10 ms·

I realize this is somewhat unrelated, but it still boggles my mind that it was a cancellable offense to suggest an investigation occur for a lab-leak origin fro

by cdolan 5y ago

I realize this is somewhat unrelated, but it still boggles my mind that it was a cancellable offense to suggest an investigation occur for a lab-leak origin from March 2020 through roughly January 2021. I do not know what to make of it, but something about that feels terribly, horribly awry.

cm2187 5y ago
And I don’t think it was about covid. If Trump said the sky is blue, the NYT and CNN would spend the next week trying to demonstrate it isn’t, and twitter, facebook and youtube would block you if you ever suggested it was. This was such a puerile way to oppose Trump, and certainly a reliable way to sink these institutions credibility for a long time.
FooBarWidget 5y ago
The problem was that that wasn't a suggestion made in good faith, with the primary goal of finding out what happened or how to prevent future mistakes. The goal from the beginning was to put the blame on someone, to scapegoat. It wasn't a call for investigation: it was a demand for an investigation — a demand to grant international investigators with the equivalent of weapons inspection powers. It's treating China as a dog rather than an equal. Also consider the greater context: hostilities against China had been building up for a number of years. The call for an investigation was just the last drop for China in a long list of grievances which China previously communicated, but nobody acknowledged. I'm in favor of an investigation to really find out what happened and how to prevent future incidents, instead of all the political games that are happening right now. Sources: We targeted China before they targeted us: https://www.afr.com/policy/foreign-affairs/we-targeted-them-before-they-targeted-us-20210202-p56ynr https://www.afr.com/policy/foreign-affairs/we-targeted-them-... Australia’s exporters should be furious at the foreign agents destroying their best market: https://citizensparty.org.au/media-releases/australias-exporters-should-be-furious-foreign-agents-destroying-their-best-market https://citizensparty.org.au/media-releases/australias-expor... Lessons on how not to do it: Australia and China (in Dutch): http://www.blogaap.nl/blog/3420/Lessen-van-hoe-het-niet-moet-Australie-en-China http://www.blogaap.nl/blog/3420/Lessen-van-hoe-het-niet-moet...
- symlinkk 5y ago
  There’s the magic phrase, “good faith”. Completely meaningless
  - FooBarWidget 5y ago
    Maybe it is. But "bad faith" is definitely not meaningless. At the very least we can expect any party who can defend itself, to not respond well when they believe you are acting in bad faith.
    - morpheos137 5y ago
      facts matter more than intentions or narrative.
      - FooBarWidget 5y ago
        I would have no problems with adopting that standard. But this standard isn't universally applied. Many of the criticisms against China is based on what people believe China's intentions are, not on what China actually does. For example: China sends masks to Europe -> we should be wary, because they're engaging in "mask diplomacy" China funds infrastructure in Africa -> it's because they're intending to colonize those countries. China sends vaccines to the global south -> it's because China intends to spread influence. So which one is it? Do only facts matter, or do reading of intentions also matter? If we can judge China based on our reading of their intentions, they should be able to judge us based on their reading of our intentions as well. Or conversely, if only facts matter, then we should judge China only by what they do and not by what we think their intentions are. Naturally, they should do the same.
- cdolan 5y ago
  Again I realize my comment is semi off topic as this has to do with Australian/Chinese relations, but my point was that, as an American, it’s amazing this question was completely off limits for roughly a year. Not trying to opine on wether Australia is in the right or wrong, or vice versa. That first year during/after the outbreak is the best time to find the right answers regarding origination. Not play politics, on that I think I agree with you. I do not agree that, because a topic becomes political, it is somehow better to avoid finding the truth. I read your comment to have the following logic which I strongly disagree with: - Asking if this was a lab-leak origination is/was a politically charged question, and - politically charged questions should be avoided. (Perhaps even to the point of ignoring the topic or taking action to silence discussion) - therefore, we should not ask about the origins of the outbreak.

by cdolan 5y ago

cm2187 5y ago

And I don’t think it was about covid. If Trump said the sky is blue, the NYT and CNN would spend the next week trying to demonstrate it isn’t, and twitter, facebook and youtube would block you if you ever suggested it was. This was such a puerile way to oppose Trump, and certainly a reliable way to sink these institutions credibility for a long time.

FooBarWidget 5y ago

The problem was that that wasn't a suggestion made in good faith, with the primary goal of finding out what happened or how to prevent future mistakes. The goal from the beginning was to put the blame on someone, to scapegoat. It wasn't a call for investigation: it was a demand for an investigation — a demand to grant international investigators with the equivalent of weapons inspection powers. It's treating China as a dog rather than an equal. Also consider the greater context: hostilities against China had been building up for a number of years. The call for an investigation was just the last drop for China in a long list of grievances which China previously communicated, but nobody acknowledged. I'm in favor of an investigation to really find out what happened and how to prevent future incidents, instead of all the political games that are happening right now. Sources: We targeted China before they targeted us: https://www.afr.com/policy/foreign-affairs/we-targeted-them-before-they-targeted-us-20210202-p56ynr https://www.afr.com/policy/foreign-affairs/we-targeted-them-... Australia’s exporters should be furious at the foreign agents destroying their best market: https://citizensparty.org.au/media-releases/australias-exporters-should-be-furious-foreign-agents-destroying-their-best-market https://citizensparty.org.au/media-releases/australias-expor... Lessons on how not to do it: Australia and China (in Dutch): http://www.blogaap.nl/blog/3420/Lessen-van-hoe-het-niet-moet-Australie-en-China http://www.blogaap.nl/blog/3420/Lessen-van-hoe-het-niet-moet...

symlinkk 5y ago
There’s the magic phrase, “good faith”. Completely meaningless
- FooBarWidget 5y ago
  Maybe it is. But "bad faith" is definitely not meaningless. At the very least we can expect any party who can defend itself, to not respond well when they believe you are acting in bad faith.
  - morpheos137 5y ago
    facts matter more than intentions or narrative.
    - FooBarWidget 5y ago
      I would have no problems with adopting that standard. But this standard isn't universally applied. Many of the criticisms against China is based on what people believe China's intentions are, not on what China actually does. For example: China sends masks to Europe -> we should be wary, because they're engaging in "mask diplomacy" China funds infrastructure in Africa -> it's because they're intending to colonize those countries. China sends vaccines to the global south -> it's because China intends to spread influence. So which one is it? Do only facts matter, or do reading of intentions also matter? If we can judge China based on our reading of their intentions, they should be able to judge us based on their reading of our intentions as well. Or conversely, if only facts matter, then we should judge China only by what they do and not by what we think their intentions are. Naturally, they should do the same.
cdolan 5y ago
Again I realize my comment is semi off topic as this has to do with Australian/Chinese relations, but my point was that, as an American, it’s amazing this question was completely off limits for roughly a year. Not trying to opine on wether Australia is in the right or wrong, or vice versa. That first year during/after the outbreak is the best time to find the right answers regarding origination. Not play politics, on that I think I agree with you. I do not agree that, because a topic becomes political, it is somehow better to avoid finding the truth. I read your comment to have the following logic which I strongly disagree with: - Asking if this was a lab-leak origination is/was a politically charged question, and - politically charged questions should be avoided. (Perhaps even to the point of ignoring the topic or taking action to silence discussion) - therefore, we should not ask about the origins of the outbreak.