"A lab leak virus that looks plausibly zoonotic just happened to have its first superspreader event at a wet market 10km from the lab" is not an unlikely coincidence - see Rootclaim's post-debate rebuttal."
I can revert it. Is it plausible that one of the hundreds of provably infected animals held in cages in lab down the road was the source? What kind of false dialectic was presented in the debate - if the source of infection was the market or the lab - and if it was the market it automatically was zoonotic, meaning no lab leak?
I don't think there ever was a real disagreement of null hypothesis of the origin of COVID. The situation is as follows. We have the only biolab with Biosafety level 4 certification in China that studies bat coronaviruses related to SARS for decades, that biolab is Wuhan Institute of Virology. They produce papers where they admit that they engineer specific bat coronaviruses such as this one from 2016 named Bat Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Like Coronavirus ORF_X Modulates the Host Immune Response in Journal of Virology. And now mysteriously in a country of 1.4 billion people with 100 cities with population of over 1 million people and out of almost 40,000 wet markets in China we see a new strain of bat coronavirus turning into COVID-19. And this event happens a few miles from the institute. By this fact alone the likelihood is overwhelming on human origin of the virus.
Add to the opaque nature of Chinese communist institutions. We have precedents for this such as in Soviet Union, where they wanted to bury even catastrophes like Chernobyl, which only had to be confirmed by outside sources - two days later in Sweden where they detected increased radiation. This is nothing new. We have proof of Chinese scrubbing data from the lab - they literally deleted their database of tens of thousands of tested animals in September 2019 due to "hacking". They bleached everything in the market destroying biological data. We also have circulation of claims and counterclaims of Wuhan employees being hospitalized for alergies or cold. By the way, to this day we do not have any confirmed deaths from COVID of any of the hundreds of staff of the institute, including any old goats and administrators - despite the supposed zoonotic origin of the Virus and catastrophic situation in Wuhan. And now some people just say we lack evidence for lab leak hypothesis. No shit, but we also lack evidence for zoonotic origin, it is all just circumstantial.
Lab leak is the most parsimonious and likely explanation of the whole thing and any other explanation such as some mysterious transmission from bat to pangolin to thousand of miles travel to Wuhan is the real conspiracy theory. Also it is not without precedent, there were two documented leaks of SARS just in 2004 in Bejing biolevel 3 lab investigating SARS. Back then it was concluded that the lab was hugely negligent and did not apply the safety level to proper standards. By the way the ascendancy of Wuhan lab to study viruses was exactly in the aftermath of Beijng catastrophe and by 2010 the Wuhan became the crown jewel of Chinese research into SARS and other coronavirus infections. In fact this Beijing-Wuhan rivalry was fueled by different commie institutional players inside the Chinese power structures (Ministry of Health vs Army/Academy of Sciences) and could potentially be one of the reasons and motivations for cutting the corners when it comes to safety, including conducting part of the research in Biolevel 2 and 3 facilities.
Anyways, I do not care if it was some sort of breach of containment, a bioweapon research or even age old communist corruption where some janitor sold infected animals scheduled for incineration to the Wuhan wet market for $10 profit as it is usual in communist countries. Which by the way shows the false dialectic of "Market Origin" vs "Lab Leak" - these are not mutually exclusive, it is not impossible that an infected personnel or even infected animals leaked from the Lab into the market few miles from said lab. Both theories have plausible explanation of "infected animals at the market", just competing source of said animals. And even in this scenario - what is the most likely source of said infected animals. A bat cave thousand of miles away transmitting it to to pangolin or racoon or dog or civet that ended up in said market? Or that the source was literal hundreds of provably infected animals in cages a few miles down the road. That the virus leaked from the lab is still the most ready explanation of the situation especially by virtue of opaqueness of communist regime.
Imagine that you had the same standard for any other thing. Let's say that a local corrupt politician who had provable ties to local mafia suddenly won $1 million in a lottery. What would be the most plausible explanation:
- He was just a lucky winner
- He was gifted the winning lottery ticket from local mafia, who purchased or even robbed it from some anonymous local lottery winner
And now it seems that all journalists and academia are for some reason going for "nothing to see here", or "lottery ticket is valid and not counterfeit" and any other number of explanations. And moreover they would claim that the mafia tie is a "conspiracy theory" and an offence, for which you will be depersoned and cancelled. In the past no respectable journalist would drop this story, and the corruption angle would never be declared as "conspiracy theory" using strawman story of how the lottery ticket is not fake etc.
georgioz
1d ago
When I read something that, presumably, is the human author's thoughts, only for it to turn out to be LLM's output, I feel a similar betrayal of trust as when I read something purportedly factual that turns out to be fictional, even if not actively meant to deceive.
I agree, but only partially. My red line is AI assisted human writing as opposed to pure AI bot writing. The point being that we already lived in this reality. For instance for years and years youtubers and bloggers and forum posters used computer algorithms to evaluate their content creation. If everything you create in your video is informed by the algorithm from the length, language used, thumbnail even to analysis of content that has highest chance of viral impact - you were as much a slave to "AI" in 2019 as you are in 2026 if you use AI for research or refining of your post. The original idea of "human writing for humans by humans" is long gone.
Right to bodily autonomy means the right to suicide.
Why? People in USA literally have second amendment right and it is curtailed by many, many stipulations but yet everybody pretends or even firmly believes that the right exists. Why you cannot have right to bodily autonomy except suicide? You already have many such stipulations, for instance your right to bodily autonomy and many other rights are suspended if you are in prison. There is right to bodily autonomy except certain mandatory vaccinations etc. What is another stipulation changing?
georgioz
6d ago
I like Matt Walsh take on this. Some people believe that AI has very significant apocalypse potential, thus AI executives are literally building a bomb about to kill us all. And the response? "Ah, you are silly! AI executives only spread fake doomsday propaganda trying to scare the population in order to get competitive advantage, power and money."
And this is supposed to be "there is nothing to worry about, just move along, nothing to see here" argument? It is horrible either way.
Humans form into self-integrated societies that have net-positive moral utility.
Humans do not agree what is "net-positive moral utility". For instance I think about it from of Christian virtue ethics, not in form of utility.
Rights dependent on subjective or arbitrary thresholds have historically had enormous potential for abuse.
Right is a legal fiction, basically a strongly worded law. From where I stand, right was always the other side of duty. As soon as people renege on said duty, rights stops existing. We see it again and again. Right to privacy of correspondence is in article 12 of Universal Human Rights. It basically stopped existing after decades old creeping process of governments spying on said correspondence, people do not feel duty to resist it so the right stops existing, and not enough people care.
For a functioning, high-performance society, we must have it be generally the case that people believe rights, including life, will generally be upheld
Even skipping what "high-performance society" even means as it by itself is value and thus morality laden statement, rights as was said are social constructs. If enough people think that sacrificing hearts to the blood good or that tears of newborn children are perfectly fine price to pay for greater good, then such thing will be enshrined as a law. Maybe even a right - people have right to live their free lives enabled by tears of newborn children. What is life of a child in face of all the other things that are valued in society, children will be sacrificed to the Moloch of these rights. All of the aforementioned things be it surrogacy or euthanasia are also argued in terms of rights: right to family life, right to bodily autonomy or whatnot. In the end the rights have to be evaluated by somebody if they clash, they can be amended or suspended as during COVID. Nothing will happen if right is stepped upon or changed: no smiting, nothing will physically shatter.
In the end we live in a society that we live in, we have laws based on values and ethical system accepted through culture in the society, which are in turn informed by theology of decision makers and general population in their day to day activity. This world is the result of that.
georgioz
7d ago
Sperm donors create their own unique problems in terms of potential incest or spreading of rare diseases and whatnot. However this Chinese case is different - he literally has 100+ children inside his compound with hired staff etc. You can see it in the photo. I have never seen anything like that, however it was the first thing that was obvious to me as soon as I learned about how the surrogacy works.
georgioz
7d ago
The situation in Yemen is very interesting. Currently Houthis govern the population of around 28 million people out of 43 million total population of Yemen. and their standing army is around 350 000 people with around 30k of hardcore elite troops. Just as a comparison, at the time of US retreat the Taliban only had around 70,000 warriors with another 200,000 in various militias and reserve forces. However Houthis are much better equipped - they posses artillery, air defense, ballistic missiles as well as around 100 tanks as well as drones from quadcopters to Iranian Samad-3 despite decade long warfare against Saudis and USA.
If you read the comments on the substack post, he even acknowledges that he knows he'll lose business over this. So here's a case where someone who is supposedly an "effective altruist" is making a decision to help one convicted felon in order to damage his company's future, likely permanently. I know that the only thing I'm going to remember out of this is "Oh, Manifund? Those are the retards that hired Caroline Ellison".
It is not as if EA has any coherent definition of morality. Morality is whatever is convenient for utils. "Ellison is smart and she will do more good than bad eventually" is all that is needed for an argument. I really mean it, there is no stable grounding, no deontological laws or even heuristics that would inform you on what action to take inside EA. It is all about if you can produce some good sounding 20 page parable about baby eating aliens, thus making your decision correct and moral.
I am not surprised, it just confirms the quokka meme for EA and broader rationalist movement. By the way I will use this opportunity to remark on "surprising" development of free malaria nets so much pushed for by EA. Apparently these nets are used by natives for fishing, but given the small diameter of the mesh size, it catches everything - including baby fish. The whole project contributes toward destroying whole ecosystems in Africa, exacerbating the food security in whole regions. I am sure there will be another rationalist "solution" to this problem thus adding on to previous catastrophe. Also I'd love to see how this impacts the util calculation of the whole program and if it potentially turns saints into villains retrospectively - at least for now.
Add this HR decision to whole battery of stupid and naive decisions made so far.
That it's unclear whether the problem can really be resolved with sufficiently strong contractual terms. I'm slightly more inclined to accept the premise that surrogacy in general opens up a Pandora's box of ethical problems.
I considered making this as a top post, but I can use it here as another example from Pandora's box of surrogacy problems. Apparently there is a Chinese billionaire and video game executive named Xu Bo, who has over 100 children through US based surrogacy programs.
I guess my imaginary example of weird millionaire cult leader filling his ranch with hundreds of children from surrogacy - that I used before in these hypotheticals - was not imaginative enough. Now there is also the foreign aspect twist due to intersection of jus soli citizenship laws, where foreign billionaires and possibly state actors can breed US citizens Soldiers abroad and make cults in safe jurisdiction. The reality has always some ways to surprise.
Yet another "unintended" consequence of completely surrendering the culture and law over to Queer Studies weirdos, who specifically pushed for surrogacy as a "family equality" tool for access to motherhood by queer people degenerates. And now after these ideas were imposed by activists on the ground, we can all adopt surprised Pikachu face, that the society has to rummage through debris of yet another norm "abolished" by these lunatics specifically engaged in crusade against "heteronormativity", so we now live in their world of country-wide mental asylum constructed for the most abominable degenerates of all kinds, not only the queer ones.
Not being able to do official segregation has basically made the American urban lifestyle very expensive and even more expensive if you have kids. You can’t just buy a cheap house and send your kids to public schools because of the demographics. Which forces you to either live in an expensive suburb or use private schools. This also means you largely can’t be poor in your nice community because your community refuses to have low costs of living options because that would allow the more criminally inclined people to move in.
I think this is not such a novel idea. The acceptance of car culture in USA was to large part driven by the fact that owning a car or two was middle class signifier and defensive measure. I think Europeans will eventually learn the same - if your rich neighborhood is one subway station away from crime ridden hellhole, you will have that spilled into your subway station and from there into the neighborhood. In that sense being cut off from public transit is the logical thing to require. We already see the same pattern in European cities, where natives flee to the surrounding towns and villages.
It's no secret that the Republican party under MAGA really likes conspiracies. They let you substitute wishcasting for evidence. Kirk pushed a lot of conspiracy theories from big ones like [The 2020 election was stolen] to [Aghanistan's collapse was engineered to import D voters] to [J6 was instigated by the FBI/Antifa/BLM]. He also pushed smaller ones that are closer to simple misinformation, like implying the Covid vaccine makes you blind and paralyzed. But for Kirk, all of these conspiracies were instrumental. They all pointed in the same direction: helping the Republican party, or more specifically Trump.
This is incredible use of equivocation of the word "conspiracy". I can name twenty such "conspiracies" that are not even talked about as such on the left. Ranging from overarching theological ones such as that all men consciously and unconsciously conspired to create the mystical "system" of patriarchy to oppress all women to a very specific conspiracies promoted by academia such as that Republicans want to create uninformed voters who will get them in power.
I am not doing this in some tu quoque ad hominem. But telling that some large voting bloc of tens of millions of people believes "conspiracies" is like saying that water is wet. For instance I can say that the death of George Floyd was the hallmark of conspiracy lunatics taking over the public discourse in 2020. If tomorrow some crazy person killed Kamala Harris, you can immediately assign conspiracy theories to her, her supporters, her detractors and everybody in between. It is useless category in such a broad definition.
Candace Owens opened her show the day after Kirk's memorial by mocking Erica Kirk and claiming Charlie had been "betrayed" by someone within the TPUSA, either Jewish donors or Erika Kirk herself because golly gee, didn't Charlie's wife seem a little too enthused about going on camera after his death?
In context of above "conspiracies", maybe you are aware that for instance former Young Turks progressive Anna Kasparian is highly supportive of Owens theories. She endorses Owens, Carlson and is fully behind them. So by that metric I can say that It is no secret that DNC under progressives really like conspiracies. Including that of Kirk murder. Now some people say it is a cynical ploy by leftist operatives to split the vote and demoralize Republican voters for the upcoming elections. But that is exactly the point, it by itself is a "conspiracy theory", and yet another potential thing for you to list as such. It is all an incredible mess.
IME homeschooling is fairly middle class-
Of course it is, as I argued above it is because it is worse from the both systems. You still pay taxes for public schools but opt out for every single benefit starting from free lunch to free babysitting basically. For lower middle class or poor there is no real choice, they either put their children into public schools or lose half of their dual income including taxes that is there to support the necessities.
The proposal is there to at least partially offset this. How insane it is to have $20k taxpayer money per year to educate 6-10 year old children on basic things, while the school system fails to teach them anything. You can pay $10k to parents, have them organize pods and the rest and check if the results are at least comparable to public schools. Government saves half the costs on taxes and children stay with their mothers and pods.
By the way there is also another alternative for more business savvy people. Just fund one of the famous "learing centers". Rake in money from public funding, give parents some kickback and just profit not only from "education" but also from free lunches and the rest of it. That is the no-brainer arbitrage of the current insane system. People are up in arms and disgusted when they find such a fraudulent schemes by Somalis or other communities in Minnesota who do that under veneer of leftist blind eye policy. But this is literally what is right now happening in the public school system such as New York: just huge money siphoning scheme where teachers, teacher pensioners and various contractors extract money while not teaching kids reading or math and not even giving any kickback to parents. That is the true travesty.
You are arguing the current situation. If you are a family with two or three children, the cost is $24k-$96k per year for schooling for a taxpayer just for K-12 system. You are forced to work, but one parent is working entirely to pay just the official schooling costs. If you decided to homeschool, now you have worst of the both worlds: you pay taxes and you forego one income in the family. Of course only some people can afford it, mostly driven how terrible the school is. Moving children out of that system makes homeschooling more advantageous on the margin, which actually saves taxpayer money.
Of course there is more in it. If you have stay at home mum, you save on other costs such as cooking and delivery, cleaning plus the person can still do some gig or part-time work, especially via unofficial channels such as bartering. On top of that you have other advantages: my wife researched discounts, she researched obscure government dotation schemes not even related to kids. It takes time and effort to do that and in fact saved us a lot of money. The whole system is incredibly perverse.
georgioz
12d ago
Stay at home with kids means less usage for other things such as preschool and other programs, so it is to put private alternative on more competitive footing. It could actually save taxpayer money.
georgioz
12d ago
What does “dead” mean? Lots of artists still employed at video game and animation studios, lots of artists still taking commissions on patreon and the like, etc.
It is already a dead career. Just one example: email as technology was invented in 1970s. By late 1990s the email was basically default communication option for businesses. But it took another two decades for paperless office to become reality. I remember stories even in 2010 when there were people literally printing emails and creating paper folders from that. It all ultimately stopped probably after COVID as the electronic communication finally got accepted even by most backward companies.
The AI will be much more quick. All the infrastructure is already there. People are used to digital communication, they are used to outsourcing from god forsaken countries and all that. In a sense it does not matter if you outsourced your art design to somebody living 1000 miles away with whom you communicate via chat, or even in India. It is a very small step to outsource it to to OpenAI, iterate on the design via chat or voice session and get the product. Maybe I am wrong and it will not take 5 years, but maybe 10 or 15 years. But the writing is on the wall.
Am I the only one who thinks the proposal is excellent, and that it is an inherent good to support families (even if its limited to more traditional ones)? Its probably better for us to support some families than not?
I think that if anything, this is even underestimated. For instance the cost for educating students in K-12 system ranges for $12k in Mississippi to $32k in New York per year. So in a sense if some family does homeschooling with children having regular retesting, they should get the same support - as in such a case the family literally saves tens of thousands of dollars for taxpayer. And I'd like to see the tests having the same standards as let's say lower quartile in public schools. By the way with the current results of let's say New York public schools, 40%+ of students would fail if they were homeschooled.
Now we live in an insane system where we need dual income family, where the salary of a women with three children does not even cover the cost of their preschool or K-12 education, and the result is that there is almost 50/50 chance that they will score well belove the required grade level. The efficiency is horrendous. I think this proposal goes well in hand with age old starve the beast proposals.
georgioz
13d ago
It is much worse than age old Christian Democrats vs Social Democrats duopoly, in which the losing party would hold these positions to control power. It was designed to give the government legitimacy, to appease to voters voting for losing party so they viewed the system as legitimate and at least somewhat under control, it fostered participation at least in this form of oversight.
The current Brandmauer system is banana republic "winner takes all" democracy. It is much more dangerous than just simple duopoly, even more dangerous than what is now seen in US.
georgioz
13d ago
A lot of platitudes about the ideals of democracy completely gloss over the "two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner" part. If your electorate is sufficiently homogeneous (all sheep, or even all wolves) this isn't an issue, but in practice a heterogeneous democracy really depends on a shared sense of liberal civic values: voters need to accept that nobody gets blasphemy laws, or they'll keep voting for them.
There always were blasphemy laws in place, in fact we probably live in an era of highest moral panic of hate speech, where saying magic words such as f-word or n-word in recent case can get you to jail. Not to even talk about bans on social media platforms, getting fired from work etc. It is arguably stronger than being told you are commie during Cold War or actually blaspheming against God before then.
And worse, there isn't even broad agreement on what "a shared sense of liberal civic values" should be.
Yes. I recently argued that Culture War is in fact a religious war. There is no sense of liberal civic values, because there is huge disagreement about values, which is domain of axiology and theology. And so we live through culture war raging religious conflict of highly incompatible religions and ideologies.
On the other hand, this seems like a slippery slope that draws into question what citizenship even is. Making it possible to kick out people recognized as citizens seems like a dangerous Chesterton's fence to tear down. For one, it gives the government the ultimate power to kick out citizens it dislikes. This seems like a real danger to a democracy where people are supposed to have disagreements and come to agreements through dialogue. It also draws into question what it even means to be German in the first place. Would anyone be safe if such a law was allowed?
You do not have to pose this as some theoretical thing. There are precedents, including my own motherland where I was born: Czechoslovakia. After the war in 1945 then president Edvard Beneš promulgated decrees that did as follows:
- Decree No. 12 in June 1945: stripped all Germans, Hunagrians and traitors of the nation of their agricultural land
- Decree No. 33 in August 1945: automatically stripped citizenship from Germans and Hungarians, except for those who could prove that they remained loyal to Czechoslovakia during war.
- Decree No. 108 in October 1945: stripped the above of all property without compensation.
And just to remind you, this was exiled allied antifascist democratic government prior to 1948 communist coup. This was all done in the middle of ethnic cleansing and remigration of over 3 million Germans and 100,000 Hungarians from Czechoslovakia (around 20% of the population), many families lived in these lands 500 years+. To this day these decrees are nonegotiable pillars of Slovak and Czech law including Amnesty law 115/1946, which established that any atrocities or crimes during expulsion were pardoned. All of them were reaffirmed by Czech and Slovak judiciary and parliamentary powers as late as 2000s as untouchable. Both countries still exist, they are part of EU and NATO although these decrees were in contention by Austria, Hungary and Germany during admission process. And EU obliged and put their legal experts on it and declared that nations have sovereignity over citizenship and that basically bygones should remain bygones for political expediency. Maybe you may have visited Prague and stayed in expropriated house from some unfortunate German family, while some nice local Czech tour guide gave you lecture on history of Czechs and their famous beer introduced by Bavarian brewmasters who are now long ethnically cleansed from the country. The End of story.
I think remigration and denaturalization can be done no problem even if it seems insane now. In fact, the blueprint is there from COVID era - all it takes is for a country to declare sufficiently supported state of emergency and universal human rights, civil rights, constitutional protections, international law and everything else stops mattering. I am not saying that it is likely or something like that, but in current day and age I do not think it is outside of realm of possibilities. For instance you have countries like South Africa who do the same but in silent mode - expropriating property, open racial and ethnic discrimination and you barely read about it. Apparently South Africa is upstanding member of UN, WTO and international community. Another tolerated genocide and ethnic cleansing is that of Serbs from Croatia during allied supported 1995 Operation Storm in context of Yugoslav wars despite Geneva Conventions, international law, human rights and all the rest.
Having something like that is not a totally outlandish thing to imagine. And it does not necessarily have to have any domino effect even 80 years later down the road.
Technically this is of course possible. For instance Hamas won 44% in 2006 elections in Gaza, the coalition around Hezbollah won 40% in 2022 Lebanon elections.
Of course this only shows the fragility of the our democracy™ sometimes also known as liberal democracy. It is always appeal to majority but with the caveats of human rights. Majority builds legitimacy - e.g. here they will say 55% are not AfD. While human rights are there as a grounding for moral argument for unpopular policies. So trans and naturalization of immigrants are human rights, and thus part of our democracy™. If unelected EU bureaucrats rule by fiat, it is under the veneer of human rights or sometimes The Science™ etc. - even if they literally subvert democratic norms, try to ban opposition parties etc. It is democratic from where they stand in their worldview.
In the end I think this liberal consensus is nonsense from their own standpoint, especially if they lose both legs. If they lose majority, they lose legitimacy. However the rights discourse is also based on the very same pilar. Slogan housing is human right or even asylum is human right depends on enough people shouting and more importantly enforcing it. There is no objective grounding, it is not as if such a right was found on an asteroid floating around Jupiter or whatnot. As soon as people start mocking it and refuse to uphold it, it stops being a right. In fact the same erosion happened to article 12 of Universal Declaration of Human rights (right to privacy of correspondence) and now every state and their underling browses through your correspondence for fun. So why not article 14 about asylum - just give the same caveat that asylum is technically there, but it only covers airplane ticket to Rwanda or French Guayana or whatnot.
In a reverse, ban on mocking The Prophet is nowhere near universal human right, but it practically became one by virtue of threat of violence if broken despite it never being marked as such. In a very same secular logic, human right is just a strongly worded law or custom with accompanied attempts to convince or shame and blame or even threaten people into accepting it.
This is not how it works in practice in multi-party parliamentary democracy:
-
There are long-standing political norms of giving opposition posts related to control of power. They are lead various oversight or budget comitees, there are constitutional provisions where substantial minority of MP can start procedures such as compel investigations, summon ministers to explain stuff etc. There is considerable power given to opposition - doing away with it is exactly in line with what is usually called as tyranny and Trumpian norm-breaking. This is BTW already happening, which creates interesting and dangerous precedent including constitutional court rulings etc.
-
Voting is nowhere near unanimous. MPs travel, they get sick. Many laws come not from EU and not from state government, there are procedures of how to introduce votes for amendments to laws etc. In practice, many laws require much more than just agreement inside coalition.
In practice such a rainbow coalition is hell to manage - you have to have coalition of greens (Die Grünen), literal commies (Die Linke), pro-business libertarian party (FDP) as well as Christian democrats (CDU/CSU). It is vastly different from US, where each House Member or Senator has to have 50%+ votes. In Europe the most radical lunatics can get 5% and get into parliament. They are structurally not dependent on some governing body like DNC or RNC, they are dependent on their own donors and voters.
If you construct such a coalition, they have hardly any overlap, they have vastly different opinions on things like budget, taxes, regulation and literally everything. It is impossible to present a program that would not cross some red line of some party. So even if they are disciplined, they don't get anything done and it increases power of opposition. If they get together and get something done, it then crosses red line of some party thus angering the party base and voters. It is lose lose situation.
georgioz
17d ago
I agree this is a hard pill to swallow for society which desperately wants to believe in tabula rasa, but that doesn't mean it becomes acceptable to treat individuals as their racial averages is their destiny.
I mean how could you not do that? You will always evaluate individuals based on some standard: you are a good student - for an inner city black man. You are an excellent basketball player - for 5'3'' Asian. The baseline of average is always there and tabula rasa nukes the universal baseline from orbit.
In a sense the DEI crowd is more honest here. They at least know that there are these huge disparities and they want to equalize them here and now with hope that power of representation and reeducation will erase them in the future. It is classical liberal position that is unattainable - even 150 years after emancipation the blacks are not doing well. Heck, it may take another 150 years of access to equal opportunity to fix it, nothing else to see here. That is why the liberal consensus was so easily hacked by Social Justice crowd - it plays on their hidden assumptions.
False dialectic exactly according to the lack of evidence formula. Also we lack evidence exactly because Chinese communist institutions refused and destroyed data and slaughtered and bleached all animals on the maket, so it is doubly ignorant to use lack of public evidence as evidence of absence.
I can also say that based on the publicly available information none of the animals was proven NOT to be infected with SARS-CoV-2. I can also say that there is no publicly available information that would provide evidence of any actual zoonotic link. Zoonotic origin is all circumstantial, there is no "animal zero" proven, there is no cluster of infected animals or any link of infection and mutation. There is no hard evidence so zoonotic origin, so it is pure speculation and fantasy story bordering on conspiracy.
More options
Context Copy link