One of the US scientists who collaborated on the 2015 research on bat viruses with the Wuhan institute, Dr Ralph Baric from the University of North Carolina, gave a detailed statement to the Washington Post.
He said the work they did was reviewed by both the NIH and the university’s own biosafety committee “for potential of gain-of-function research and were deemed not to be gain-of-function”.
He also says that none of the viruses which were the subject of the 2015 study are related to Sars-Cov-2, which caused the pandemic in 2020.
Who in the world is saying that the virus was created atom by atom in a lab? Nobody. But to deny, censor, and demonize those who brought up the very plausible and probably accurate idea that the virus escaped from the lab as it was being researched on and made more dangerous was exceedingly dishonest and undermines the credibility of so-called scientists and the media. Left wing political correctness is on the wrong side of fact whenever it’s convenient to push an ideological narrative.
Isn’t it obvious? They did non-gain-of-function research on viruses that had nothing to do with COVID. This proves they created COVID, and probably did 9/11 too. Isn’t it obvious?
I consider modern day conservatives as fervent believers in fairy tales. Trump wanted what he said to be the truth, with little or not data to back it up. Much of his followers have the same mindset. Plus, they don’t like being told they’re wrong. It just makes them more determined to stick to their guns.
That being said, I can be friends with conservatives as long as politics doesn’t come up. We still have common interests, and I don’t think a unilateral ban on them does anyone any good. It just stirs up more anger and resentment, and makes no effort to mend relations. We all need each other when disaster strikes, and political leanings become irrelevant.
Plus, there are some liberals here I can’t stand, and if I call them out, I’ll get dogpiled.
That they didn’t want people believing a lab where they had funded potentially very risky research, had such lax security procedures that it started a worldwide pandemic. That’s not a good look. Plus, how sure could they have been at the time that the lab in Wuhan wasn’t conducting gain-of-function experiments on Coronaviruses? I always thought the bio-weapon idea was implausible, but there’s nothing particularly unlikely about a virus they were researching escaping from the lab.
They definitely were researching coronaviruses in the Wuhan lab, so it could easily have been a natural virus that escaped. But I wouldn’t trust the Chinese authorities to be honest about what they were doing in any case. If scientists studying it say there is no evidence of engineering, that is more convincing, but I have to say the whole episode has lessened my trust to some degree.
So you describe something the OP didn’t say, and then call that fascist when it isn’t.
First off, read the OP. They said “we don’t need ‘the other side’ of the debate […] if they are committed to anti-intellectualism and deliberately undermining good faith discussion.” That’s not at all what you have given as your definition of fascism.
And that definition is not remotely correct. You appear to have just made up your own definition that allows you to use it against someone. Not even your (incorrect) summary of their point fits any fourteen characteristics. Asahi’s argument is not on the far right, not advocating bigotry, nor pushing nationalism. They aren’t even authoritarian–as they didn’t in any way advocate for those in authority to do anything.
People all over the political spectrum will have ideologies they think are not worthy of discussion and thus add nothing to the discussion. No one is 100% open minded, as there’s the whole concept of “so open minded you brain falls out.” Are you really going to say that we need, say, people arguing they should be able to enslave people, or who argue that they should be able to rape children? Does making those people feel unwelcome hurt our message board?
You are, ironically, doing the thing that many conservative posters claim is going on here: that we use terms like “racism” as an insult, rather than a descriptor. Here you are using “fascism” the same way. It’s your way of using a loaded word to attack, redefining the term until it fits. You’re contributing to those words being seen as a generic insult rather than the actual racist political ideology we need to oppose.
You claim I’m wrong? Well, then let’s do this SDMB style. Cite your definition, from a reliable source. Cite what part of what asahi said fits that definition. If yuou can’t, then retract it.
You want to argue that asahi is wrong, then argue against what he actually said, and don’t use dishonest tactics like redefining a negative word to mean whatever you want it to mean. That’s the shit we could definitely do without on this board.
I agree on the details. of your argument, just not the implication involved that the numbers on both sides are similar. The right has been almost entirely taken over by the troglodytes, with only a few sane conservatives like Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, and Mitt Romney still remaining. The left has only a few on the far left supporting those things you mention, like The Squad and Bernie, with the vast majority still being center left mainstream Democrats.
There used to be a bell curve type distribution of political beliefs in this country. Now it’s bimodal, with one hump just to the left of center and another at the far right, and with a now very small connecting area in the center right.
There are two different definitions of conservatism: the ideology, and how people self-identify. Right now, what people call conservatism in the US does seem to be anti-intellectual. I can say that we don’t need that.
I’m not myself sure that the position previously held by US conservatives isn’t filled by those who consider themselves moderate or liberal these days. These challenge the progressive ideals with whether or not they are actually good, and in how they can practically be implemented. The actual libertarians may also play a role in testing if the government really needs to do these things.
I don’t think that this place would become an echo chamber if the conservatives left. I do appreciate what a few who identify as conservatives bring to the table, but, to me, what they argue doesn’t seem all that different than what is brought by those who identify as moderate.
I can agree 100% on one thing in the OP: D_Anconia does not contribute to the board. I have them on ignore, and have lost nothing. We don’t actually need what they bring to the table.
But that’s not saying they should leave. It’s actually asking for them to shape up.
If you’ll pardon the broad brush, I’ll note that while both sides have a sizable lunatic fringe, the Democrats tend to ignore theirs while the Republicans are electing them to high office. The Bachmanns and Gohmerts and Boeberts and Gaetzs of the world do well in the GOP. The Democrats have far fewer such people and are quicker to hold them accountable when they do dumb or wrong shit (I mean, Anthony Weiner became toxic pretty quickly once the evidence of his misbehaviors came out). So while “both sides do it”, what happens when each side does it is significantly different.
I would not support such a politician as I don’t support that stance.
But, turn it around, there have been plenty of politicians that have run on “I’ll ban all abortions” and have done perfectly well. Their base wasn’t concerned in the slightest about inflaming the left.
I kinda understand, but you only need to see that they are unwilling to allow a conversation on gun control so many times before we get it, and their contribution of stubborness is no longer adding anything to the conversation
You mean to say that if you were not repeatedly reminded that they are unreasonable, then you might expect them to be reasonable?
The conversation usually goes. “Lots of people are being killed by guns, what can we do about it?” “You can’t do anything about it, and I don’t believe that you actually care about the people being killed by guns, you just want to take all our guns away!” Then goes downhill from there. The initial question of what we could do about gun violence left unaddressed.
Debate is one thing. Being disingenuously misinterpreted to stand as “proof” of the worst possible nefarious motives is another.
There’s a spectrum of those on the left here. And even individuals have different levels of sanity on different topics. On the right, not so much, it’s just the same refrain of disingenuity and self martyrdom.