4 ms·

The answer is simple. People have allowed themselves to become so divided that it is hard to find common ground. This had the effect of polarizing all discussio

The answer is simple. People have allowed themselves to become so divided that it is hard to find common ground. This had the effect of polarizing all discussion and information. We can't agree on anything or begin any kind of healing when we all believe our rivals are wrong about absolutely everything and our immediate reaction is denial. That is what happened here. We never had the chance to talk because we denied ourselves the opportunity through self-censorship, cheering on anger mobs, and begging our social nannys to protect us from the discourse.

shkkmo 5y ago
Perhaps in general, but in this specific case, when the confusion arose, this was not yet a partisan issue. What happened us that the initially nuanced criticism of some lab leak speculation had its nuance erased by increasingly sensational headlines and tweets. As this occured, lab leak speculation was repeatedly and increasingly conflated with theories that it was man made. See recent discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27307175 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27307175
- dcow 5y ago
  It doesn't answer the question though. The question becomes “how did we as humans become so insensitive to rhetorically sound discourse that we allowed ourselves to devolve into such a rut of confusion and disarray?”
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    I don't think confusion of facts due to poor transmission of information is particularly new. The factors that cause it shift with time but I think the clean transmission of information is the exception rather than the rule.
  - 542458 5y ago
    Except that it wasn’t rhetorically sound. When it was initially argued that it was a lab produced virus, there zero evidence and was purely used for political posturing. As such, the argument was rejected by many. I don’t run out and do significant new research every time somebody drags out something that I saw no reason to believe in the past - I would never get anything done if I did! “The boy who cried wolf” is a bit allegorical here. The other part of this is that the lab leak hypothesis has been used as a gateway by people peddling anti-Asian rhetoric, including that this was a bioweapon or evil plot to cripple America. As such, I tend to tune out of such discussions pretty fast. It’s like if somebody mentions judaism and bankers in the same sentence - I can normally just assume whatever comes next will be nonsense. There’s so much bullshit on the internet that paying attention to all of it would be crippling, and unfortunately the lab leak idea managed to become associated with that sort of vitriol early on. That said, even today I reject any definitive affirmative on the lab leak hypothesis. There’s nothing even vaguely approaching hard evidence, and the less dramatic explanation still seems to have very good scientific support. If/when somebody pulls out better evidence I’ll reconsider.
    - shkkmo 5y ago
      > When it was initially argued that it was a lab produced virus, there zero evidence and was purely used for political posturing. As such, the argument was rejected by many. This isn't how it actually happened. I've linked a good analysis of what did happen elsewhere in this thread. > the less dramatic explanation still seems to have very good scientific support Which explanation is that? AFAIK, We don't currently have any clear explanation of how the pandemic started. If it was a zoonotic origin we are still missing the details of how that happened.
    - cudgy 5y ago
      Zero evidence? The proximity of the Wuhan lab to the initial outbreak is certainly circumstantial evidence at a minimum. China’s delay in reporting the outbreak and the nature of the disease is also suspicious and supports the idea of a lab-leak coverup. This evidence is far more convincing than a hypothetical idea that the disease spontaneously evolved from some animal some other place.
      - justicezyx 5y ago
        > China’s delay in reporting the outbreak and the nature of the disease is also suspicious and supports the idea of a lab-leak coverup. China historically always cover up and delay any bad news. Even most of the random accidents are delayed for reporting, until the officials can come up with a complete and meaningful reports.
newacct583 5y ago
> People have allowed themselves to become so divided This is, well, bullshit. No, what happened is that one side of the divide decided to demand that something be discussed without evidence, and the other side... waited for evidence before discussing it. And now we can have the discussion, because we have some evidence to discuss. That's the system working, right? How would you prefer this have gone? People decide to discuss groundless conspiracies before anyone comes up with evidence to support them, just... out of politeness?
- batch12 5y ago
  No, what happened is one side tried to have a discussion about an idea without evidence and the other shut it down until the idea was theirs. I prefer a system where one can discuss an idea (right or wrong) without the "system" shutting it down. That's bullshit.
  - newacct583 5y ago
    > No, what happened is one side tried to have a discussion about an idea without evidence and the other shut it down Aren't we supposed to shut down arguments presented without evidence? Isn't that what "argument" means? Explain how you aren't just asking for license to be wrong without challenge here? I mean, when people (the WSJ, notably not the conspiracists) came out with real evidence, we listened! I'll fully admit, my priors were wrong. This isn't a total dingbat idea, it might have happened. But I think that now, based on better data. I didn't think that then, and nor should you have.
    - hulahoof 5y ago
      I think the suggestion is, when there is not great evidence either way we should not support or shutdown ideas within the realm of probability - let's be honest and simply say "we don't know".
    - batch12 5y ago
      To be challenged, you have to have discussion. What happened was the silencing of an unapproved idea. There was no intellectual process. What I see are two masses screaming regurgitated talking points at each other and refusing to actually engage in any kind of meaningful way. It is distopian and disturbing. I do not personally have any thought or idea about which covid origin theory is true. For me this isn't about the lab, but instead the thought police.

shkkmo 5y ago

Perhaps in general, but in this specific case, when the confusion arose, this was not yet a partisan issue. What happened us that the initially nuanced criticism of some lab leak speculation had its nuance erased by increasingly sensational headlines and tweets. As this occured, lab leak speculation was repeatedly and increasingly conflated with theories that it was man made. See recent discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27307175 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27307175

dcow 5y ago
It doesn't answer the question though. The question becomes “how did we as humans become so insensitive to rhetorically sound discourse that we allowed ourselves to devolve into such a rut of confusion and disarray?”
- shkkmo 5y ago
  I don't think confusion of facts due to poor transmission of information is particularly new. The factors that cause it shift with time but I think the clean transmission of information is the exception rather than the rule.
- 542458 5y ago
  Except that it wasn’t rhetorically sound. When it was initially argued that it was a lab produced virus, there zero evidence and was purely used for political posturing. As such, the argument was rejected by many. I don’t run out and do significant new research every time somebody drags out something that I saw no reason to believe in the past - I would never get anything done if I did! “The boy who cried wolf” is a bit allegorical here. The other part of this is that the lab leak hypothesis has been used as a gateway by people peddling anti-Asian rhetoric, including that this was a bioweapon or evil plot to cripple America. As such, I tend to tune out of such discussions pretty fast. It’s like if somebody mentions judaism and bankers in the same sentence - I can normally just assume whatever comes next will be nonsense. There’s so much bullshit on the internet that paying attention to all of it would be crippling, and unfortunately the lab leak idea managed to become associated with that sort of vitriol early on. That said, even today I reject any definitive affirmative on the lab leak hypothesis. There’s nothing even vaguely approaching hard evidence, and the less dramatic explanation still seems to have very good scientific support. If/when somebody pulls out better evidence I’ll reconsider.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    > When it was initially argued that it was a lab produced virus, there zero evidence and was purely used for political posturing. As such, the argument was rejected by many. This isn't how it actually happened. I've linked a good analysis of what did happen elsewhere in this thread. > the less dramatic explanation still seems to have very good scientific support Which explanation is that? AFAIK, We don't currently have any clear explanation of how the pandemic started. If it was a zoonotic origin we are still missing the details of how that happened.
  - cudgy 5y ago
    Zero evidence? The proximity of the Wuhan lab to the initial outbreak is certainly circumstantial evidence at a minimum. China’s delay in reporting the outbreak and the nature of the disease is also suspicious and supports the idea of a lab-leak coverup. This evidence is far more convincing than a hypothetical idea that the disease spontaneously evolved from some animal some other place.
    - justicezyx 5y ago
      > China’s delay in reporting the outbreak and the nature of the disease is also suspicious and supports the idea of a lab-leak coverup. China historically always cover up and delay any bad news. Even most of the random accidents are delayed for reporting, until the officials can come up with a complete and meaningful reports.

newacct583 5y ago

> People have allowed themselves to become so divided This is, well, bullshit. No, what happened is that one side of the divide decided to demand that something be discussed without evidence, and the other side... waited for evidence before discussing it. And now we can have the discussion, because we have some evidence to discuss. That's the system working, right? How would you prefer this have gone? People decide to discuss groundless conspiracies before anyone comes up with evidence to support them, just... out of politeness?

batch12 5y ago
No, what happened is one side tried to have a discussion about an idea without evidence and the other shut it down until the idea was theirs. I prefer a system where one can discuss an idea (right or wrong) without the "system" shutting it down. That's bullshit.
- newacct583 5y ago
  > No, what happened is one side tried to have a discussion about an idea without evidence and the other shut it down Aren't we supposed to shut down arguments presented without evidence? Isn't that what "argument" means? Explain how you aren't just asking for license to be wrong without challenge here? I mean, when people (the WSJ, notably not the conspiracists) came out with real evidence, we listened! I'll fully admit, my priors were wrong. This isn't a total dingbat idea, it might have happened. But I think that now, based on better data. I didn't think that then, and nor should you have.
  - hulahoof 5y ago
    I think the suggestion is, when there is not great evidence either way we should not support or shutdown ideas within the realm of probability - let's be honest and simply say "we don't know".
  - batch12 5y ago
    To be challenged, you have to have discussion. What happened was the silencing of an unapproved idea. There was no intellectual process. What I see are two masses screaming regurgitated talking points at each other and refusing to actually engage in any kind of meaningful way. It is distopian and disturbing. I do not personally have any thought or idea about which covid origin theory is true. For me this isn't about the lab, but instead the thought police.