I did not see any links to any official government documents on that page. Indeed, I saw very little attribution for many claims. The article is fraught with cultural bias against China, and additionally, I noticed multiple misleading remarks.
Starting from the title. The “TV show” the article refers to was actually just an internet video post. Additionally, this was a one-off event from 2016, and it caused outrage and she was forced to publicly apologize[1]. In many places, the Zerohedge author implies it is a current event, stating:
> The video shows the woman breaking apart the corpse of a boiled bat, dipping its wing in sauce and eating it.
> Meanwhile, the scale of the coronavirus outbreak continues to escalate.
This is clearly misleading. Additionally, the description of the bat’s “corpse” is reminiscent of PETA writing about meat farms. I suspect this writing style only appears when the author is projecting a bias.
Next, the first photo featuring a girl holding a bat has a Chinese caption. Below this Chinese caption is an English caption, somewhat loosely implying a translation. This English caption mentions eating bats as a commonplace event in China. Not only is this fact itself debatable, but it does not translate any part of the Chinese caption, which roughly says “As the Coronavirus news spreads, the news about bats containing lots of viruses is once again garnering attention.”
Next, there is a lengthy Chinese tweet quoted. The English of the article does not reference the content of this tweet a single time, instead appearing to imply that it supports whatever claims he is making and assuming the reader will not understand the tweet. The tweet itself says that, loosely, research has found that bats could be the source of the coronavirus and this older bat eating video is once again making the social media rounds, prompting another public apology from the woman in the video. The article says, directly preceding the quote:
> The woman featured in the clip took to social media to profusely apologize for her role in encouraging the consumption of bats and encouraged everyone to start washing their hands more.
Indeed tangential, but not related.
Essentially every claim in the article is unsourced and largely unsubstantiated, and it paints the Chinese in a very negative light, with many heavily prejudiced and vulgar portrayals of China and Chinese food. So, in this case, yes this article is invalid.
On top of all of this, you took the invalid claim that a tv show featured a bat being eaten and turned it into “bats are eaten on tv, commonly”. This is disingenuous on your part, on top of an already disingenuous source.
I appreciate you taking time to respond to the article - which is indeed rubbish.
However, I would think it fairly uncontroversial, and readily provable, that bat meat is indeed eaten in China [1]- which is the claim that I was making earlier. Personally, I wouldn't claim at this point in time that the virus originated from bats or other animals - although it is certainly possible.
> It absolutely is. You don't have any evidence for this, just speculation. Is it plausible? Sure. Is it "most probably" (as the commenter above suggested, linking to a source)? No, there's no evidence cited that the disease was spread by eating bats in the article.
You replied
> It's been reported that there are tv shows in China where bats are eaten [1] Not a great source but it links to official China Gov sources.
But later stated
> However, I would think it fairly uncontroversial, and readily provable, that bat meat is indeed eaten in China [1]- which is the claim that I was making earlier.
Effectively, what you've said then was entirely a non-sequitur to what I was discussing, which was the specific claim about whether or not there is enough evidence (presented here, anyway) to claim that bat consumption is the "most probable" cause of the disease, or even if consumption at all will be linked to the disease (rather than proximity/hygiene).
In fact, you later stated that you agree with my point.
> Personally, I wouldn't claim at this point in time that the virus originated from bats or other animals - although it is certainly possible.
The build looks reasonably straightforward. I suspect I wouldn't be able to use low-profile switches with this, but I'll fully admit I'm not well versed in keyboard assembly.
Thanks for this. I'm getting closer to what I'm looking for.
I bought an MD650L and found the switches to be unusably bad. I, too, wished for a low-profile Quefrency.
I'm comfortable designing and assembling PCBs but don't really have time to debug a brand-new design, so I've ordered a low-profile Lily58 kit. The Lily58 is most of what I want and has open source PCB, schematic and case. If it doesn't work for me, I'm expecting to modify it to something more like Quefrency.
Have you considered contributing your technical expertise to something like Code for America?
Their two flagship projects (GetCalFresh and Criminal Justice) reform both started off as simple web forms to make it easier to file for SNAP (food stamps) and sealing eligible marijuana convictions respectively. However as they gained traction they were able to engage state and local governments as collaborators and significantly improve the outcomes.
For the criminal justice work that meant fully automating sealing convictions in San Francisco, that then provided the “proof” for a state bill that passed to require all California counties to do the same over then next few years.
So while it seems like getting money out of politics is impossible I’d suggest working on stuff you care about at your state level, and providing working proofs will help people trying to support sensible legislation for reform.
While true, it’s great to find someone else has done all the legwork on how to cancel a shit ISP and switch to a better and cheaper one.
Or pre-wrote everything one needs to complain to the regulator about a bull-shit charge and get their $ back.
It certainly takes a certain mindset to take advantage of the above, but making it easier encourages it.
The above are two things I’ll be publishing tonight. There’s a few hundred thousand people in my mom’s town that suddenly have a decent internet option.
You may find community organizing rewarding. Depending on your comfort level, you can try things like:
- Volunteer work
- Participating in city/town board/council meetings
- Direct action (eg the TN chapter of the DSA replaced tail lights for free, since broken tail lights are the most common reason for minorities getting pulled over)
- Canvassing for candidates, referendums, etc.
- Solidarity actions (eg joining strike members on the picket line)
If you're not sure where to start, try researching local candidates that share your views and find out which organizations endorsed them.
Voting and protesting are ultimately pointless if the options to vote for aren't enacting the changes needed, and if the protests aren't causing enough disruption to people in power for them to change anything.
If you really want change, then you need to somehow climb the ladder of power and enact the changes yourself. Unfortunately, if you take the political or corporate path, you will most likely be so disillusioned by the time you get anywhere that you will join the other side.
You can also become a revolutionary of sorts, by leading others through your charisma or prose.
Of course none of these are anything a "typical" person can do, but in fact, a "typical" person really has no power whatsoever unless someone atypical manages to organize them together.
This is definitely a hard question to answer and I have been struggling with it myself. It can feel like a monumental effort when it feels like you are one person doing it. It does feel like the tide is turning though as issues like single-payer become more prevalent. I would say seek out more sophisticated associations/efforts that promote the issues you are passionate about and make sure they don't have a problem staying afloat, by contributing time or (more importantly) money to them. That might be a more effective way to support your cause.
This article feels disorganized. He switches context freely without alerting the reader. I cannot tell if it is an intentionally wistful style, or just disorganization. I’m curious, since the author claims to be a novelist and obviously cares deeply about the state of the modern novel, why is it written this way?
If you’re the author, I’d love to hear your response.
Having read the article, I don't think it is disorganized. It makes an assertion, supports the assertion, explores the consequences, then returns to another aspect of the assertion. In the end, she returns to the theme and restates it.
The context switches, such as they are, come with the traditional signal to most readers: the paragraph. Yet each paragraph is built in sequels (like you would a novel): action (assertion), reaction (consequence).
Paragraph by paragraph:
Assertion from title: Novels are still important.
Question: Are they really? Reflection as context.
Assertion: I fear modern media leaves me only frightened.
Contradiction: Realization -- It won't.
Assertion: Novels exist outside of the political upheaval they arise from.
Resolution: Doctor Zhivago as example of proof.
Section break (as a notice to the reader).
Assertion: Novels are an intimate communication between writer and reader.
Contradiction: "No one reads books anymore."
Assertion: People still read books.
Reflection: Orthodoxy of publishing and consumption has changed.
Assertion: The novel's purpose is to encapsulate its own world ("to be what it is").
Reflection: Anna Karenina was not the novel Tolstoy set out to write, but it was the novel he had to write because he was skilled enough to write it. The story was in control.
Resolution: Good novels matter because they exist as complete in themselves without being slaves to the social forces from which they arise.
Break
...
She continues in this form, weaving layers onto the theme, like one writes a novel. It seems to me like a clever way to write an editorial.
Judges are required to make decisions in many fields they have not been specifically trained in. If they were experts on every subject matter, there would be no need for lawyers, except maybe to present evidence.
Regardless, the ruling has nothing to do with “statistical fact”. It has to do with whether the policy was intentionally discriminatory.
Then we're judging at the wrong level of the judicial system. Regardless of the intent back when the policy was instated, the current upholding of it knowing its effects is what needs critical evaluation.
It is required in the states but could potentially limit results to include less low income/unemployed individuals. Almost any job will withhold income tax and send it off to the government without you doing anything.
When I lived in China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong, it was no secret Falun Dafa (or Falun Gong — same thing) were nuts. They’re like the Scientology of Asia. Maybe a little weirder. They convinced my girlfriend’s Grandma she could solve her health concerns, anything from inflammation to cancer, with meditation and absolutely zero medicine. This of course ended with a hospital trip and Grandma’s swift departure from Falun Gong.
I moved back to the States and kinda forgot about them. Five years go by, and I start seeing billboards for their origin-story-in-musical-form Shen Yun in every city I visit. Ok, that’s weird, but cults are gonna cult so whatever. I visit the Chinese embassy to get my visa approved and get a pamphlet from them that has the organ harvesting stuff. Also weird. Seemed like their presence is growing outside of Asia.
Fast forward two more years and I now live in Seattle. There are literal Falun Gong parades going down the streets. The city events all have Falun booths. Random Americans have learned enough Chinese and Chinese music to stumble their way through Falun Gong’s anthems.
I guess this is all just an anecdote. People are quick to trust them, because they advertise themselves as traditional Chinese art and culture, and they don’t have a bad rap here. These organ harvesting claims against China are enticing to believe, because it is popular to distrust the Chinese government (and deservedly so). But...take this group’s claims with a hefty bowl of salt.
I'm somewhat familiar with Falun Gong. But I'm not sure I understand why it constitutes a "cult" -- this term seems unnecessarily loaded. The fact that your friend's grandmother was able to "swiftly depart” increases this suspicion for me.
There are lots of religions in the world with weird practices, including some Christian sects that don't permit blood transfusions and some new-age groups that shun modern medicine.
These conversations frequently devolve into semantic debates over what a cult is. Some Christian groups are definitely cults. There are some signs of a cult that usually involve heavy recruiting and PR, a difficulty leaving, a rigid power structure, etc.
I use the term lightly because I rarely talk to people who aren’t already familiar with Falun and don’t think they’re a cult. That is my bad, feel free to disregard that categorization. It isn’t pivotal to the anecdote I was relaying.
I wouldn’t give those Christian sects a pass on not being cults. Falun gong has some weird beliefs, some of them very self destructive. Of course, the Chinese government doesn’t do itself any favors in their typical heavy handed approaches to information supremacy, making them an unreliable source, but that doesn’t mean they are wrong.
the US has an interest in supporting dissident expat communities from rival regimes (eg the mke, a marxist cult of iranians). i wouldn’t be surprised if they received some amount of mysterious funding, maybe even in the form of shen yun ticket revenue.
I'm guessing you mean MEK, which is the mujahedin el khalq IIRC, but please, don't call them Marxist just because they may have professed Marxist beliefs decades ago. They've been a run of the mill personality cult for much longer than they've been Marxist, so it seems disingenuous to use that as their primary description.
