4 ms·

You don’t see a pattern? We went from questionable analysis of COVID cases by actual doctors last week, over to 5G coronavirus conspiracy theories this week. T

You don’t see a pattern? We went from questionable analysis of COVID cases by actual doctors last week, over to 5G coronavirus conspiracy theories this week. This is the proverbial slippery slope, albeit a bit anachronistic as the more egregious case is the latter (5G conspiracy), so the escalation is unable to be painted by the sequence. I’d also ask you consider that your line of thinking as a framework has been misused throughout history, often in the context of censorship. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair Of course, the obvious retort is that these people aren’t Galileo, but I’m arguing that this framework is bad on a societal level.

pacala 7y ago
The '5G coronavirus conspiracy theory' is a convenient broad brush to paint any dissident thought as inane, even if 99% people entertaining dissident thoughts are just as appalled as anyone at the 5G theory.
- throwaway2048 7y ago
  are 99% of people entertaining dissident thoughts getting banned from youtube?
  - pacala 7y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23063265 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23063265 > We have a myriad of evidence that societies that suppress the truth for "the public good" don't go in a desirable direction or end well. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23063531 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23063531 > Are you saying that the truth is "Covid-19 is caused by 5-g towers"?
    - joshuamorton 7y ago
      I'm not sure why you're quoting me here. My argument is that the assumption that societies which suppress truth end badly may be valid, but "covid-19 5g lizard people" is so far outside the realm of what is possibly true that it isn't relevant to such arguments. You can socially suppress the obviously wrong without any danger. The marketplace of ideas doesn't need to make an effort to hold on to cranks.
      - pacala 7y ago
        The exchange reads like textbook example of broadbrushing. Somebody raised concerns about negative long term effects of censorship, your reply accused them personally of believing that 'Covid-19 is caused by 5-g towers'. They never even mentioned Covid19 or 5G. > Are you saying that the truth is "Covid-19 is caused by 5-g towers"? vs. a reformulation, to capture your stated intent: > Are you saying that we should allow the circulation of obviously wrong ideas like "Covid-19 is caused by 5-g towers"? Just because some of the 'Covid19 is caused by 5G towers' crowd also believes censorship is a bad idea, we can't infer that everyone / a majority of people that believe censorship is a bad idea are also believing 'Covid19 is caused by 5G towers'. Alas, our brains are very prone to this kind of elementary logic error, which makes the broadbrushing mechanism so powerful.
        joshuamorton 7y ago
        > Just because some of the 'Covid19 is caused by 5G towers' crowd also believes censorship is a bad idea, we can't infer that everyone / a majority of people that believe censorship is a bad idea are also believing 'Covid19 is caused by 5G towers'. I, personally, don't see how this leap in logic is implied, and it certainly wasn't intended. Thanks for the explanation, unfortunately I can't change the original post. Hopefully it's clear that that wasn't my intent. To be a bit defensive though: > your reply accused them personally of believing that 'Covid-19 is caused by 5-g towers'. They never even mentioned Covid19 or 5G. No, I didn't. I asked them a very pointed question that forces them to either take on a ridiculous position or to confront a flaw in their line of reasoning. I find this to be a valid strategy when discussing with people. I certainly don't believe that the person I responded to thinks 5g causes Covid. I think basically no one believes that. Hence why I thought that the question would be interpreted as I intended: that there's a difference between censoring "truth" and "untruth". This was apparently missed.
        pacala 7y ago
        Fair enough. Thanks for taking the time to reflect and explain!

pacala 7y ago

The '5G coronavirus conspiracy theory' is a convenient broad brush to paint any dissident thought as inane, even if 99% people entertaining dissident thoughts are just as appalled as anyone at the 5G theory.

throwaway2048 7y ago
are 99% of people entertaining dissident thoughts getting banned from youtube?
- pacala 7y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23063265 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23063265 > We have a myriad of evidence that societies that suppress the truth for "the public good" don't go in a desirable direction or end well. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23063531 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23063531 > Are you saying that the truth is "Covid-19 is caused by 5-g towers"?
  - joshuamorton 7y ago
    I'm not sure why you're quoting me here. My argument is that the assumption that societies which suppress truth end badly may be valid, but "covid-19 5g lizard people" is so far outside the realm of what is possibly true that it isn't relevant to such arguments. You can socially suppress the obviously wrong without any danger. The marketplace of ideas doesn't need to make an effort to hold on to cranks.
    - pacala 7y ago
      The exchange reads like textbook example of broadbrushing. Somebody raised concerns about negative long term effects of censorship, your reply accused them personally of believing that 'Covid-19 is caused by 5-g towers'. They never even mentioned Covid19 or 5G. > Are you saying that the truth is "Covid-19 is caused by 5-g towers"? vs. a reformulation, to capture your stated intent: > Are you saying that we should allow the circulation of obviously wrong ideas like "Covid-19 is caused by 5-g towers"? Just because some of the 'Covid19 is caused by 5G towers' crowd also believes censorship is a bad idea, we can't infer that everyone / a majority of people that believe censorship is a bad idea are also believing 'Covid19 is caused by 5G towers'. Alas, our brains are very prone to this kind of elementary logic error, which makes the broadbrushing mechanism so powerful.
      - joshuamorton 7y ago
        > Just because some of the 'Covid19 is caused by 5G towers' crowd also believes censorship is a bad idea, we can't infer that everyone / a majority of people that believe censorship is a bad idea are also believing 'Covid19 is caused by 5G towers'. I, personally, don't see how this leap in logic is implied, and it certainly wasn't intended. Thanks for the explanation, unfortunately I can't change the original post. Hopefully it's clear that that wasn't my intent. To be a bit defensive though: > your reply accused them personally of believing that 'Covid-19 is caused by 5-g towers'. They never even mentioned Covid19 or 5G. No, I didn't. I asked them a very pointed question that forces them to either take on a ridiculous position or to confront a flaw in their line of reasoning. I find this to be a valid strategy when discussing with people. I certainly don't believe that the person I responded to thinks 5g causes Covid. I think basically no one believes that. Hence why I thought that the question would be interpreted as I intended: that there's a difference between censoring "truth" and "untruth". This was apparently missed.
        pacala 7y ago
        Fair enough. Thanks for taking the time to reflect and explain!