3 ms·

> Can someone explain Were one to entertain the possibility that a lab facility in China was the source of infection leading to a global pandemic then isolatio

> Can someone explain Were one to entertain the possibility that a lab facility in China was the source of infection leading to a global pandemic then isolationists and nationalists and other persona non grata might imagine they've received some validation of their policies. Naturally this is intolerable. So intolerable, in fact, that you are obligated to employ however much cognitive dissonance you find necessary such that any suggestion of a lab leak becomes unthinkable. Obviously anyone that fails to do so is exhibiting faulty and dangerous thinking.

etangent 5y ago
This is an extraordinary comment. To follow up, however, wouldn't suppressing talking about this stuff provide even more validation?
- topspin 5y ago
  Of course. But we're dealing with ideology here, and ideologues rarely perform the sort of calculations you have in mind.
ramoz 5y ago
This, itself, is dangerous thinking.
- ajsnigrutin 5y ago
  Yes, this is literally the "ministry of truth" and thought policing in action.
ajsnigrutin 5y ago
So, because of a few people, who already believe this has happened, you decide not to investigate (which reaffirms their beliefs), and possibly lie to all of your citizens, because a country might have accidentaly or intentionally killed many many people, and won't get sanctioned in any way because of that?
- topspin 5y ago
  Yes. This is what makes those few people so dangerous. But for them we might safely pursue the necessary remedies. Unfortunately such a pursuit risks delivering vindication to said people, deserved or otherwise, and so we must demur. All of this is self evident when you understand the correct prioritization of concerns. While discovering the true genesis of some great failure and correctly ascribing fault may have value, the risk of validating ones ideological opponents -- vanishing few and impotent as they may be -- has many times more import.

etangent 5y ago

This is an extraordinary comment. To follow up, however, wouldn't suppressing talking about this stuff provide even more validation?

topspin 5y ago
Of course. But we're dealing with ideology here, and ideologues rarely perform the sort of calculations you have in mind.

ramoz 5y ago

This, itself, is dangerous thinking.

ajsnigrutin 5y ago
Yes, this is literally the "ministry of truth" and thought policing in action.

ajsnigrutin 5y ago

So, because of a few people, who already believe this has happened, you decide not to investigate (which reaffirms their beliefs), and possibly lie to all of your citizens, because a country might have accidentaly or intentionally killed many many people, and won't get sanctioned in any way because of that?

topspin 5y ago
Yes. This is what makes those few people so dangerous. But for them we might safely pursue the necessary remedies. Unfortunately such a pursuit risks delivering vindication to said people, deserved or otherwise, and so we must demur. All of this is self evident when you understand the correct prioritization of concerns. While discovering the true genesis of some great failure and correctly ascribing fault may have value, the risk of validating ones ideological opponents -- vanishing few and impotent as they may be -- has many times more import.