4 ms·

It's because normal people are not equipped to deal with the cherrypicking and manipulative narrative that these kinds of "evidence" papers show. Take the 5G co

It's because normal people are not equipped to deal with the cherrypicking and manipulative narrative that these kinds of "evidence" papers show. Take the 5G conspiracy for example, 100+ cell phone towers attacked, and workers setting up attacked as well. Lots of testable assertions made, none backed up with any kind of evidence.

emsy 6y ago
But this could very well be a result of priming people for a consensus (or its opposition) I’m too young to judge but it wasn’t always like this or was it?
- chrismcb 6y ago
  Galileo says, no it wasn't always like this.
- johnny22 6y ago
  depends on what you mean by always, but looking back at how this was handled re: tobacco, leaded gasoline, and climate change (pre 2000) should give you some idea. As far as I personally can see, it's been like this for a large portion of the 1900s at least.
- auslegung 6y ago
  Yes, things have always been this way and if you really want to see just how long, look at speeches and other “news” from Ancient Greece. The significant difference today is how quickly and widely falsehoods can be distributed and redistributed, and how many different sources this can happen to. Pre Internet, if I started telling my friends about this thing called QAnon, how far and how quickly could it really spread? Not far and not quickly. Today however it can spread across the world in a day and be picked up by every major news outlet. It’s disturbing, and we should all be very concerned.
  - jakeogh 6y ago
    Curious people can read the posts directly at qmap dot pub.
droopyEyelids 6y ago
I agree normal people aren't well equipped. But when you phrase it that way, you make it sounds like the professionals are well equipped. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRa6t_e7dgI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRa6t_e7dgI
- autokad 6y ago
  I remember when I saw a headline that said gene researchers say there is no way the virus was made in a lab. I'm like oh this should be interesting, they must have done some sort of dating on the mutations. maybe there are markings biologists can look at that are telling signs of natural vs man-made. or compared genomes to ... And there 100% undeniable argument: the virus effects bats and people researching bio weapons would -only- look at virus that effects humans. I'm like really? are you really that narrow minded and completely devoid of imagination? you think labs are only for making bio-weapons? you think someone making a bio-weapon would limit themselves to just virus that effects humans? that's your full proof thinking? I'm like wow. wow.
  - voldacar 6y ago
    >you really that narrow minded and completely devoid of imagination? you think labs are only for making bio-weapons? It wouldn't even have to be bio-weapon related. It could just be a genetically altered virus (routine in gain of function research) that escaped a lab due to an accident or carelessness, and was later covered up with the whole wet market story. People who disdain the idea that the virus could be man made are almost always attacking the hypothesis of a deliberate bio-weapon release, which is such a straw man.
    - droopyEyelids 6y ago
      It's the whole "don't attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity" thing... but I always like to add, "and don't attribute to stupidity what can be explained by the fundamental complexity of life"
mtgp1000 6y ago
>It's because normal people are not equipped to deal with the cherrypicking and manipulative narrative that these kinds of "evidence" papers show I'm pretty sure this is the exact attitude that the poster was describing. You're just blanket dismissing out of mainstream science with accusations of bad faith.
akimball 6y ago
You argument appears to be that I should focus on a strawman instead of evaluating the evidence.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
etangent 6y ago
I believe this is "bbut what if baad people cite my article?" defense for what is essentially a form of authoritarian groupthink.

emsy 6y ago

But this could very well be a result of priming people for a consensus (or its opposition) I’m too young to judge but it wasn’t always like this or was it?

chrismcb 6y ago
Galileo says, no it wasn't always like this.
johnny22 6y ago
depends on what you mean by always, but looking back at how this was handled re: tobacco, leaded gasoline, and climate change (pre 2000) should give you some idea. As far as I personally can see, it's been like this for a large portion of the 1900s at least.
auslegung 6y ago
Yes, things have always been this way and if you really want to see just how long, look at speeches and other “news” from Ancient Greece. The significant difference today is how quickly and widely falsehoods can be distributed and redistributed, and how many different sources this can happen to. Pre Internet, if I started telling my friends about this thing called QAnon, how far and how quickly could it really spread? Not far and not quickly. Today however it can spread across the world in a day and be picked up by every major news outlet. It’s disturbing, and we should all be very concerned.
- jakeogh 6y ago
  Curious people can read the posts directly at qmap dot pub.

droopyEyelids 6y ago

I agree normal people aren't well equipped. But when you phrase it that way, you make it sounds like the professionals are well equipped. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRa6t_e7dgI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRa6t_e7dgI

autokad 6y ago
I remember when I saw a headline that said gene researchers say there is no way the virus was made in a lab. I'm like oh this should be interesting, they must have done some sort of dating on the mutations. maybe there are markings biologists can look at that are telling signs of natural vs man-made. or compared genomes to ... And there 100% undeniable argument: the virus effects bats and people researching bio weapons would -only- look at virus that effects humans. I'm like really? are you really that narrow minded and completely devoid of imagination? you think labs are only for making bio-weapons? you think someone making a bio-weapon would limit themselves to just virus that effects humans? that's your full proof thinking? I'm like wow. wow.
- voldacar 6y ago
  >you really that narrow minded and completely devoid of imagination? you think labs are only for making bio-weapons? It wouldn't even have to be bio-weapon related. It could just be a genetically altered virus (routine in gain of function research) that escaped a lab due to an accident or carelessness, and was later covered up with the whole wet market story. People who disdain the idea that the virus could be man made are almost always attacking the hypothesis of a deliberate bio-weapon release, which is such a straw man.
  - droopyEyelids 6y ago
    It's the whole "don't attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity" thing... but I always like to add, "and don't attribute to stupidity what can be explained by the fundamental complexity of life"

mtgp1000 6y ago

>It's because normal people are not equipped to deal with the cherrypicking and manipulative narrative that these kinds of "evidence" papers show I'm pretty sure this is the exact attitude that the poster was describing. You're just blanket dismissing out of mainstream science with accusations of bad faith.

akimball 6y ago

You argument appears to be that I should focus on a strawman instead of evaluating the evidence.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

etangent 6y ago

I believe this is "bbut what if baad people cite my article?" defense for what is essentially a form of authoritarian groupthink.