3 ms·

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 y

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.
- chowells 5y ago
  My justification is the part you ignored. Take responsibility for the results of your actions. The way this is being discussed has had real negative impact on entirely innocent people. There are many useless things that can reported on that don't injure large groups of people. Sports scores, for instance. And I'm not even saying don't report on it. I'm saying to take responsibility. If your goal isn't to support racism, stop reporting in a way that does. As for the BART thing... Eh, I think a lot of what they said is nonsense, like attempting to justify their choice based on minor privacy laws. But I think they made one key point that's enough to justify their choice: releasing those videos to the media doesn't increase public safety. It increases public fear. Scared people are actively harmful for public safety. A terrified person pulling out a gun the next time several black teenagers get onto the same train car is only an escalation of violence. You seem to be forgetting there's a middle ground between suppressing and sensationalizing. Did the lack of video footage prevent reporting on the BART incidents? Was the news suppressed? Was anyone injured by the lack of video? I can find no evidence of this happening. Everything I can see suggests that things ended up in a reasonable spot there. People who wanted to know about crime could find out about it. So what's the middle ground on the lab leak hypothesis? Stop dredging it up like it's important to every media consumer. Every action you listed is a public policy decision, not a personal action. Report on it when it's important for determining public policy, not when you're scaring people for ratings. And yeah, I'm aware that circumstantial evidence is fine in court. But when I see the circumstantial evidence, I don't see anything to outweigh the fact that zoonotic transmission has been the source of thousands of outbreaks in the past. That's one hell of a circumstantial hurdle any other argument has to clear. Any argument of the form "this time it's different" has a very high bar to clear.

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.

chowells 5y ago
My justification is the part you ignored. Take responsibility for the results of your actions. The way this is being discussed has had real negative impact on entirely innocent people. There are many useless things that can reported on that don't injure large groups of people. Sports scores, for instance. And I'm not even saying don't report on it. I'm saying to take responsibility. If your goal isn't to support racism, stop reporting in a way that does. As for the BART thing... Eh, I think a lot of what they said is nonsense, like attempting to justify their choice based on minor privacy laws. But I think they made one key point that's enough to justify their choice: releasing those videos to the media doesn't increase public safety. It increases public fear. Scared people are actively harmful for public safety. A terrified person pulling out a gun the next time several black teenagers get onto the same train car is only an escalation of violence. You seem to be forgetting there's a middle ground between suppressing and sensationalizing. Did the lack of video footage prevent reporting on the BART incidents? Was the news suppressed? Was anyone injured by the lack of video? I can find no evidence of this happening. Everything I can see suggests that things ended up in a reasonable spot there. People who wanted to know about crime could find out about it. So what's the middle ground on the lab leak hypothesis? Stop dredging it up like it's important to every media consumer. Every action you listed is a public policy decision, not a personal action. Report on it when it's important for determining public policy, not when you're scaring people for ratings. And yeah, I'm aware that circumstantial evidence is fine in court. But when I see the circumstantial evidence, I don't see anything to outweigh the fact that zoonotic transmission has been the source of thousands of outbreaks in the past. That's one hell of a circumstantial hurdle any other argument has to clear. Any argument of the form "this time it's different" has a very high bar to clear.