It's Time for the Commission on Civil Rights to Stop Using Words Like "Racism," "Xenophobia," "Hate," and "Hateful" So Indiscriminately

A Statement by Two Commissioners.

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

On March 20, 2020, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued a statement expressing "grave concern" and "alarm[]" over "recent demonstrations of violence and hate toward people of Asian descent." It warns of a "growing anti-Asian racism and xenophobia." For the reasons we will explain below, we declined to support that statement.

We agree, of course, that COVID-19 is no excuse for anyone to attack or insult individuals of Asian descent and that when such acts rise to the level of criminal behavior, law enforcement should immediately intervene. But that's obvious to just about everyone in America. The rare exception is unlikely to read the Commission's statement, much less be persuaded by it.

It is important to keep things in perspective. Given that the population of the United States is estimated to be over 330,000,000, the litany of incidents in the Commission's statement is really quite small; most involve misbehavior by children or teenagers. Yes, a nine-year-old child in New Jersey was told by a classmate, "You're Chinese, so you must have coronavirus." But that's why we send nine-year-olds to school; they've got a lot to learn. For adults to view the statement as hateful would be over the top. We're talking about a child.

More serious is the case of the New York teenager who kicked an Asian-American man in the back, knocking him to the ground. Surely that is (and should be) a matter for the police. Fortunately, there is nothing to show this thuggish behavior represents a wave of racial violence.

Here is our biggest objection: The Commission make the ill-advised suggestion that referring to COVID-19 with terms like "Chinese coronavirus" is somehow fueling "[t]his latest wave of xenophobic animosity toward Asian Americans." It is common to refer to infectious diseases by their geographic origin. Examples include Asian flu, Bolivian hemorrhagic fever, Brazilian hemorrhagic fever, Ebola, German measles, Japanese encephalitis, Lyme disease, Marburg virus, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), Pontiac fever, Rift Valley fever, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, Spanish flu, Venezuelan hemorrhagic fever, and West Nile virus. In the case of Spanish flu, it was probably a misnomer. That disease likely originated in Kansas instead. But calling it the Spanish flu was never an indication that people hated Spaniards. It was simply a case in which the Spanish press reported on the flu extensively while the American press was preoccupied with World War I and subject to censorship. People therefore made the mistake of believing it originated in Spain.

It is counter-productive to hector the American people (or its leaders) about describing the COVID-19 as "Chinese" or as having originated in China. It did originate there. Ordinary Americans—of all races and ethnicities—who harbor no ill will toward anyone don't like to have the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights imply that that they are fueling the flames of xenophobic animosity.   We can't blame them. It is insulting.

Our colleagues on the Commission close their statement by writing under the current circumstances no American should be "ostracized solely because of their race or national origin." That is certainly sensible enough. We would add that Americans should not be ostracized on account of false accusations that their conduct has been racist, xenophobic and hateful. The promiscuous use of those terms needs to stop.

Gail Heriot & Peter N. Kirsanow, Members, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

NEXT: Our Best Weapon Against Coronavirus Is To Test Everybody

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Look, we’re facing a veritable plague of racist hatred, this is not the time to shift our attention to other less important issues like a worldwide pestilence.

    And it’s not time to reopen old wounds about racist names of other diseases. Isn’t it bad enough for Germans to get measles without having the sickness named after them? This sort of Teutonophobia, Asianophobia, Rocky Mountainphobia, etc. etc., has to stop, and who will have the courage to stop it if not the Civil Rights Commission?

    1. And as to the supposed low number of racist incidents, *if* that’s true, it’s because the Commission majority (no thanks to the carping minority members) has been vigilant in rooting out this blight on society. If the mindset of the dissenting members takes over the commission, the floodgates will open and the country will simply be inundated in racism.

      1. After observing vigorous defenses of using a term that identifies who caused the problem, and where the problem started, and who aggravate the problem, it seems appropriate — in the United States — to call this

        the Trump virus.

        Or, perhaps,

        Trumplague.

        Thanks for the insights, clingers. When people are remembering this period a hundred years from now, they might be referring to “Obamacare” and “Trump virus.”

        1. Oh yeah. I forgot that expose by the Chinese state media that the US developed the virus and shipped it into Wuhan.

          Thanks for being on top of things!

          1. The Trump administration didn’t develop the virus.

            The Trump administration mishandled the American response.

        2. A hundred years from now? 100 years after the Trumpacolypse the earth will be a howling wasteland, and the few surviving humans will be busy fighting zombies.

  2. Yeah, this is partisan as all hell, which is what makes it not useful. Though I suppose not harmful.

    One side will say absolutely and the other will say, get stuffed.

    And we shall go on with our lives.

    1. Well lets look at a non-partisan source whom we can safely assume has no racial animus towards asians in general or Chinese specifically. I happen to be flying back to the US from Asia in about a week on Eva Airlines, which is based in Taiwan, and presumably operated by ethnic Chinese.

      They are calling the disease “Wuhan pneumonia”. So i think we can say that generally Wuhan virus, or Wuhan pneumonia is not racist.

      1. Don’t be simplistic. Racism doesn’t come merely from words – it comes from intent.

        We had an accepted term. Trump, after using the accepted term for a while, chose a different term with the one difference. And his acolytes even here are jumping to rage at those filthy chicoms and their diseases.

        It’s extremely easy to see and understand.

  3. I don’t understand the emphasis being placed on words at any point but, right now, for crying out loud? There are people dying of the (nameless so as not to insult anyone who may be named Corona) virus. I went to a primarily African American school and got called names that would’ve pissed off Mother Teresa, and then the ones that made zero sense like “honky” and “cracker”.
    I also remember that, for a while, I had NO idea how to describe the group in situations where African American would’ve applied, because they just wanted to be offended, regardless of the wording or circumstance. If you look through the bookstore, titles like ‘A Black Woman’s Rage’ or ‘Prayers for Black Women’ are all over the shelves. So, at least for this group it is safe to assume that 1) they do not want to be harassed or treated badly based on skin color. Neither does any other individual. But, 2) they want to use that difference as a way to stand out. Okay. That’s great, if you’re doing good in the standing out.
    But then I thought, what sort of noise would it generate if I wrote a book called “A White Woman’s Rage”? Because I’ve seen rage coming from white people, black people, Hispanic people… And I figure rage is rage (except, for me, it’s a little scarier coming from a Hispanic man for some reason!)
    We live in a culture that practices how to be offended on a daily basis. Having a “Commission” shove down my throat one MORE word I shouldn’t say because I’ll immediately become hateful, racist or xenophobic? Nope, I don’t like it at all. Words are powerful. Now this gives more people more silliness to be offended over.

    1. You admit that ‘words are powerful’ and then argue ‘how dare someone tell me I shouldn’t use one of these powerful things in a negative way?’

  4. Great article by the way.

  5. The virus has a name. Use it. If you refuse to use the correct terminology – then you are part of the problem. Also part of the problem are the authors who wasted 559 words defending racists.

    1. Isn’t “Corona” a Mexican beverage? Do you think it’s a coincidence that in Trump’s America, a deadly virus would be named after something Mexican?

    2. Please explain how referring to this as the Wuhan Coronavirus or the Chinese Coronavirus is racist. Thank you.

      1. It is not necessarily racist on the part of the speaker. But when used, especially by political leaders it encourages anti-Chinese racists, and stokes their racism.

        It is not hard to say “Covid-19,” or “Coronavirus.” To constantly emphasize the Chinese connection, Heriot’s statement notwithstanding, does nothing but stir up those who should not be stirred up. In other words, intentionally racist or not, it has negative consequences for Asians.

        That ought to be enough to get decent people to avoid using the term. Of course, no one ever accused Trump of being a decent human being, but maybe others could give it a bit of thought.

        1. It is not hard to say “Covid-19,” or “Coronavirus.”

          No, but the fact that you lump together the official medical name of the disease and the name of a family of viruses that cause a range of diseases, including Covid-19, but also some varieties of the “common cold” indicates that even intelligent educated folk do not speak like medical or scintific dictionaries and usually prefer colloquial terms.

          The Wuhan flu or the Chinese flu was in common use, by the very same media that now claim it’s racist, before they did a 180 for wholly political reasons .

          Bat flu would have also worked fine, like Bird flu and Swine flu. Not a soul in the world would be piously insisting on Covid-19 if the media had originally alighted on Bat flu.

          But we now have a new issue. The Chinese government is itself very eager that we shoud all adopt Covid-19, and not use expressions linking the disease with Wuhan or China. They are not remotely concerned about racism, they are concerned with politics. They don’t want this disease to be associated with the People’s Republic of China, lest there be excessive discussion about the way they handled the outbreak.

          So that creates an additional imperative reason to go on referring to the disease in the way we started off – Wuhan or Chinese. When a communist dictatorship insists that you stop using certain expressions and start using different ones instead, your reaction should be to avoid the kowtowing.

          1. Lee,

            I don’t think saying, “We shouldn’t do this because it’s what the Chinese want us to do” is a particularly strong argument.

            Regardless, the point I was trying to make, not too clearly, it seems, is that I think it particularly bad for Trump and other leaders to use the term, because that does have negative consequences, and there is no particular reason for him to do so. Presidents need to be careful about what they say, not that that matters to the Trump-worshippers.

            As to, “It’s always been this way,” well, so what? If something is harmful, it’s harmful, regardless of whether something like it has been done in the past.

            Now, I don’t particularly think that if you want to call it the Wuhan flu or whatever that that’s going to cause an outbreak of anti-Chinese bigotry. But I think those speaking in public, whose words have much more influence than yours or mine, ought to be more cautious.

            1. Yeah but I don’t believe there has been any anti- (ethnic) Chinese bigotry, over and above the microscopic quantity already existing.

              Have we heard any heartfelt mea culpas from all those media types who were happy calling it Wuhan this and Chinese that, before they decided to do a 180 ? No, because they don’t believe their own bull.

              Trump having found the thing already called Chinese is simply running with it. It works for him politically. It reminds people that this thing originated in the People’s Republic of China, that the People’s Republic of China tried to sweep it under the carpet as long as they could, and that Trump has been warning that the People’s Republic of China is not our friend since long before he started running for office.

              We’ve had three to four years of wall to wall “anti-Russian” propaganda, from the same folk as are now whining about “anti-Chinese” racism. Have they ever wondered about anti-Russian “racism” ? No, not for a millisecond. Nor should they. It’s perfectly obvious that the Russia this – Russia that story was about the Russian government. If any individual Russians feel hurt, then it’s tough noogie time. (Though we should note that the press – and Mueller’s report – were quite happy to cast innuendo widely at “Russian-born” and “Russian” people, wholly unconnected with the Russian government. Including one or two who were Ukrainian not Russian.)

              The notion that referring to the disease that originated in China as “Chinese” is racist is absurd, and the notion that it has or will lead to an outbreak of anti- (ethnic) Chinese sentiment is yet more absurd.

              But if it leads to increased suspicion of the government of the People’s Republic of China, so much the better. What with all this Russia drivel, Joe Public has forgotten that the People’s Republic of China is a much more dangerous proposition.

              Which is why when the People’s Republic of China wishes – for its political advantage – to prepare the linguistic battlefield, to omit the useful descriptive fact that this disease originated in, and spread from, their turf (while they – and the Western media – loudly opposed Trump’s travel restirctions that are now ubiquitous) – Trump is quite right to resist.

          2. The Wuhan flu or the Chinese flu was in common use, by the very same media that now claim it’s racist, before they did a 180 for wholly political reasons .

            And at the impetus of the Chinese dictatorship at that.

            This is a memeplex defense mechanism in action, trying to strengthen itself by creating new submemes in the form of other productive ones, picked up and regurgitated by unthinking cog mechanisms (humans) in defense of the memeplex overlaying and specifying their behaviors.

        2. The ChiComs — the Chinese Government — has a lot to answer for this, even if it didn’t escape from their Level 4 Bioweapons lab. They had an obligation to tell the world what it would be dealing with, and they lied about it being contagious. It’s only here because people from China (of whatever race) got onto an airplane and brought it here — that is a medical fact.

          WW-I was to avenge the deaths of two people — how many Americans has the Wuhan Virus killed, so far?

          So perhaps the majority need to read Yeats, that part about the middle not holding. They might want to reflect upon the fact that a century ago, fully 25% of the adult males in Maine belonged to the Klan — and that was Maine. Stuff like that could happen again, and we really don’t want it to….

        3. bernard, you are the exact kind of retard that all this propaganda was invented for! Gullible enough to have the entire world and all its history ignored and rewritten, and YOU BELIEVE IT.

          Illnesses have frequently been named after where they’re from… It’s not new, nor inappropriate. The fact that it doesn’t sit well with the place of origin of the pandemic is irrelevant. Fuck ’em… Especially in this case being that it’s a communist dictatorship, that they lied and mishandled the whole thing, and have now cost many thousands of lives and trillions of dollars because of their bullshit actions.

          I prefer Wuhan virus myself, and it’s what I’ll call it until the day I die. You need to wake up and learn to spot propaganda and conditioning… Because you’re basically just an NPC at this point.

          1. You are a selective critic of those who lied about and mishandled this problem, mostly because you are a disaffected, bigoted culture war casualty consumed by resentment toward your betters.

      2. It is a deliberate departure from the generally recognized name without much reason other than to co-locate the disease with a nationality.

        It’s a circumstantial case, but a pretty strong one. At best, Trump is using racism to bate people and change the subject.

        1. BULLSHIT. A HUGE number of illnesses are named after where they’re from. The departure is in the entire left wing media deciding to make a big deal out of a normal naming convention… Incidentally THEY themselves were calling it the Wuhan virus before somebody decided that calling it that was racist, and could be weaponized against the right. So piss off!

          1. Yeah, but THIS one wasn’t. Intentionally trying to change the name towards where it originated is a telling choice.

            1. Intentionally trying to change the name towards where it originated

              Oh, come on. The media was happy to refer to it as “the Wuhan coronavirus” and “the Chinese coronavirus” until the recent and shameless shift to tut-tuttery. You’ll need a deeper memory hole for that one.

              1. Oh come on, that’s not actually true about the media. Where do you get this stuff?

              2. Dude, I was following this shit IN DECEMBER.

                Back then, and into January IIRC, they were calling it a “mysterious illness in Wuhan” then Wuhan virus.

                That was before it even had a scientific name, as it hadn’t been identified. They are trying to retroactively delete that initial naming because politics.

                1. Your timline is wrong. When experts coalesced around coronavirus and COVID-19; the media followed suit.

                  That was well before Trump went and tried to go for the racial angle, as bernard below showed quite well.

              1. Idiots will never back down from their incorrect positions… Even with evidence right in their face!

    3. And what, precisely, do you think this virus’ name is?

      While you’re at it, what is the “correct” name for the bug that causes Spanish flu or West Nile virus? (No cheating with Wikipedia, now.)

      1. And what, precisely, do you think this virus’ name is?

        Covid-19.

        Next question?

        1. Nope, its SARS-CoV-2.

        2. No. Covid19 is the disease. Not the virus.

        3. As Lee points out, you’re wrong. And almost exactly no one uses the correct name because it’s long, clumsy and difficult to remember. That’s why we give them equally legitimate colloquial names – like Legionnaires disease and the Wuhan virus.

          1. Legionnaires Disease? Don’t you love America?

      2. H1N1 for spanish flu

        1. Nope, that was 2009.

          1. Er, you may want to google that one.

    4. The virus has a name. Use it. If you refuse to use the correct terminology – then you are part of the problem.

      Possibly appreciating the difference between the virus and the disease it causes might help too. No point going to all the trouble looking up the official medical name unless you can spot the difference between the virus and the disease.

    5. The virus has a Scientific name yes and it even has a name that is less scientific term derived from the scientific name. But the name that sticks and becomes the common nomenclature might not be those names. I guarantee you the scientific name for the Spanish flu does not have Spanish in it. What becomes the preferred vulgar term will likely take a decade.

      1. I’m all in for Wuhan virus! Short and sweet!

        1. Most Americans will prefer “Trump virus” or “Trump plague.”

          May the better ideas win.

          1. Don’t worry. He may yet do what every leftist is screaming for — achieve dictatorial powers and issue a nationwide curfew.

            Or he loses the next election and Biden does.

            So this is how liberty dies…with thunderous applause.

            And, as everyone knew, at the hand of the left, e’en as they scream “Watch out for the right!”

            It’s no coincidence the deepest blue states were the first to roll so easily into this mode.

            1. It’s no coincidence the deepest blue states are the most advanced states, which subsidize and lead the lesser states in myriad ways.

    6. When’s the last time you referred to it as 2019-SARS-nCOV-2?

  6. Quit whining, clinger.

    Someone who uses “Republican” and “independent” as you have done has no standing to offer language pointers to better Americans.

    1. Exactly – superior Americans like yourself deserve to survive the plague and watch in glee while the inferiors die off.

      If with your superior intellect you find a cure, I hope you keep it to yourself and your friends so that the inferiors don’t survive to keep polluting the planet by their existence.

      1. WTF are you talking about , Eddy?

        All he did was point out that Heriot herself has indulged in some unusual nomenclature practices.

        1. Why the euphemisms?

          Prof. Heriot lied and cheated, for paltry partisan purpose.

          Which might be what the Volokh Conspiracy found so attractive about Prof. Heriot.

          1. Look, if someone identifies an as independent, they’re an independent.

            I mean, calling a self-identified woman “he” just because she has balls and a dick – or calling a pregnant person “she” when he clearly identifies as male – can get you in trouble with Twitter, Human Resources, and many other outposts of enlightened thinking.

            So I don’t see how you can so cavalierly call a self-identified independent a Republican.

            Perhaps political affiliation is inborn, and sex is simply a lifestyle choice?

            1. RAK is questioning her sincerity, so your parallel is inapt.

              1. I actually suspected you’d try that explanation.

                It seems that what you give with one hand, you take back with the other.

                You allow the ability of people to identify as whatever sex or political party they want, but with the proviso that you can refuse recognition if you don’t accept their motives.

                Really, with your “insincerity exception,” how do you stop the transphobes from questioning, say, Caitlyn Jenner’s identity as a woman? They could say that Jenner was motivated by desire for fame and relevance, not by a sincere scientific consideration of the various factors involved.

                Transphobes could also question Chelsea Manning’s motives, saying she transitioned from man to woman in order to game the system, not from sincere conviction.

                Bigots might even question the sincerity of the man who transitioned to being a woman, and then raped women in prison.

                https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/11/transgender-prisoner-who-sexually-assaulted-inmates-jailed-for-life

                1. So you think transgendered people are all knowingly lying?!

                  For one, I don’t understand how transitioning games the system.

                  1. “So you think transgendered people are all knowingly lying?!”

                    Straw-manning is the best you’ve got?

                  2. I’m simply concerned that you’re putting weapons into the hands of transphobic bigots.

                    If you can deny someone’s self-identification as a political independent and say that they’re *really* a Republican because they used to be a registered Republican, are involved in Republican politics and the Federalist society, etc., then you allow transphobes to use analagous arguments against transmen and transwomen: “This person is a man because he has dangly bits, it says ‘male’ on the birth certificate,” and other irrelevant details.

                    And if you can challenge the sincerity of someone’s self-identification because they benefit from such self-identification, that allows transphobes to say that so-and-so can’t be sincere because their announcement of their new sex revived their celebrity and got them front-page, admiring treatment, etc.

                    Really opens a whole can of worms, if you start suggesting that political identity exists apart from someone’s public self-identification. It gives aid and comfort to the heteronormative bigots, which I’m sure you’d deplore.

                    1. I get your concerns. Anyone can question anyone else’s sincerity. That is not the same as denying the existence of a class of people. Bigots can try and give that a try – they are doing so even now – but it won’t fly as well.

                      When you guys try and turn the philosophies of the opposition against itself you are always so bad at it.

                    2. “That is not the same as denying the existence of a class of people.”

                      Who’s denying that? There’s a class of men who think they’re women, and a class of women who think they’re men. There’s also genuinely intersex individuals. And there are people whose sexual self-identification has a curious correlation with their self-interest, eg, guys becoming women and getting to defeat normal women in women’s sports.

                      “Anyone can question anyone else’s sincerity.”

                      I don’t think so. Denying the sincerity of a man who says he’s a woman or vice versa could well be a TOS or civil rights violation in many cases.

                      “When you guys try and turn the philosophies of the opposition against itself you are always so bad at it.”

                      Then why did you feel the need to resort to straw-manning, if your position is so secure and defensible?

  7. If the President himself is fomenting that hate then it has to be looked at carefully.

    1. He is specifically calling it Chinese virus in retaliation of the Chinese Information Ministry spreading reports that the virus was introduced into China by a US military delegation that visited Wuhan in October.

      While there are many examples of the media calling it the Chinese Virus before that, i don’t think Trump actually started using the term Chinese Virus until China started its disinformation campaign.

  8. This isn’t an example of politically correct types looking to change existing usage, either popular or official. We were weeks into the epidemic with continuous news coverage and it had one name : Coronavirus. Trump and the Right have made a conscious decision and concentrated effort to make this disease be all about China.

    Which is nothing more more than petty mischief and brat malice. Suppose during the height of the Swine Flu pandemic some other country’s government started a systematic campaign to re-name it the “American Flu”? Guess how would everyone see that. Noble pursuit of the “truth” or the cheapest kind of propaganda? I’m betting the latter….

    Doesn’t Trump have more important things to focus on than this ugly childish nonsense? Of course his supporters are blind to that obvious question, even while they give us another fussy critique of the reaction to Trump boorishness.

    1. Right.

      The Trump defenders are, as usual, being ridiculous.

      1. Here is a scores of examples of the media using the term “Wuhan virus” or “Chinese coronavirus” completely unrelated to Trumps usage.

        And its pretty clear Trump is not using the term to forment racism, he is using the term to wrap the responsibility around the neck of the Chinese Communist government, where it belongs.

        1. And of course his delays and happy talk and general ineptitude in dealing with this don’t matter at all to you.

          He was absolutely perfect. Right, Kazinski?

          1. What delays?

            1. A.L.,

              If you don’t know it won’t help for me to tell you. I suspect you do know and are all set with Trumpian defenses: Obama’s fault, etc.

              In either case it’s not worth my while since if you are asking that means you’ve swallowed Trump/Hannity BS and your brain isn’t working well on this topic.

              1. “If you don’t know it won’t help for me to tell you”

                Sigh. That is an “unhelpful” answer.

                Personally, it’s not clear to me that Trump could’ve realistically done ANYTHING in excess of what he already did. Trump banned travel from China (against the scientific “advice”) and got a lot of flack. He was of course, called a racist (despite it being exactly the right move). Later, then he did the same from Europe, and caught much more grief for it.

                Realistically, as part of the Federal (not state) government, what could Trump have done, in excess of what he’s already done? Are you suggesting he should’ve declared martial law in January? Instituted a federal, US-wide lockdown?

          2. Well let me ask you then, who handled it better? Merkel? Macron? Xi?

            Who put on a Chinese travel ban first? If it wasn’t Trump it was Taiwan, but no one in Europe.

            I’d like to hear who, from a large industrialized open society in a temperate climate has handled it better. Who?

            1. For context here is deaths per million population, so it looks like Merkel has handled it pretty well, but not better than Trump, especially since their infection rate is higher. South Korea has also handled it very well since their number of cases is starting to decline, but their death rate is still more than double the US.

              Its hard to make any sort of numbers based case in context of the rest of the developed world that Trump hasn’t done a superior job at handling the crises.

              Country Deaths /1M pop
              Italy 66.7
              China 2.3
              Iran 19.0
              Spain 28.4
              France 6.7
              United States 0.8
              United Kingdom 2.7
              Netherlands 7.9
              South Korea 2.0
              Germany 0.9

    2. Bullshit. Early on the headlines were all over the media calling it the “Wuhan Coronavirus”.

      You can’t just call it the “Coronavirus” because it’s not descriptive enough – there are lots of Coronaviruses.

      So this is exactly what it looks like – just another chance to bust on Trump. I can’t stand the guy either, but this is bullshit.

      And the author is right. Racist is becoming way overused.

      1. You can’t just call it the “Coronavirus” because it’s not descriptive enough – there are lots of Coronaviruses.

        Correct, but the main reason not to call the disease “Coronavirus” is that a coronavirus is a virus and Covid-19 is a <disease.
        The “d” in Covid stands for disease.

        To confuse the virus with the disease is equivalent to confusing the bullet with the wound. You do not need to be a doctor to appreciate this distinction.

      2. bevis the lumberjack : “Bullshit”

        As self-description, apt. Let’s distill the issue further :

        (1) The PC Language Police aren’t the ones trying to change usage here, Trump is.

        (2) The motive for his effort is base and ugly. No honest person could pretend otherwise.

        So why are you pretending?

        1. The motive for his effort is most likely a typically ham-handed Trump attempt to offset the attempt by the Chinese government to blame someone other than themselves for this.

          And yes, the pc police are changing the language here. Naming a virus after where it was first encountered.

          I’ll ask you the same thing I asked Bernard – please explain how Wuhan Coronavirus or Chinese Coronavirus is racist.

          And calling someone who disagrees with you racist just because they disagree with you is a discussion technique appropriate for a 23 year old. Do better.

          1. Context matters.

            In an atmosphere of anti-Chinese sentiment *insisting* on referring to a bad thing as the ‘Chinese X’ speaks volumes.

            1. “An atmosphere of anti-Chinese sentiment”. Where. A handful of assholes don’t create a global atmosphere.

              And the Chinese government deserves blame for their initial reaction to the virus and scorn for trying to slough off what happened. Chinese citizens and people of Chinese origin deserve to be recognized as being like the rest of us – blameless.

              You haven’t offered an explanation of how it’s racist either. Just speculation on what you think Trump means with no evidence.

              1. The President of the United States is very likely an a&&hole, but not =/= to ‘a handful of a&&holes.’

                Or do you want to dispute Trump isn’t in the midst of a war of words creating an atmosphere of anti-Chinese sentiment?

                1. There are at least a half billion Chinese that agree with Trump in blaming the Chinese government. He’s helping to give them a voice, because the Chinese government sure won’t.

                2. Queen….If there is anti-Chinese sentiment, maybe the question to ask is: Why is this the case?

                  Do not excuse the actual behavior of China in this pandemic.

                  This semantic debate is a total waste of time. There is plenty of time afterward to debate whether saying Wuhan virus as opposed to Covid-19 has racist overtones or not (I don’t believe so).

                  1. I don’t excuse the behavior of China.

                    Neither do I excuse the behavior of the Trump Administration. Do you? Was it “perfect” for them to sit on their ass for a couple of months, lying about severity, doing nothing – I wonder how much stock the Trumpkins sold, by the way – while the virus got a foothold?

                    Maybe we should call it the “Trump virus.”

                    1. It was Diane Finstein who sold stock, not Trump.

                      And who banned travel from China? Yep, it was Trump.

                    2. You think Trump should’ve acted sooner? How exactly? Should he have instituted a travel ban to China in December? Cut off all the borders in early January?

                    3. bernard, the Congress lied their asses off as well. They received briefings on what was coming. They did more or less what POTUS Trump did: accentuate the positive, downplay the negative, hope for the best. Some of them have the appearance of bailing out of the equities market post-briefings (in Jan).

                      None of them get a free pass. We can deal with that afterwards. We collectively will render judgment in November.

                    4. XY,

                      Yes. Some of them did lie their asses off, except when they talked to their big donors..

                    5. Correct bernard…and they must fully disclose the facts and circumstances that lead them to their actions. They must be transparent. I personally want to see call logs of those people, and immediate family members.

                      I personally don’t care about the party label, but whoever used the information from their classified briefings to personally profit should be put in a jail to rot.

                    6. Ed, don’t be a hack.

                      I don’t have a lot of use for Feinstein, but she sold one stock for small money not related to the coronavirus. That is much more easily explained than those who divested everything at that time.

                      Banning travel from china is all you guys have. Nothing about getting a handle on testing, equipment, marshaling the federal infrastructure. The stuff we’re only begining now. And Trump was privy to intelligence briefings in January!

                      Heck, most of you are still minimizing this.

              2. Read this blog. See the rants about the ChiComs and China will pay. It’s all over the place.

                1. Why shouldn’t they pay?

          2. most likely a typically ham-handed Trump attempt to offset the attempt by the Chinese government to blame someone other than themselves for this.

            As usual, being a baby-man is not an excuse.

            1. Yeah he’s a man baby. A horrible human being.

              But despite that, I keep asking and none of y’all can give an actual explanation of how it is racist. It’s basically “because it’s Trump”, which is an attempt at mind reading done by people who can’t read minds (which is all of us).

              Again, how the hell is it racist?

              1. bevis reminds me of those who when someone complains about someone saying ‘Hispanics are terrible’ and someone else says ‘that’s racist’ they say ‘hey, Hispanic isn’t a race, so how the heck is that racist?’

                1. “bevis reminds me of those who when someone complains about someone saying ‘Hispanics are terrible’ and someone else says ‘that’s racist’ they say ‘hey, Hispanic isn’t a race, so how the heck is that racist?’”

                  Well I shouldn’t because I’ve never thought that or said that. You’re real good at presuming things about people you don’t know but not worth a damn about calling something racist and then coherently explaining why it’s racist.

                  I’d ask again but I’d be wasting my time. All of y’all are like “it’s racist because we say so”. Or “it’s racist because it’s Trump”. No thought process involved at all.

                  1. Bevis, here is a thought process, from someone who thinks anti-racism is a social obligation.

                    It starts by noticing the, “ism,” on the end of the word racism. That suffix is fairly uniformly associated with real or aspirational systems of thought, and by extension with systems of social organization based on those thoughts: capitalism, communism, urbanism, Protestantism, industrialism, pastoralism, etc. By the pattern of their use, “ism” words teach us to look for intended social systems, not to delve into interior states of mind.

                    Thus, racism is not about anyone’s interior subjective state (neither observable nor provable), but is instead about outward (objectively observable) efforts to organize society in a particular way—in the case of racism, in a way based on racial or ethnic distinctions—or at least to mobilize for political purposes the many folks who want that kind of organization in society.

                    Note that if you understand racism in that way, there is no requirement that a racist be a person with any hatred for people of a particular race. The racist can simply be an opportunist, cynically willing to mobilize that kind of hatred in others, to achieve a political advantage by holding out the prospect of effort on behalf of racist systems of organization.

                    Thus, there are patterns of conduct which are objectively racist, and people who conduct themselves in those ways can be objectively identified as racists, whether or not they themselves feel racial hatred. For instance, Hillary Clinton, when she was campaigning for president, fell into racist advocacy from time to time, despite a consensus among close acquaintances that she had no interior racial animus at all.

                    Anti-racists believe we all have a social obligation not to fall into racist conduct, and it avails nobody to argue after racist actions or advocacy that they must be innocent because they don’t feel hatred. The defining issue is not the content of your heart or mind, but the social systems you attempt to build, or for which you advocate tolerance. And that is all publicly visible. Interior innocence of hatred in no way excuses overt racist conduct.

                    But that still does not quite answer the question of why someone might suppose Trump is acting as a racist when he repeatedly refers to the “Chinese flu.” The answer to that question is to be found in noticing a pattern of conduct. Trump, time and again— after noticing that something he said has actually offended people of particular racial or ethnic groups—makes a point of repeating that offense, over and over. And when he does that, he gets cheers from a political base plentifully supplied with people who are proudly and openly racist.

                    Trump is not unaware of the responses he provokes, or from whom they come. Thus, his pattern of repeatedly renewed offense shows Trump provokes those responses on purpose. We need not deduce what lies in Trump’s heart. He is a politician deliberately tailoring his public utterances to encourage racists to support him—by showing, at the very least, that he scorns any public norm to avoid giving racial offense.

                    That is objectively racist conduct, regardless of whether or not Trump feels racial hatred. Because Trump is so insistent and so flagrant, the judgment that Trump is a racist—and intends to be seen as one, at least by other racists—is not a close call.

                    1. lathrop, save the ‘Thought Police Wannbe’ crap for afterward.

                      The debate is a complete waste of time, and a distraction. The focus now must be mitigation, containment, and treatment of people afflicted with this virus. Full stop.

                      The health and safety of Americans is the primary function of our government. All else is superfluous in the face of a national emergency. Period.

                    2. Trump, time and again— after noticing that something he said has actually offended people of particular racial or ethnic groups—makes a point of repeating that offense, over and over.

                      Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth :

                      1. Trump says X
                      2. his political enemies say “You can’t say X – it’s racist / sexist / anti- Buddhist / anti – vegan / anti muskrat-ist / whateverist !” – even if they’ve been saying it themselves 5 seconds ago
                      3. so as to be able to accuse him of racism / sexism / anti muskrat-ism; and in the (forlorn) hope of getting him to back down, so that they can then pile on with “Toldya ! Even Trump accepts it’s anti muskrat-ist ! Gotcha ! Anti muskrat-ist ! Resign !”
                      3. Trump makes a note to say X as often as possible, so that nobody could possibly imagine that he’s backing down
                      4. So he repeats X interminably, and normal people say “The economy’s being closed down, and grandpa may not be with us next week, and these jerks want to talk about whether it’s racist to call a disease originating in China, Chinese”
                      5. Trump nets another 250,000 exasperated middle of the road voters

                      Rinse and repeat.

                    3. Telling both of you above are giving agency those who react to Trump but not to Trump himself, nor to all whose who fall in line behind his behavior.

                      Not hard to see where that kind of standard leads.

                    4. Sarcastr0, you miss the point. There is a time and place to have the debate you are talking about. Now is not the time.

                      Plenty of time to do that after the emergency has passed. And it will pass. In the meantime, the focus must be the health and safety of all Americans, regardless of politics or personal views.

                      From me to you and bernard11 (sincerely): Be safe, be healthy.

                    5. Telling both of you above are giving agency those who react to Trump but not to Trump himself, nor to all whose who fall in line behind his behavior.

                      Whyever would you imagine that Trump’s counterpunching signals a lack of agency ?

                      It’s OK, I know 🙂

                      It’s just something oblique and gnomic to say, in the absence of anything actually to the point.

                    6. Trump doesn’t get to have everyone turn a blind eye to his antics because this isn’t the time or place. That’s another recipe whose results are easy to see.

                      Language matters. Trump is making choices that are harmful, and I still care about that.

                    7. No, Lee Moore, it wasn’t just something to say. We don’t let children hit back, and yet you’re totally cool with Trump doing so. Your standards are rock bottom, though for him only. That’s not a good look.

                    8. “By the pattern of their use, “ism” words teach us to look for intended social systems, not to delve into interior states of mind.”

                      So intent can be considered independently of states of mind?

                      “We need not deduce what lies in Trump’s heart. He is a politician deliberately tailoring” yada yada

                      We don’t know what’s in his heart except that his behavior is deliberate?

                    9. sarcastro : We don’t let children hit back, and yet you’re totally cool with Trump doing so. Your standards are rock bottom, though for him only.

                      My “rock bottom” standards apply to everyone. If you are attacked, you may counter in kind.

                      Your other cheek turning approach is wittily lampooned here :

                      Cet animal est tres mechant; Quand on l’attaque il se defend.

                      It’s also insincere – “Ed, don’t be a hack” is not the mark of a cheek turning chatbot.

                    10. The law does not recognize a right to ‘respond in kind’ for a reason. Eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.

                      This is not some newfangled morality.

          3. And I thought Trump was really happy with the Chinese effort. Here’s a tweet:

            “China has been working very hard to contain the Coronavirus,” Trump tweeted Jan. 24. “The United States greatly appreciates their efforts and transparency. It will all work out well. In particular, on behalf of the American People, I want to thank President Xi!”

            This while he was denying any problem here and not listening to his advisers on the matter.

          4. bevis the lumberjack : “The motive for his effort is most likely a typically ham-handed Trump attempt to offset the attempt by the Chinese government to blame someone other than themselves for this”

            Two points about this : First, we see the the typical effort of a Trump supporter to downplay the man’s behavior. Thus “ham-handed” as opposed to loathsome boorish. Second, didn’t China’s attempts to blame others follow attempts by people like Senator Cotton, Steve Bannon, and Medal of Freedom-winner Rush Limbaugh to blame the virus on commie bio-weapons research? Personally, I find both lies repellent – the meme peddled by the Right and the Chinese reaction. But even if your excuse for Trump is correct, the best response to a childish squabble isn’t to double-down on the childishness, “ham-handed” or otherwise. Note: This is particularly true in the middle of a world-wild calamity.

            But is your excuse right? Almost certainly not. You’d do much better to consider why sleaze like Bannon, Limbaugh. and Cotton were trying to sell tin-foil-hat garbage about the virus to their dupe base, and then ascribe the same motive to Trump. Isn’t that more likely?

            And motive matters. This is your entire argument : Changing the name of Coronavirus to China Virus isn’t necessary racist, or xenophobic, or jingoistic, or crude pandering, or painfully sleazy. And you’re one hundred percent right; it isn’t necessarily any of those things. But it might well be, either one or a combination of those things; you need to look at Trump’s motives.

            This is something you, bevis, refuse to honestly do….

      3. Explain to me why Trump crossed out “Corona virus” in his prepared remarks and replaced it with “Chinese virus”.

        https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/photo-trump-remarks-shows-corona-crossed-out-replaced-chinese-virus-n1164111

        1. Yup.

          He’s involved in a trade (and in other senses) war with China, so the *fact that he goes out of his way to refer to it as the ‘Chinese’ virus* speaks volumes to all those who aren’t being context deaf.

          Maybe this can help those on the ‘conservative’ side see this: what if the first (of many from varied places!) case of a virus in the US happened to have been transmitted at CPAC. If a Democrat President insisted on referring to the virus as ‘the Conservative Virus’ wouldn’t that be a tell of something fishy on their part?

          1. Horrible analogy. It would be called the DC virus or the Maryland virus or whatever. Which would be perfectly constant with precedent.

            1. That’s amazingly pedantic (according to your pedantic logic it could be called ‘National Harbor virus). For example, Ebola is a river, Zika is a forest. Have you ever heard of Legionairre’s disease?

          2. Ever hear of “Legionnaires Disease”?

            It’s named after the outbreak where it was first discovered — the 1976 convention of the American Legion.

      4. You can’t just call it the “Coronavirus” because it’s not descriptive enough – there are lots of Coronaviruses.

        Of course you can call it the Coronavirus. This isn’t an epidemiology seminar. Everyone will know exactly what you are talking about. And are you seriously claiming that Trump is trying hard to be precise in his language? He called it that before decided to shift gears from “it’s harmless” to “it’s bad, but not my fault, and I am fighting heroically.”

    3. Its proper names is SARS-CoV-2.

    4. “Suppose during the height of the Swine Flu pandemic some other country’s government started a systematic campaign to re-name it the “American Flu”?”

      In this hypothetical situation, are we assuming that American government was, shall we say, less than fully helpful when it came to containing the initial outbreak, and that other countries consequently weren’t so worried about hurting American sensibilities?

    5. The big problem with your incorrect bunch of BS is that everybody WAS referring to it as the Wuhan virus/flu/pneumonia/etc in the early days. THEN the commie media decided to change the naming convention.

      And naming illnesses after where they come from is common practice.

      The fact is if the USA bred a super flu here, the media would have NO problem calling it the “Great American Flu” or “Chicago Flu” if it started there or some such nonsense… Nor should they. It’s NORMAL to do so. This is pure leftist mind control BS trying to control the narrative through the control of language.

      FINALLY, if anybody wants to rib the Chicoms a bit over this… Why shouldn’t they??? They lied, botched shit, and have cost what may end up being 10s or 100s of thousands of lives, IF WE’RE LUCKY. Maybe millions will die because of their lies and incompetence. So fuck ’em. I don’t mind Chinese people, but their brutal communist dictatorship can SUCK MY BALLS.

      1. You’re just straight-up wrong about what everyone was refering to it as. You may have had some outliers, but the consensus is as it has become.

        Moreover, going back to ‘the early days’ is still a telling choice.

        Then you go off into counterfactual land, always a sign you’re not really arguing facts, but some narrative that validates some feeling of yours. In this case, nationalistic victimization.

        And then you start whining about Chicoms. Again, nationalist wankery.

        1. Wait Sarcastr0….The NYT, WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC all have archived articles with ‘Wuhan coronavirus’ in the article title. That is easily verifiable with google searches.

          I see the use of ‘Wuhan coronavirus’ as verbal shorthand that the average person will remember more easily than SARS-CoV-2, or CoVid-19. I think saying ‘Chinese virus’ is just dopey. Not racist, but totally dopey.

          The semantic debate does not excuse or in any way diminish the actual actions by the Chinese government, which has directly lead us to where we are today. There will be plenty of time to address that afterwards as well. And it will certainly be addressed.

          1. “China has been working very hard to contain the Coronavirus,” Trump tweeted Jan. 24. “The United States greatly appreciates their efforts and transparency. It will all work out well. In particular, on behalf of the American People, I want to thank President Xi!”

            Asshole.

            1. bernard said more than I could. Pithily done.

            2. POTUS Trump has publicly stated he said that to not antagonize the Chinese prior to our CDC personnel accompanying WHO staff to look at Chinese data in February. Up to that point, we had no access. Also remember, the first time WHO staff went there, the CDC was quite deliberately not included in January. What, talk shit to the people who are going to grudgingly share their data with you? Yeah, winning strategy…Not. We saw the data. The tone and tenor of POTUS Trump’s communication to China has changed in the last 60 days. Not hard to imagine why.

              The actions of the Chinese government to hide and obfuscate the nature of the Wuhan coronavirus have lead to the deaths of Americans. That fact is no small matter. We’ll deal with the implications of that at a later time, bernard11. Rest assured, it will not go unaddressed.

              The semantic debate is a complete waste of time. The focus must be the mitigation, containment and treatment of those afflicted with the Wuhan coronavirus. Period.

              1. Your but-for cause is not proven at all. That fact is no small matter.

              2. Why do you excoriate the Chinese for ‘hiding and obfuscating’ with respect to the virus but excuse Trump’s conduct in that regard?

                Other than the bigotry that inclines you to choose “Wuhan Coronavirus?”

                Carry on, clingers. But only so far and so long as better people permit.

        2. Nature, in late January:

          https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00153-x

          Also, EVERYBODY ELSE. That WAS the default name, until leftist twists decided it was racist, probably because the Chinese started bitching about it… And leftists DO love the Chinese.

          You think it’s dopey to call ChiComs ChiComs??? Is that why you’re carrying their water for them??? They’re Chinese… And they’re Communists… When did it become a bad thing for an American to rip on a communist dictatorship???

          Damn right I’m nationalistic, because the nation my ancestors built is the best nation in the history of the world! Why wouldn’t I be proud of my nation, and dislike despotic asshole nations??? The very fact that you use the word nationalist like it’s an automatic dirty word or an insult says EVERYTHING about how brainwashed you are. Fucking NPC.

          One of my greatest hopes for the 21st century is that the Chinese people overthrow their tyrannical government and gain freedom for themselves and their progeny.

  9. So it’s not really racist, but a handful of people who are racist use it to excuse their racism, and Trump’s an asshole (he is) so close enough.

    You could say corvid, but that’s not the virus. It’s easy to say Coronavirus, but there are lots of those so it’s not really descriptive of this one.

    Racist? Kung Flu – that’s racist. But not Wuhan or Chinese Coronavirus.

    1. People use the name Chinese Corona Virus or Wuhan Corona virus as an excuse to be racist ? Or do they use the fact of where the Virus originates to be racist ? Because if it is the latter the same number of racist incidents will occur regardless of what you call the virus.

      1. Billy Bob Turnipseed contemplated his options. He wanted to commit a hate crime, but against whom?

        There was a Chinese guy nearby – didn’t that superflu come from Asia?

        No, it’s just a Coronavirus, reflected Turnipseed. It’s not an Asia-specific disease.

        So it’s perfectly safe to beat up the Chinese guy, Turnipseed concluded.

    2. Come on, bevis.

      Anyone who hear the terms coronavirus or covid-19 knows what is being referred to. The public is not a bunch of biologists who make these distinctions between the virus and the disease and so on.

      That’s a terrible rationalization.

  10. It would help if you actually linked the USCCR statement in the post. In the meantime, here’s a link for people who scroll through the comments this far:

    https://www.usccr.gov/press/2020/03-20-Racism-and-Coronavirus-Stmt.pdf

  11. “More serious is the case of the New York teenager who kicked an Asian-American man in the back, knocking him to the ground. Surely that is (and should be) a matter for the police. Fortunately, there is nothing to show this thuggish behavior represents a wave of racial violence.”

    Uh, if he attacked this man *because* he was motivated by the idea that people ‘like’ the man had ’caused’ the virus *because* of the use of the term then this is an amazingly blase dismissal of criticism of the use of that term.

    Perhaps the defining characteristic of human beings is their symbol using. The idea that words are ‘just’ words and therefore never to be condemned is uncommonly silly; few are the actions taken by human beings that are not motivated by words/ideas.

    1. So should all “mean” words be illegal? Throw people in prison for saying anything that offends anybody???

      I’m offended by lots of words people use… Like when Bernie Sanders talks about how murderous communist dictators did “good stuff too,” so I say we throw Bernie in prison for offending me!!!

      Intelligent people have had this discussion before. Thought police are a BAD idea. Read more and maybe you can pull your head out of your ass.

  12. Corona virus has appeared on cans and bottles of Lysol for decades. How does one best characterize the current corona virus (the “cold” virus) from all the others? How can anyone honestly believe that saying “the virus from China” is racist?!

    Are we discriminating against indigenous arctic populations by seasonally using the term “cold”? Am I being racist when I speak of the “damned Chinese bugs” in my garden?

    Is there a penalty for my use of racist speech? Am I not free to call a spade a spade? Or has someone limited my right to speak as racist-ly as I desire?

    1. The government should of course not punish you for racist terms you may want to use. But don’t complain if others say you’re a racist jerk for using those terms.

      1. The problem is that people keep changing the goal posts… And it’s got to the point of insanity nowadays.

        It’s one thing to walk up to some Chinese guy and call him a “Slant eyed, souless, godless, heathen chink.” That’s pretty racist, and also pretty mean spirited.

        But it’s not racist to use normal nomenclature for naming a virus. It’s this redefining of speech, a la George Orwell, that is so terrifying. EVERYTHING that some leftist tool disagrees with nowadays is either racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, or some other similar nonsense.

        They do this so as to make it impossible to have a rational discussion about anything by shutting it down immediately with these claims. That is BS.

        How can you have a rational debate about saaay the differences in male/female achievement in the workplace if it is “sexist” to cite psychological/scientific studies that consistently show differences between the sexes, which would logically lead to the noted differences in outcomes? You can’t have a rational discussion on such subjects without said information, WHICH IS THE ENTIRE REASON THE LEFT FORBIDS IT.

        1. Lots of people don’t have a trouble with saying things that are racist, even with shifting standards.

          But you find it bewildering.

          Almost as though you’re just not motivated to care.

          Huh. What does that say about you?

          1. God, you really are an NPC.

            Look, I’m not going to take some phrase that has a perfectly well defined, NON racist/sexist meaning, and all of a sudden cease using it because some idiot leftist decides they don’t like it. They can suck my white, heterosexual, male ball sack.

            I still use the phrase mankind… Because there is NOTHING sexist about the phrase. It has been the phrase to describe ALL people of ALL sexes going back for centuries. People literally made up humankind, for no reason, just to fuck with people and control the language. People are trying to remove gendering from Spanish and Italian just because they’re fucking insane! Fuck those people.

            I’m NOT playing that game. That is literally straight out of 1984. Have you ever read that book in it’s entirety? I have. It’s terrifying how much of the modern leftist playbook was taken straight out of it.

            You’re the exact weak, spineless, mindless person that it takes to build a system of total control. You don’t have the balls to question them just arbitrarily changing acceptable words from one day to the next, not realizing they’re literally constricting the very ability to think or express certain ideas while doing so. People like you will be responsible for the death of freedom.

            1. I asked this before, but let’s try again :

              The first cases of Swine Flu were in the U.S. and Swine Flu was how it became known. Suppose months later, when the world-wide pandemic was at its height, someone – say the Communist Party in China – began loudly demanding it be renamed the American Flu. And that call was pick-ed up by the Party’s pet media, then echoed by all its loyal apparatchiks & toadies. Would you see that as just changing its name to reflect the virus’s origin? Purely innocent, right? No sordid motives?

              And there would be some people in China who would object to this propaganda campaign, saying it was completely inappropriate during a world-wide health disaster. What would you think of them?

              Or let’s try another perspective : Say you’re Chinese. Which side would you be on? I’m just guessing, but I bet you’d be pumping your fist and shorting “American Flu” at the top of your lungs. You seem to have the personality type that enjoys being used by scum politicians…..

              1. Your whole setup is wrong… Because it would be like as if people called it the American Flu first, and then gave it a scientific name, and pushed another “popular name” afterwards.

                You can’t erase my memories of reading articles in December discussing the Wuhan virus.

  13. And still, no one is apologizing to chickens and pigs for the names “Bird Flu” and “Swine Flu”.

  14. ‘Wuhan virus’ is better than a scientific name for a simple reason, historical rememberability.

    Imagine hurricane Katrina was named H20050823-A1 instead. Would that scientific name bring back the same flood of memories as ‘Katrina’?

    In 20 years if you mention Covid-19 most people won’t know what you’re talking about. You say Wuhan virus and everybody that went through it will know what you’re talking about.

    1. historical rememberability

      Like H1N1?

      1. Precisely. What’s more memorable, H1N1 or swine flu?

        1. What does everyone call it? Not Swine Flu!

          I couldn’t have told you which animal went with which year’s flu.

          1. Perhaps you should read what the CDC calls it.
            https://www.cdc.gov/flu/swineflu/index.htm

            1. He just self owns himself EVERY TIME. LOL

              1. Uh, vek, that’s not about H1N1.

                Maybe try clicking on the link.

                1. Maybe you should try clicking and that link, and reading:
                  “The main swine influenza viruses circulating in U.S. pigs in recent years have been, swine triple reassortant (tr) H1N1 influenza virus,”

                  To recap; It IS about H1N1, and it is called, first and foremost, “Swine flu”, by none other than the CDC.

                  Don’t take others for idiots, please.

          2. “What does everyone call it? Not Swine Flu! ”

            The opening sentence of the wikipedia article is:

            “The 2009 flu pandemic or swine flu was an influenza pandemic that lasted from January 2009 to August 2010, and the second of the two pandemics involving H1N1 influenza virus (the first being the 1918–1920 Spanish flu pandemic), albeit a new strain.”

            Most of the audience you are addressing was alive in 2009 and knows this first hand.

            (For goodness sake, people. A historic epidemic is upon us, and people are arguing “It’s soda!”, “No. it’s pop!”, “No, it’s a fizzy!”)

  15. You need to get a life if you think its racist to call the virus the “china virus “or the “chinese virus”.

    long past time to quit being obsessed with non-existent racism.

    1. Guys like you would help us move past racism by stopping being bigots. You can try to change now, or your betters will await your replacement in the natural course. Either way suits me, clinger.

  16. It’s sad to see CNN, of all people, echoing right-wing clinger talking points by quoting some random dude named “Dr. Giorgio Palù, the former president of the European and Italian Society for Virology and a professor of virology and microbiology of the University of Padova.”

    This egghead “says the Italian government lagged at first. It was “lazy in the beginning… too much politics in Italy.”

    “”There was a proposal to isolate people coming from the epicenter, coming from China,” he said. “Then it became seen as racist, but they were people coming from the outbreak.” That, he said, led to the current devastating situation.”

    https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/18/europe/italy-coronavirus-lockdown-intl/

    It’s too bad that CNN is giving a platform to racism deniers during the #Trumpvirus.

    1. I love how fast the leftwing media went from “It’s racist to bad travel from China!” to “Trump isn’t being enough of a Nazi in his response!”

      It’s hilarious. The scary thing is that most people are so dumb they’ve already forgot that the media was shilling for Chinese travelers, and calling it the Wuhan virus themselves. It really shows you that memory holing stuff will actually work on most fools.

  17. And the angel broke the seal, and Pestilence did ride forth and devastate the earth, but the people of the Internet heeded it not, because of the strife amongst them concerning how to describe the pestilence. And because of the strife among them over the correct words, they cared not that the earth was devastated.

    1. Yeah, if only this Internet message board turned our discussions to other things we’d solve this in a moment!

  18. It is extremely important for people to remember that this virus came from China, not because it has any meaning itself, but because of how China first handled the situation by lying. They thought this was going to be limited to China, so they took the PR angle to protect the economy and not the public health angle to protect the world. Now we’re dealing with global economic risks that far outweigh the danger of the virus itself and we should not forget who is responsible for this. Had the Chinese solicited certain facts months in advance, such as the virus being transmissible through human contact, we all could have developed better countermeasures. The WHO was still repeating information from China mid-January that was patently false and not supported by the actual medical research. The doctors who tried to blow the whistle were arrested. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Chinese government played a hand in Dr. Li’s death as well. I don’t advocate revenge, but blood is on Chinese hands and their shitty practices have to be called out for what they are sooner or later.

    And why did this all start? Because of bat soup, pangolins, or whatever the hell those people were eating and handling in those filthy third world markets. I seriously doubt proper hygiene was observed, never mind if such animals should be consumed to begin with.

Please to post comments