No that does not shock me. But the point is that one strategy can be good for one goal but bad for another. Going around Chinatown and encouraging the populous to do the same "to combat racism" is obviously at odds with "be careful and social distance due to covid". Does that shock the shit out of you? I'll be honest as well, I think Pelosi's real motive there is to do the opposite of what Trump wants, rather than combat any racism, but that's just my personal opinion. Maybe she genuinely wanted to combat racism, I don't know, I'm not inside her head. But it's a terrible strategy to combat covid.
She did it at a time when there were zero incidents of COVID in the US and before the Republican party decided that to get ahead of the issue they'd create a racist flamewar instead of trying to handle the problem.
Doing the opposite of what reality dictates was Trump's schtick, not Pelosi's.
Yeah, the other team "decided to create a racist flamewar". They met in a room, those angry old white men, and decided, together, that the best strategy is to create a racist flamewar. Someone suggested they should try to handle the problem, but everyone else disagreed. Someone else was like, fuck it, a racist flamewar is clearly the best strategy to get ahead, and his cisgendered straight colleagues all agreed that would be the best strategy. Meanwhile Pelosi, the hero of the piece, boldly went into Chinatown to combat this. Thank you Pelosi for your sacrifice and dedicated service. Your hair looks lovely by the way. A couple weeks later San Francisco went into full lockdown of course, but it was still a good idea she encouraged everyone to go to Chinatown when she did. The incoming pandemic and racism was handled incredibly well in liberal San Francisco, and if anything did go wrong, it was because of the racist and incompetent Republicans.
When Trump and company knew the virus was going to be a threat, they allowed air travel to maintain at current levels to pack people into airports like sardines. Their response was NOT to be responsible but instead try to pretend that the problem did not exist and to scapegoat the Chinese by calling it "China Flu," "Kung Flu", and "Wuhan Virus."
And you are so INCREDIBLY triggered that you needed to bring "cisgendered straight colleagues" into the discussion when it wasn't even warranted.
I love how you object to mentioning "cisgendered straight colleagues" but not "angry white men', because the latter is non-ironically relevant in your mind. I feel sorry for you that you see the world through that lens, and yeah, I'm not bothering to give you serious replies because you aren't either. "Decided to create a racist flamewar" was when I stopped bothering. We're obviously not going to see common ground at all if you actually see it that way. Nobody decided to create a racist flamewar.
Also:
German Measles
Zika virus, from the Zika forest
Spanish Flu
MERS: Middle East Respiratory Syndrome
Ebola, from the Ebola river.
But sure, Wuhan virus was obviously racially motivated. Bad angry white men. Very bad!
So they actually decided to create a racist flamewar did they? They just called it "wuhan flu" to "scapegoat the Chinese". That's all 100% accurate in your head.
Your problem is you're assuming malicious intent as fact. It's completely impossible to know what someone is thinking, so you should just assume they're not evil racists planning racist flamewars I think.
