[wonderwonder]

So are you advocating for the government lying to the American people over where it came from because the truth might seem to be racist? Really? You would rather the government conceal information about a virus that killed millions of people because it might make some people upset with Asians? What else would you like the government to lie about? Murder rates? Crime Rates? The color of a man they are looking for accused of sexual assault?

Additionally it seems like you are advocating removing free speech? Friend you are sitting here actively campaigning for a 1984 style society. Not sure I have ever seen this one before; well done.

[freejazz]

What a self-serving characterization... the issue wasn't that it was "racist" it's that people would have had excessively racialized and polarized reactions. Why are you being so purposefully obtuse about this? It's not a hard concept to grasp at all, but instead you pretend as if no one wanted to say it because the word was bad... no, they were avoiding the obvious reaction that would come from it.

[kristopolous]

It was excessive eisegesis. There may be a less scholarly word for it. Basically op presupposed a dynamic and then found his suppositions in my comment.

Considering possible eisegesis is one of the primary ways responsible experts with an audience police their speech.

It's probably impossible to both effectively communicate complex ideas and defend against all potential eisegesis. I wouldn't be surprised if enlightenment era philosophers talked about this. I'll readily admit their literature are beyond my patience so forgive me for my ignorance

[wonderwonder]

I'm not being self serving, what could I possibly get out of this? I don't understand what the poster is saying or advocating for. I still don't apparently. It seems like both op and you are saying the truth is not important because it could lead to "excessively racialized and polarized reactions".

Which is exactly what I said op was saying in the first place and you and he reacted like I physically attacked you. From my perspective you are being needlessly obtuse not understanding what I am saying. The thought of not telling the truth and willingly advocate for the government to just ignore or not share the root cause of a pandemic that killed millions is anathema to me. I literally cannot wrap my head around it. How can you take the position that it's best not to know because some rogue elements could take it badly?

[freejazz]

What you got out of it was an unfair characterization of something that only serves to advance your argument.

> It seems like both op and you are saying the truth is not important because it could lead to "excessively racialized and polarized reactions".

The truth... you act like there's a wholesale ban on truth. I think you are again mischaracterizing what is actually the media trying to not whip people up into a frenzy. People get whipped up into frenzies, you should probably check out some history. Maybe something on WWII. I'd recommend, Century of The Self, a great documentary that shows what kind of frenzies people get whipped up into when you have politicians using demagoguery to advance their agendas. You don't see how the entire past 3 years isn't completely different if every news paper is running with the headline "CHINESE VIRUS LEAK"? You are going to pretend, the same populace which was incapable of handling any actual discourse on the pandemic response, vaccination, etc, is going to just have a rational response? Regardless of where the virus came from, of which there is plenty literature available for the curious and literate, your perspective here seems childish at best.

>Which is exactly what I said op was saying in the first place and you and he reacted like I physically attacked you. From my perspective you are being needlessly obtuse not understanding what I am saying. The thought of not telling the truth and willingly advocate for the government to just ignore or not share the root cause of a pandemic that killed millions is anathema to me. I literally cannot wrap my head around it. How can you take the position that it's best not to know because some rogue elements could take it badly?

This is childishly naive. It's not rogue elements. The US president at the time was an actual demagogue.

[wonderwonder]

It was legitimately a Chinese. Virus. Leak.

Your entire approach to this is arrogant. You have decided that based on your superiority and judgement that your mental inferiors are too simple to handle the truth and thus it should not be revealed. While I dislike him, Trump was a democratically elected president.

"your perspective here seems childish at best" This appears to be your approach to your fellow citizens, you are right and every one else is a child. You come off just as narcissist as Trump. Grow up friend, realize there is nothing special about you, you are just as intelligent and naive as your fellow man.

[freejazz]

> You have decided that based on your superiority and judgement that your mental inferiors are too simple to handle the truth and thus it should not be revealed. While I dislike him, Trump was a democratically elected president.

I didn't make any decisions and you are incredibly foolish for even pretending that's the case. More of your false narrative creation that justifies your bullshit grievance-complex self-victimization. I don't edit any newspapers, I don't work in any government's health complex. I'm an IP attorney. Get a grip.

> This appears to be your approach to your fellow citizens, you are right and every one else is a child.

No, not sure why you are equivocating like that. As I pointed out, anyone who is interested is free to access all the literature on this. I did, you did.

>Grow up friend, realize there is nothing special about you, you are just as intelligent and naive as your fellow man.

Maybe read my post first and then get back to me.

[wonderwonder]

lol, you seem angry and have devolved to personal attacks. I'll stop responding, don't want to upset you anymore. Sorry for hurting your feelings. Hope the rest of your day is better. Cheers.

[kristopolous]

> So are you advocating for the government lying to the American people over where it came from because the truth might seem to be racist?

no.

> Really?

no.

> You would rather the government conceal information about a virus that killed millions of people because it might make some people upset with Asians?

no.

> Additionally it seems like you are advocating removing free speech?

no.

The personal responsibility for the liberty of speech includes reasonable consideration for the reaction of people. That's the whole point of Oliver Wendell Holmes "fire in a crowded theater" when he concretized the modern notion of free speech with Learned Hand.

Conduct has consequences

[wonderwonder]

"The personal responsibility for the liberty of speech includes reasonable consideration for the reaction of people."

You said no to all my questions and then with your last paragraph again seemed to advocate for what I said.

[freejazz]

Only if you ignore what "reasonable consideration for the reaction of people." means, which is exactly what you are doing. People like you are the most painful to converse with because you offer responses that are the considerate equivalent to "I know you are but what am I?".

Like, are you seriously going to pretend that you mean the same thing by the "reasonable consideration for the reaction of people" when that's exactly what you've been debating with dozens of people in this thread. Give me a break. It's bad faith, highschool kid that just read ayn rand style posting.

[wonderwonder]

I know you are but what am I?