1. Gain of function research primarily uses samples collected from nature, and seeks to stimulate their evolution in as natural a way as possible to learn how viruses evolve in nature. If such viruses were to escape the lab, they would appear "natural"
2. It's not xenophobic for people from the US to suggest the possibility of a lab leak, because the US was itself funding gain of function research on novel coronaviruses in the Wuhan BSL4 lab
3. Lab leaks happen more often than most people realize[1]
[1]https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/3/20/18260669/deadly...
While racism and xenophobia is real, it has been and is being used very effectively, especially by China but others too, to deflect/blunt genuine criticisms and claims.
Just as an amusing example, we talk openly about UK variant, SA variant, Brazil variant - but never talk about original as Wuhan variant - it is simply coronavirus.
We shouldn't be using that terminology for variants either. While I understand that people largely use location names for the sake of convenience, it really doesn't feel good to be a person from one of those locations.
It's like "censorship is OK if a private company does it". This makes a bit of sense if you're attacking a Libertarian, but for left wingers to earnestly think that private companies should have the right to shut down discussion they don't like is very odd.
Sometimes I worry that large portions of online debate has been overrun by people making claims they don't really believe because they're a bad slippery slope take on the views of the people they disagree with; and sometimes people have even started to buy the deliberately bad arguments their side has created.
How should one tell the difference?
> think that private companies should have the right to shut down discussion they don't like
That's a perverse take on supporting 1st amendment rights. Do you believe that right-wingers in turn believe that private companies should be forced to serve users and content they don't want to?