Speaking out like that put his very life in danger; without exaggeration. Scientists who spoke about the lab leak possibility were receiving death threats at the time.
Also, a large part of his fan-base were (and still are) wholly convinced that the lab leak theory was 'racist', or some kind of Republican plot.
He spoke up anyway, and he did it so, so well. By making it funny he made it memorable, and easier to tolerate thinking of.
You can see Colbert begging him to stop, and John just keeps ramping it up. It's awesome.
> Speaking out like that put his very life in danger; without exaggeration. Scientists who spoke about the lab leak possibility were receiving death threats at the time
People get death threats online for almost anything you can think of. I wouldn't say that he was putting his life on the line. He was also exaggerating the evidence in ways that went beyond pure humor (the word "Coronavirus" is not actually in the name of the building). I'm not saying he was wrong, but I am saying he was not heroic.
Jon has described the actual backlash he received [0]; and while he didn't mention death threats, he did say the backlash was "“swift, immediate and quite loud".
He was accused of being "racist", and of "aligning himself with the alt-right". He got messages like: "Fuck you... I’m done with you... I will never forgive you, you have crossed an unforgivable line."
Jon said: "It was like I had put 'Hilary For Prison' on my forehead".
... And all he was saying was, 'this is a possibility, and we shouldn't pretend it isn't'.
Good for him, he's always seemed pretty reasonable. It's crazy that stating what he did was considered controversial and Colbert had to back pedal to toe the party line.
Hardly crazy, I remember that time. I remember the full court press of propaganda that was taking place on every ad supported media platform. I remember how Colbert torched whatever standing as a comedian he once had and became a mouth piece. I'll never forget it.
> Colbert had to back pedal to toe the party line.
Stewart referred to the party line as logic in that clip. The part where they should research it. So, not sure if you oppose investigating it (the "party line" as you call it), or if you think it's already been proven and doesn't need any more investigation, despite not a single US intelligence agency agreeing with that sentiment.
The problem is that there's no hard evidence to support what he's saying. It's just a bunch of circumstance that sounds damning at first, "oh a novel virus emerges near a lab that studies novel virus", but then you consider, maybe the lab studying these novel viruses was put in a location where novel viruses commonly occur.
There's no Center for Oceanic Studies in Nebraska, but there is a Center for Great Plains Studies.
I see this as peddling misinformation. He may be correct, but he doesn't have conclusive evidence and he's using humor to side-step the fact that he's presenting an opinion.
So, he then shouldn't even bring up the idea in a show dedicated to speculative talk about interesting or comedy-worthy subjects?
No TALK show host should mention anything that isn't 100% backed by evidence because he can't triple-reference an opinion he puts forth with correct academic citations? The humor mixed with opinion is exactly the point of shows like this, and it should be an obvious thing to anyone who hasn't let themselves become utterly humorous by having their specific prejudice poked.
What absurd nonsense. Misinformation is a word with a very slippery definition, but worst of all is seeing claims of it used as a bludgeon against anything that doesn't concretely toe some specific ideological inclination.
https://youtu.be/sSfejgwbDQ8?si=4XnKhOYu5mUiBZBs&t=172