12 ms·

Being an effectively racist talking point is independent of how plausible one believes the topic to be. I'd be at 3 on your scale, but as an independent matter

Being an effectively racist talking point is independent of how plausible one believes the topic to be. I'd be at 3 on your scale, but as an independent matter I worry about the combination of how non-actionable the idea is along with how effectively it supports racist rhetoric. Note that my wording was specific there. It's effective because it has a bunch of people talking about it. It supports racist rhetoric because it creates an environment in which people are comfortable making statements blaming China, and there are a lot of people who are sloppy about distinguishing between the government of China and Chinese people. Whether the theory "is" racist or not is the wrong question. The right question is whether discussion of it helps to normalize racist positions. That seems like a much easier matter to study - no need to divine anyone's private beliefs. And it's completely independent of any question of how the new coronavirus got into human spread. I think it's very important to separate these two topics, so that the far more important question of how much damage this is doing to Asian communities doesn't get buried in some completely unactionable nonsense about the virus's means of introduction to the human population.

silicon2401 5y ago
> Whether the theory "is" racist or not is the wrong question. The right question is whether discussion of it helps to normalize racist positions. This is incredibly problematic and anti-scientific sentiment. Science is about expanding knowledge. Whether covid came from China or Spain or Madagascar doesn't matter; we should determine where it came from and then see where that takes us. Racism and racist uses of fact and fiction are a separate, societal issue; tackle that separately.
- chowells 5y ago
  I can't agree that it's unscientific at all. There's a huge difference between doing science and constantly pushing public discussion of your unsupported hypothesis. Should there be people tracking the origin of the disease, how it got into the general population, and how to reduce similar incidents in the future? Yes, absolutely. That's doing science. But what, exactly, is scientific about spreading your hypothesis across popular media for public discussion when the entirety of your evidence is "there's no concrete evidence to the contrary"? This isn't how science is done. It's how propaganda is done. I am disturbed by the number of people here who fall for such propaganda so easily. Being a testable hypothesis does not make something intrinsically science. Actually doing science does. And science is not done by media talking heads selling you fear in order to increase their advertising income.
  - silicon2401 5y ago
    There are many things in science that didn't have concrete evidence to the contrary before they were researched; where do you think concrete evidence comes from if not starting to research? It's ironic that you criticize propaganda on one hand while suggesting that we just believe whatever we're told is true without question on the other hand. What is that if not propaganda?
ttt0 5y ago
Criticizing pretty much any non-Western country might "help to normalize racist positions".
TMWNN 5y ago
>Being an effectively racist talking point is independent of how plausible one believes the topic to be. I'd be at 3 on your scale, but as an independent matter I worry about the combination of how non-actionable the idea is along with how effectively it supports racist rhetoric. Truth is truth, regardless of whether it supports a viewpoint you decry. I presume you'd be on BART's side in this story. https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/07/09/bart-withholding-surveillance-videos-of-crime-to-avoid-stereotypes/ https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/07/09/bart-withholdin...
- chowells 5y ago
  Claiming it's true is a huge leap. What if it isn't? But more importantly, truth doesn't absolve you of your personal responsibility. You are responsible for your actions. This means paying attention to their results and changing your behaviors if you don't like what happens in response. Your intentions and beliefs are less important than your actions and their results. If the way you are expressing something has results you don't like, you should change the way you're expressing it. I'll stand by that assertion whether the thing you're saying is true or not. And let's be very clear here: 1) The lab leak hypothesis has no evidence. The best it has is a lack of concrete evidence to the contrary. 2) Resolving the question either direction will not change any actions you take in the future. 3) Media discussion of the hypothesis does not resolve it nor provide you with any reason to change your actions. What is the actual value in discussing the hypothesis as if it's a matter of public import? What public need is being addressed by a media circus? Are you happy with the results of the way the question is being treated in public? I'm not. So I'm advocating we change the discussion to reduce harm.
  - TMWNN 5y ago
    > Claiming it's true is a huge leap. What if it isn't? Examining the question to determine this wasn't allowed in the media during the past year, until very very recently. >And let's be very clear here: 1) The lab leak hypothesis has no evidence. The best it has is a lack of concrete evidence to the contrary. I don't disagree. I would argue, however, that there is more circumstantial evidence[1] for an origin for COVID19 from a Wuhan biolab than for purely natural animal-to-human transmission. >2) Resolving the question either direction will not change any actions you take in the future. Nonsense. Determining that, say, an accdiental leak from a Wuhan biolab caused the pandemic would affect * how and whether future gain-of-function research is done around the world * what punitive actions the world would demand from China * the credibility and legitimacy of the Chinese government within and outside its borders >3) Media discussion of the hypothesis does not resolve it nor provide you with any reason to change your actions. Why do you get to declare that this story, but not others, should not be discussed in public? You didn't answer my question regarding the 2017 news story I linked to. Did BART do the right thing by suppressing camera footage of crimes, and in how the transit agency justified doing so? [1] Circumstantial evidence is, contrary to what Hollywood has taught us, quite permissible in the court of law. Many cases, criminal and civil, are resolved entirely or largely based on circumstantial evidence.

silicon2401 5y ago

> Whether the theory "is" racist or not is the wrong question. The right question is whether discussion of it helps to normalize racist positions. This is incredibly problematic and anti-scientific sentiment. Science is about expanding knowledge. Whether covid came from China or Spain or Madagascar doesn't matter; we should determine where it came from and then see where that takes us. Racism and racist uses of fact and fiction are a separate, societal issue; tackle that separately.

chowells 5y ago
I can't agree that it's unscientific at all. There's a huge difference between doing science and constantly pushing public discussion of your unsupported hypothesis. Should there be people tracking the origin of the disease, how it got into the general population, and how to reduce similar incidents in the future? Yes, absolutely. That's doing science. But what, exactly, is scientific about spreading your hypothesis across popular media for public discussion when the entirety of your evidence is "there's no concrete evidence to the contrary"? This isn't how science is done. It's how propaganda is done. I am disturbed by the number of people here who fall for such propaganda so easily. Being a testable hypothesis does not make something intrinsically science. Actually doing science does. And science is not done by media talking heads selling you fear in order to increase their advertising income.
- silicon2401 5y ago
  There are many things in science that didn't have concrete evidence to the contrary before they were researched; where do you think concrete evidence comes from if not starting to research? It's ironic that you criticize propaganda on one hand while suggesting that we just believe whatever we're told is true without question on the other hand. What is that if not propaganda?

ttt0 5y ago

Criticizing pretty much any non-Western country might "help to normalize racist positions".

TMWNN 5y ago

>Being an effectively racist talking point is independent of how plausible one believes the topic to be. I'd be at 3 on your scale, but as an independent matter I worry about the combination of how non-actionable the idea is along with how effectively it supports racist rhetoric. Truth is truth, regardless of whether it supports a viewpoint you decry. I presume you'd be on BART's side in this story. https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/07/09/bart-withholding-surveillance-videos-of-crime-to-avoid-stereotypes/ https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/07/09/bart-withholdin...

chowells 5y ago
Claiming it's true is a huge leap. What if it isn't? But more importantly, truth doesn't absolve you of your personal responsibility. You are responsible for your actions. This means paying attention to their results and changing your behaviors if you don't like what happens in response. Your intentions and beliefs are less important than your actions and their results. If the way you are expressing something has results you don't like, you should change the way you're expressing it. I'll stand by that assertion whether the thing you're saying is true or not. And let's be very clear here: 1) The lab leak hypothesis has no evidence. The best it has is a lack of concrete evidence to the contrary. 2) Resolving the question either direction will not change any actions you take in the future. 3) Media discussion of the hypothesis does not resolve it nor provide you with any reason to change your actions. What is the actual value in discussing the hypothesis as if it's a matter of public import? What public need is being addressed by a media circus? Are you happy with the results of the way the question is being treated in public? I'm not. So I'm advocating we change the discussion to reduce harm.
- TMWNN 5y ago
  > Claiming it's true is a huge leap. What if it isn't? Examining the question to determine this wasn't allowed in the media during the past year, until very very recently. >And let's be very clear here: 1) The lab leak hypothesis has no evidence. The best it has is a lack of concrete evidence to the contrary. I don't disagree. I would argue, however, that there is more circumstantial evidence[1] for an origin for COVID19 from a Wuhan biolab than for purely natural animal-to-human transmission. >2) Resolving the question either direction will not change any actions you take in the future. Nonsense. Determining that, say, an accdiental leak from a Wuhan biolab caused the pandemic would affect * how and whether future gain-of-function research is done around the world * what punitive actions the world would demand from China * the credibility and legitimacy of the Chinese government within and outside its borders >3) Media discussion of the hypothesis does not resolve it nor provide you with any reason to change your actions. Why do you get to declare that this story, but not others, should not be discussed in public? You didn't answer my question regarding the 2017 news story I linked to. Did BART do the right thing by suppressing camera footage of crimes, and in how the transit agency justified doing so? [1] Circumstantial evidence is, contrary to what Hollywood has taught us, quite permissible in the court of law. Many cases, criminal and civil, are resolved entirely or largely based on circumstantial evidence.