4 ms·

And that ... Theory about the lockdowns supposedly not being because of the virus but to hide a larger financial crisis/weath reallocation is spreading quite qu

by y4mi 5y ago

And that ... Theory about the lockdowns supposedly not being because of the virus but to hide a larger financial crisis/weath reallocation is spreading quite quickly at least at far as I can tell. That's not going to reduce tensions in that regard, that's for sure. There is only circumstantial evidence but the story sounds plausible. If things continue like this, I'd wager that trump will return in 24

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
- y4mi 5y ago
  I'm not sure how good your reading comprehension generally is, but at least in this case you've clearly misinterpreted what I've written there.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    You wrote (full sentence): > And that ... Theory about the lockdowns supposedly not being because of the virus but to hide a larger financial crisis/weath reallocation is spreading quite quickly at least at far as I can tell. Maybe you think you can mention "that ... theory" without endorsing it in any way. I say that even mentioning this completely bogus garbage in a way that doesn't say that it's completely bogus garbage is effectively endorsing it. That's just the way communication systems work, unfortunately. I'm not implying that you believe "that ... theory". I am saying that it's essentially insane, has no credibility, and is spreading only because people mention it in this sort of "offhand" way ("oh, I didn't mean anything").
- uejfiweun 5y ago
  This is a very insulting comment, and seems to have been prompted by practically nothing at all. I'd urge you to consider how your condescending attitude appears to anyone who doesn't agree with you.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    I generally try not to be condescending, and seek to take seriously the opinions of people who do not agree with me. However ... > And that ... Theory about the lockdowns supposedly not being because of the virus but to hide a larger financial crisis/weath reallocation is spreading quite quickly at least at far as I can tell. to even mention this "theory" as if it had any credibility whatsoever crosses a line where I'm not willing to cede good faith, sensible thinking etc., and can only react with dismissal and condescension. "And that ... Theory about the earth not really being round but actually flat but the illuminati prefer that we think it is round because reasons ..." is in the same ballpark.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - uejfiweun 5y ago
      I think you need to get your knee jerk reactions under control. Just because someone says something that seems outrageous to you doesn't mean you should just jump directly to insults. Moreover, the parent comment did not endorse this theory, it merely noted that the theory "is spreading quite quickly... as far as I can tell". If you're interested in debunking the parent comment, perhaps reading it carefully and responding to the points would work better. This could potentially open people's eyes and even make them agree with you. Instead you have opted to go for divisive insults, which likely reinforces the belief of anyone who is inclined to disagree with you.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
        If someone on HN posts my example quote about flat earth theory, do you think that anyone is under an obligation to calmly explain just why flat earth theory is wrong? Of course, you could claim that flat earth theory is so disproven that there's no need to even bother, whereas "the lockdowns are to stop public unrest" theory might have something to it, so if I want to criticize it, I should explain all the evidence that says it's false. We're just going to have to agree to disagree. From my POV, this idea is so utterly and obviously false prima facie that I'm under no more obligation to explain my dismissal of it than I would be in the flat earth case. Also, where did I opt for "divisive insults"?
- subsubzero 5y ago
  Really disappointed by this comment, totally uncalled for and extremely disrespectful, and in case you were living on the moon the lockdowns have been very hard on alot of people, see skyrocketing suicide and overdose numbers from these actions.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    The lockdowns have been hard, yes indeed. The lockdowns are in fact nothing to do with the virus, and instead are part of a scheme to hide the true nature of contemporary capitalism? Please ...
    - jiveturkey42 5y ago
      It sure was a convenient way to move around trillions of dollars
      - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
        Oh, wait, now we're onto "it wasn't just the lockdowns. They set up the lockdowns knowing that some months later, they would inject billons of dollars into the economy in a way that would, GASP, benefit the already rich at least as much as the not-already-rich"? That's the claim now? Look, I get it, the "bailouts" distributed huge sums of money and lots of it went to people who, viewed through the lens of some sort of moral common sense, should not have received it. That's unfortunately the price you pay for a big country with a big economy. Trying to ensure that none of it was misdirected would have ensured nobody got any at all.
        jiveturkey42 5y ago
        No, you're right. Everything happened exactly as the experts and fact-checkers said it did
        PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
hidudeurcool 5y ago

by y4mi 5y ago

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

y4mi 5y ago
I'm not sure how good your reading comprehension generally is, but at least in this case you've clearly misinterpreted what I've written there.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  You wrote (full sentence): > And that ... Theory about the lockdowns supposedly not being because of the virus but to hide a larger financial crisis/weath reallocation is spreading quite quickly at least at far as I can tell. Maybe you think you can mention "that ... theory" without endorsing it in any way. I say that even mentioning this completely bogus garbage in a way that doesn't say that it's completely bogus garbage is effectively endorsing it. That's just the way communication systems work, unfortunately. I'm not implying that you believe "that ... theory". I am saying that it's essentially insane, has no credibility, and is spreading only because people mention it in this sort of "offhand" way ("oh, I didn't mean anything").
uejfiweun 5y ago
This is a very insulting comment, and seems to have been prompted by practically nothing at all. I'd urge you to consider how your condescending attitude appears to anyone who doesn't agree with you.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  I generally try not to be condescending, and seek to take seriously the opinions of people who do not agree with me. However ... > And that ... Theory about the lockdowns supposedly not being because of the virus but to hide a larger financial crisis/weath reallocation is spreading quite quickly at least at far as I can tell. to even mention this "theory" as if it had any credibility whatsoever crosses a line where I'm not willing to cede good faith, sensible thinking etc., and can only react with dismissal and condescension. "And that ... Theory about the earth not really being round but actually flat but the illuminati prefer that we think it is round because reasons ..." is in the same ballpark.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - uejfiweun 5y ago
    I think you need to get your knee jerk reactions under control. Just because someone says something that seems outrageous to you doesn't mean you should just jump directly to insults. Moreover, the parent comment did not endorse this theory, it merely noted that the theory "is spreading quite quickly... as far as I can tell". If you're interested in debunking the parent comment, perhaps reading it carefully and responding to the points would work better. This could potentially open people's eyes and even make them agree with you. Instead you have opted to go for divisive insults, which likely reinforces the belief of anyone who is inclined to disagree with you.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
      If someone on HN posts my example quote about flat earth theory, do you think that anyone is under an obligation to calmly explain just why flat earth theory is wrong? Of course, you could claim that flat earth theory is so disproven that there's no need to even bother, whereas "the lockdowns are to stop public unrest" theory might have something to it, so if I want to criticize it, I should explain all the evidence that says it's false. We're just going to have to agree to disagree. From my POV, this idea is so utterly and obviously false prima facie that I'm under no more obligation to explain my dismissal of it than I would be in the flat earth case. Also, where did I opt for "divisive insults"?
subsubzero 5y ago
Really disappointed by this comment, totally uncalled for and extremely disrespectful, and in case you were living on the moon the lockdowns have been very hard on alot of people, see skyrocketing suicide and overdose numbers from these actions.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  The lockdowns have been hard, yes indeed. The lockdowns are in fact nothing to do with the virus, and instead are part of a scheme to hide the true nature of contemporary capitalism? Please ...
  - jiveturkey42 5y ago
    It sure was a convenient way to move around trillions of dollars
    - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
      Oh, wait, now we're onto "it wasn't just the lockdowns. They set up the lockdowns knowing that some months later, they would inject billons of dollars into the economy in a way that would, GASP, benefit the already rich at least as much as the not-already-rich"? That's the claim now? Look, I get it, the "bailouts" distributed huge sums of money and lots of it went to people who, viewed through the lens of some sort of moral common sense, should not have received it. That's unfortunately the price you pay for a big country with a big economy. Trying to ensure that none of it was misdirected would have ensured nobody got any at all.
      - jiveturkey42 5y ago
        No, you're right. Everything happened exactly as the experts and fact-checkers said it did
        PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

hidudeurcool 5y ago