aired liberal pundits, because Tucker should not be faulted for what Russian media chooses to do. The point is that the commentary of US pundits sometimes align with the interests of foreign countries, making those pundits "useful idiots" for the foreign countries. For example you are not refuting that liberal pundits' commentary on the trade war aligned with the interests of China. They were useful idiots for China. It may be relevant though to note WaPo's acceptance of Chinese state media advertising dollars. Sounds like WaPo is a useful idiot of an organization if it is actually disseminating Chinese propaganda. Recently the Washington Post has started carrying China Daily's US edition as a physically separate advertising supplement to the printed paper, as described here. Fine: it's clearly labeled, and we've all gotta stay in business. But now the Post is doing the same thing on its website. Look at this part of the "Washington Post"'s site as it appears just now, and tell me how obvious it is that you're seeing a paid presentation of official Chinese government propaganda perspective. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/02/official-chinese-propaganda-now-online-from-the-wapo/70690/ That’s from 2011, is it still the case? Anyway that aside, Tucker Carlson isn’t engaging in nuanced, informative or indeed at times remotely true analyses of foreign policy that has crossover that happens to have some occasional intersection with broad Russian goals. The crossover is with Russian propaganda and their talking points in that domain The left media equivalent over China would be something more akin to a pundit saying shut up about the Uighurs it’s a myth propagated by Western imperialists. Which hey, I don’t recall running into. Note the rather specific charge of Tucker Carlson doing this. One dude, not conservatives as a wider collective. I’ve read many cogent analyses from across the spectrum on foreign policy as it pertains to Russia, with differing conclusions that don’t neatly break down into straight left/right divisions of opinion. I don’t get why the natural retort is always some form of whataboutery rather than just ‘Hm, maybe this guy’s judgement, ethics, or both are bloody awful’. Counterargument: When Trump first raised the idea that maybe the virus came from a lab in China, he was ridiculed. The idea was dismissed as another of Trump's irrational thoughts and an attempt to blame China for his own faults. No respectable media organisation went and did any investigation on the lab leak theory. After Biden was elected, Biden and his advisers were now saying there was a possibility that the virus did leak from a lab in China. The point was still the same. The evidence was just the same as before. Suddenly the left-leaning media were reporting on it, when a year ago they had dismissed it out of hand, just because Trump said it, not Biden. All during this time, China claimed that the virus lab leak idea was a fabricated, baseless attack. That completely matched with the left-leaning / Democrat opinion that the lab leak idea was a fabricated, baseless attack. Can we then say that the media were useful idiots for the Chinese Communist Party? The Liberal media was reporting what the doctors were saying. Whether you agree with their choices and reasons is separate from this discussion as it was not their opinion. Also the last two big studies on the animal are coming back as way more likely from animal. https://www.newsweek.com/wuhan-lab-leak-theory-undermined-new-research-points-wet-market-1683005https://fortune.com/2022/02/28/covid-wuhan-trump-lab-leak-study-market-animal-human-transmission/https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-lab-leak-hypothesis-made-it-harder-for-scientists-to-seek-the-truth/https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2022/03/14/covid-19-may-not-have-leaked-from-a-lab-its-still-a-problem-for-china/?sh=767eb54702c6The first paper, by George Gao et al., is a summary of extensive virus testing at the Huanan Seafood Market, on samples collected in early 2020. They found SARS-CoV-2 in 73 environmental samples (collected from locations in the market but not in people or animals), and yet “no virus was detected in the animal swabs covering 18 species of animals in the market.” In other words, the virus was found at the marketplace, but not in any of the animals, suggesting that infected people walking through the market were the source of those positive samples. Where did those people get the virus? This paper doesn’t answer that question.
The paper by Michael Worobey et al. shows more, however: not only do they show that all of the early cases were clustered in or very near the Huanan Seafood Market, but also that “positive environmental samples were strongly associated with vendors selling live animals.” In other words, even though we haven’t found the original animal source of the virus, the locations are all centered on live animal vendors. They conclude that the Huanan market was “the unambiguous epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic.”
The third paper, by Jonathan Pekar et al., reports that there were actually two distinct events where the original SARS-CoV-2 virus jumped from animals to humans, both at the very beginning of the pandemic, probably in late November 2019. These authors also point the finger at the Huanan Seafood Market, and they implicate another animal, raccoon dogs, as a likely source. Raccoon dogs are closely related to foxes (not raccoons, despite the name), and were being sold as food in the Huanan market. Scientists have known since at least 2003 that raccoon dogs can carry SARS coronaviruses. This paper illustrates yet again why live-animal markets represent a threat to human health. I would add that dismissing what sounded like another one of Trump's conspiracy theories out of hand is justifiable, considering at the time he uttered those comments, the only known facts were that covid started in/near Wuhan and that there was a lab doing research on viruses in Wuhan. The only known facts were precisely what made what Trump was saying possible. At a basic common sense level, it was possible. Meaning, it was not justified to dismiss it out of hand. It was just knee jerk partisanship.
Yes ban travel from China for a virus so serious that wearing a mask is too much of an imposition.
It’s entirely justifiable to dismiss Trump out of hand. The anti-China guy proposing anti-China measures on an issue he subsequently largely botched in many areas?
Partisanship in and of itself doesn’t exist, it’s framed by the partisans themselves.
Continually moaning about partisanship in a group that actually weren’t even 100% against a China travel ban, or wider coordinated international response is silly.
This general framing is silly. As someone who, subject to 100% disproval thought the lab leak theory and international travel bans were reasonable positions to hold.
Which I don’t think I’m remotely alone in.
It’s breathtakingly hubristic to complain about partisanship while every time you engage all your energy is put into defending your guy, or trying to catch others being supposedly hypocritical.
To my knowledge you’ve never once said ‘yeah I outright disagree and disavow with what that member of my political clan did’, in a group that routinely does so and want to complain about partisanship? It’s preposterous.
|
United States43620 Posts
Holy shit this tweet was real.
When I saw it I thought it was a parody because it was too obviously stupid. But no, that’s the official Twitter.
How is the bar for Congress this low?
|
Unfortunately MTG has done so much outrageous shit. Shes kinda like Trump where its so dense where people cant bother to care, and Republicans don't want to hold her accountable because that makes them a woke mob.
|
On March 18 2022 02:52 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2022 21:39 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 17 2022 21:26 JimmiC wrote:On March 17 2022 15:14 gobbledydook wrote:On March 17 2022 13:57 WombaT wrote:On March 17 2022 11:37 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 17 2022 10:32 JimmiC wrote:On March 17 2022 10:23 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 17 2022 07:30 NewSunshine wrote:On March 17 2022 06:13 Doc.Rivers wrote:
[quote]
Whether I agree with trump on trade wars is irrelevant to the topic under discussion. That's not hard to see. And of course, tuckers critique of the Biden admin w/r/t the Ukraine war is not that Tucker loves Russia. That is just a silly and partisan exaggeration.
It's absolutely relevant if you're trying to use it as whataboutism for the Tucker-Russia stuff. You're trying to take the criticism of Tucker the Perpetually Perplexed 'Premacist of the Pasty 'Plexion and paint it as unfounded, on the basis that the criticism of Trump's idiotic trade war was just partisan hysteria. You couldn't be further off the mark. Or as you like to say, just a partisan exaggeration. Regardless of whether I agree with trumps trade war, it's still true that the things said by liberal pundits aligned with the interests of China. So it's not relevant at all. Like most partisan digs on tucker/Republicans, the exact same argument can be turned around on liberal pundits & democrats. No they can not, which is why you keep stating it without any sourcing. This is not the alternative facts thread, put up or shut up. Show us the Chinese governmemt airing liberal pundits, or memos saying to air more, preferably with subtitles unedited, just like Tucker. I don't think it is very important to show that Chinese state media actually aired liberal pundits, because Tucker should not be faulted for what Russian media chooses to do. The point is that the commentary of US pundits sometimes align with the interests of foreign countries, making those pundits "useful idiots" for the foreign countries. For example you are not refuting that liberal pundits' commentary on the trade war aligned with the interests of China. They were useful idiots for China. It may be relevant though to note WaPo's acceptance of Chinese state media advertising dollars. Sounds like WaPo is a useful idiot of an organization if it is actually disseminating Chinese propaganda. Recently the Washington Post has started carrying China Daily's US edition as a physically separate advertising supplement to the printed paper, as described here. Fine: it's clearly labeled, and we've all gotta stay in business. But now the Post is doing the same thing on its website. Look at this part of the "Washington Post"'s site as it appears just now, and tell me how obvious it is that you're seeing a paid presentation of official Chinese government propaganda perspective. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/02/official-chinese-propaganda-now-online-from-the-wapo/70690/ That’s from 2011, is it still the case? Anyway that aside, Tucker Carlson isn’t engaging in nuanced, informative or indeed at times remotely true analyses of foreign policy that has crossover that happens to have some occasional intersection with broad Russian goals. The crossover is with Russian propaganda and their talking points in that domain The left media equivalent over China would be something more akin to a pundit saying shut up about the Uighurs it’s a myth propagated by Western imperialists. Which hey, I don’t recall running into. Note the rather specific charge of Tucker Carlson doing this. One dude, not conservatives as a wider collective. I’ve read many cogent analyses from across the spectrum on foreign policy as it pertains to Russia, with differing conclusions that don’t neatly break down into straight left/right divisions of opinion. I don’t get why the natural retort is always some form of whataboutery rather than just ‘Hm, maybe this guy’s judgement, ethics, or both are bloody awful’. Counterargument: When Trump first raised the idea that maybe the virus came from a lab in China, he was ridiculed. The idea was dismissed as another of Trump's irrational thoughts and an attempt to blame China for his own faults. No respectable media organisation went and did any investigation on the lab leak theory. After Biden was elected, Biden and his advisers were now saying there was a possibility that the virus did leak from a lab in China. The point was still the same. The evidence was just the same as before. Suddenly the left-leaning media were reporting on it, when a year ago they had dismissed it out of hand, just because Trump said it, not Biden. All during this time, China claimed that the virus lab leak idea was a fabricated, baseless attack. That completely matched with the left-leaning / Democrat opinion that the lab leak idea was a fabricated, baseless attack. Can we then say that the media were useful idiots for the Chinese Communist Party? The Liberal media was reporting what the doctors were saying. Whether you agree with their choices and reasons is separate from this discussion as it was not their opinion. Also the last two big studies on the animal are coming back as way more likely from animal. https://www.newsweek.com/wuhan-lab-leak-theory-undermined-new-research-points-wet-market-1683005https://fortune.com/2022/02/28/covid-wuhan-trump-lab-leak-study-market-animal-human-transmission/https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-lab-leak-hypothesis-made-it-harder-for-scientists-to-seek-the-truth/https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2022/03/14/covid-19-may-not-have-leaked-from-a-lab-its-still-a-problem-for-china/?sh=767eb54702c6The first paper, by George Gao et al., is a summary of extensive virus testing at the Huanan Seafood Market, on samples collected in early 2020. They found SARS-CoV-2 in 73 environmental samples (collected from locations in the market but not in people or animals), and yet “no virus was detected in the animal swabs covering 18 species of animals in the market.” In other words, the virus was found at the marketplace, but not in any of the animals, suggesting that infected people walking through the market were the source of those positive samples. Where did those people get the virus? This paper doesn’t answer that question.
The paper by Michael Worobey et al. shows more, however: not only do they show that all of the early cases were clustered in or very near the Huanan Seafood Market, but also that “positive environmental samples were strongly associated with vendors selling live animals.” In other words, even though we haven’t found the original animal source of the virus, the locations are all centered on live animal vendors. They conclude that the Huanan market was “the unambiguous epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic.”
The third paper, by Jonathan Pekar et al., reports that there were actually two distinct events where the original SARS-CoV-2 virus jumped from animals to humans, both at the very beginning of the pandemic, probably in late November 2019. These authors also point the finger at the Huanan Seafood Market, and they implicate another animal, raccoon dogs, as a likely source. Raccoon dogs are closely related to foxes (not raccoons, despite the name), and were being sold as food in the Huanan market. Scientists have known since at least 2003 that raccoon dogs can carry SARS coronaviruses. This paper illustrates yet again why live-animal markets represent a threat to human health. I would add that dismissing what sounded like another one of Trump's conspiracy theories out of hand is justifiable, considering at the time he uttered those comments, the only known facts were that covid started in/near Wuhan and that there was a lab doing research on viruses in Wuhan. The only known facts were precisely what made what Trump was saying possible. At a basic common sense level, it was possible. Meaning, it was not justified to dismiss it out of hand. It was just knee jerk partisanship.
Correlation does not imply causation. Surely you can make a better argument?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
