3 ms·

It seems like you are misunderstanding the nuance of what they are saying. Its best understood after watching and grokking this video. https://www.youtube.com

by than3 4y ago

It seems like you are misunderstanding the nuance of what they are saying. Its best understood after watching and grokking this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNv2PlqmsAc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNv2PlqmsAc Putting what is being said in the correct context, outlined in that video, which is how government typically operates. Its pretty clear what they mean to any educated rational reader what was meant. The characterization you made is poor and doesn't aptly apply.

notfed 4y ago
The point is that the headline is clickbait. As you have said, you have to read the article to determine the radically different meaning of the headline. That's how clickbait works.
- goatlover 4y ago
  How is it clickbait? A US intelligence agency did say that the lab leak theory was more likely than the wet market one, even if their confidence is low to moderate.
  - jboy55 4y ago
    And 4 other US intelligence agencies still say the wet market is more likely.
    - himinlomax 4y ago
      The title doesn't contradict that.
    - tekknik 4y ago
      Got a source?
- than3 4y ago
  That's a very circular argument and definition. By that definition, any headline of any article will be clickbait to someone just by them saying so regardless of any truth in the matter. People lie every day. If you are looking at 'reading' articles, its kind of expected that you will read them if you choose to do so. Complaining about it doesn't change any meaningful thing. I really don't understand the point you were trying to communicate. Is it that you want someone to just tell you everything to believe, without needing to critically think at all? People lie, so it sounds like you want something that will never come to pass, and trying to make it come to pass would only create a negative outcome for you, those close to you, and anyone else that happened to be within your sphere of influence, at least given a sufficient amount of time. For the past couple thousand years of history exploitation has been the norm in various forms. Did I completely misread what you meant (but didn't say?). Could you clarify?

by than3 4y ago

notfed 4y ago

The point is that the headline is clickbait. As you have said, you have to read the article to determine the radically different meaning of the headline. That's how clickbait works.

goatlover 4y ago
How is it clickbait? A US intelligence agency did say that the lab leak theory was more likely than the wet market one, even if their confidence is low to moderate.
- jboy55 4y ago
  And 4 other US intelligence agencies still say the wet market is more likely.
  - himinlomax 4y ago
    The title doesn't contradict that.
  - tekknik 4y ago
    Got a source?
than3 4y ago
That's a very circular argument and definition. By that definition, any headline of any article will be clickbait to someone just by them saying so regardless of any truth in the matter. People lie every day. If you are looking at 'reading' articles, its kind of expected that you will read them if you choose to do so. Complaining about it doesn't change any meaningful thing. I really don't understand the point you were trying to communicate. Is it that you want someone to just tell you everything to believe, without needing to critically think at all? People lie, so it sounds like you want something that will never come to pass, and trying to make it come to pass would only create a negative outcome for you, those close to you, and anyone else that happened to be within your sphere of influence, at least given a sufficient amount of time. For the past couple thousand years of history exploitation has been the norm in various forms. Did I completely misread what you meant (but didn't say?). Could you clarify?