> to Russians
I don't understand why they say "to Russians" or "to the Russians" instead of "to Russian intelligence". It's like being Russian is the crime itself. They wouldn't write "tried to sell the computer to Jews".
451 karma · joined December 29, 2013
I don't understand why they say "to Russians" or "to the Russians" instead of "to Russian intelligence". It's like being Russian is the crime itself. They wouldn't write "tried to sell the computer to Jews".
[0] https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/20...
You can ctrl+f the exact phrase I quoted earlier, I didn't paraphrase
Amazing how lightly you brush off spreading a baseless conspiracy as long as it's your side doing it.
By the way, "Two out of three Democrats also claim Russia tampered with vote tallies on Election Day to help the President – something for which there has been no credible evidence" [0], are you interested in holding anybody to account for that?
[0] https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/20...
However, there clearly is a small number of players in mobile platforms, cloud, and payment, and they act in a unified way. It has been sufficient.
Great, I cannot wait!
Do you feel the same way about a company refusing to serve Jews or Blacks? Is it their right?
Okay.
Then hosting providers refuse to host.
Payment processors refuse to process your payments for web services.
Your domains are revoked.
Your SSL certs are revoked.
Where does this end? If they have the power to, and they've justified it this far, why wouldn't they keep going?
"Those on the political left who play fast and loose with the term “hacked,” as in “Russia hacked the 2016 presidential election,” are aiding the Kremlin in its mission of undermining Americans’ faith in the democratic process, two University of Kansas researchers write in a new scholarly paper.
...
The authors lay the blame for this problem at the feet of the liberal media, which they define as media that liberals consume, including the Washington Post, CNN and MSNBC.
They wrote, “We demonstrate that the insular nature of much of the liberal media ... enabled the spread of this misleading definition. Through a rhetorical analysis of texts defining Russia’s influence campaign as ‘hacking,’ we demonstrate that Twitter and the publications produced by the liberal media were highly influential in creating the widespread notion that Russia ‘hacked’ the election.”"
An example of a name: Biden Appointee Neera Tanden: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/biden-appointee-neera-tande...
Amazing! Then please explain where they got that idea put into their heads?
"Two out of three Democrats also claim Russia tampered with vote tallies on Election Day to help the President – something for which there has been no credible evidence."
https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/20...
The hypocrisy is unbelievable. This will not end well.
You're clearly carefully picking words that frame the event as inconsequential. That nameless "microblog" is how millions of Americans get their news, lol.
But didn't BLM demonstrate that political violence is effective at achieving your political goals? Or is it justified when it's your side committing the terrorism?
You imply there was some kind of due process, which there wasn't.
Perhaps it is fully within Twitter's legal rights as a private entity. That's not the issue. It's the practical implications that are terrifying. The power of censorship and influence Big Tech yields without any legal oversight is absolutely horrifying.
American politicians were even present handing out cookies: https://images.csmonitor.com/csm/2013/12/1213-world-Nuland2....
The concentration of early cases in Wuhan, hundreds of kilometers of away, would imply that the asymptomatic traveler(s) only traveled to one city, and didn't infect any other people along the way.
It's possible, but you have to consider the probability of all these events, hence the Bayesian analysis performed here.
> The bats carrying CoV ZC45 were originally found in Yunnan or Zhejiang province, both of which were more than 900 kilometers away from the seafood market. Bats were normally found to live in caves and trees. But the seafood market is in a densely-populated district of Wuhan, a metropolitan of ~15 million people. The probability was very low for the bats to fly to the market. According to municipal reports and the testimonies of 31 residents and 28 visitors, the bat was never a food source in the city, and no bat was traded in the market.
Source: https://archive.is/r4Yac
Now, I don't suggest that the virus was created in the lab, or deliberately leaked. But it had to be brought into Wuhan somehow. I just don't consider it dismissible, yet, that an inadvertent leak from the lab could have been the cause. I look forward to all new evidence that may emerge.
If the market was indeed the cause, then in the interests of global safety, wild animal markets of this nature should be prohibited.
See "Infectious diseases emerging from Chinese wet-markets: zoonotic origins of severe respiratory viral infections" [2006]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16940861/
A paper in the lancet early in the year reported that the Wuhan Seafood market not only did not sell bats, but that many of the early patients reported never visiting the market.
At this point, it may be too late to ever discover the true origin of the virus.