5 ms·

Is it? I can fully understand mocking people who changed their mind after being totally sure, utterly convinced, proselytizing and annoying. If they were so su

Is it? I can fully understand mocking people who changed their mind after being totally sure, utterly convinced, proselytizing and annoying. If they were so sure, how could they change their minds, except by being dishonest about their surety or by being easily mislead? All good reasons for mocking them. People who weren't so sure and were honest about it are of course different. Those deserve respect for their objectivity and honesty. But those are unfortunately rare specimens.

kodah 3y ago
~25 years ago I had teacher after teacher tell me (and my parents) that the time I spent learning and on computers was a total waste of time. ~1.5 years ago it was totally racist and xenophobic to think a lab escape in Wuhan could be a viable source of the pandemic. ~15 years ago being queer was something you should be quiet about. ~10 years ago a language supporting simple asynchronous paradigms, static and cross compilation was a "waste of time". ~30 years ago OOP was the only acceptable and superior paradigm. ~45 years ago psychology was equivalent to voodoo. These attitudes do not exist in a vacuum where the people that hold them hold them all. Had I ejected and mocked people from my life for them, I'd have very few friends today, and maybe a good percentage of those friends would've never changed their minds. In net, less people changing their minds yields less progress over time. It also results in an Orwellian sense of right without reason and decreased dialogue between opposing views to determine rightness; some people call this a "chilling effect". The point of life is not to be right, but to continually try to understand better. The cynicism and mockery of today's society combined with exacting tools like weaponizing shame and guilt are abhorrent and anti-progress.
- saalweachter 3y ago
  > ~1.5 years ago it was totally racist and xenophobic to think a lab escape in Wuhan could be a viable source of the pandemic. I really dislike the framing that the only objection people have ever had to the lab leak theory is that it is "racist".
  - kodah 3y ago
    There are discussions that have merit that point to other theories, and I believe in a couple theories, not just one. However, none of those other theories or objections were put into a paper that was signed and circulated with the entire intent to stifle discussion about the topic. It's also particularly disgusting that xenophobia and racism were used to ward off talking about a theory that had just as many legs as other theories.
  - mensetmanusman 3y ago
    That was the MSM framing.
    - foldr 3y ago
      1.5 years ago? I heartily pooh-pooh the idea that the so-called MSM speaks with a single voice about anything. But in any case, the WHO was already calling for the lab leak theory to be investigated in 2021, and this was certainly being reported by mainstream media outlets without the suggestion that any of the people involved were racists. E.g. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/10/13/covid-lab-leak-theories-must-investigated-says-world-head-organisation/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/10/13/covid-lab-leak-t...
- eesmith 3y ago
  > ~1.5 years ago it was totally racist and xenophobic to think a lab escape in Wuhan could be a viable source of the pandemic. To the extent that it was true then (taking saalweachter's comment in mind), it's still true now. > ~15 years ago being queer was something you should be quiet about. "Queer" is a very broad term, which also includes trans- men and women, drag queens, and so-called "Don't Say Gay" bills which make it more difficult to bring up many queer issues now than it was 5 years ago. Members of ACT UP in the 1980s certainly did not believe that being queer was something you should be quiet about. > ~10 years ago a language supporting simple asynchronous paradigms, static and cross compilation was a "waste of time". I remember people being enthusiastic about Go, which came out more than 10 years ago and fits that description. > ~30 years ago OOP was the only acceptable and superior paradigm. Not true. In 1994 Stroustroup wrote: ] One reason often given for learning Smalltalk is that it is ‘‘pure’’ and thus forces people to think and program ‘‘object-oriented.’’ I will not go into the discussion of ‘‘purity’’ beyond mentioning that I think that a general-purpose programming language ought to and can support more than one programming style (paradigm). - https://archive.org/details/designevolutiono0000stro/page/170/mode/2up?q=paradigm https://archive.org/details/designevolutiono0000stro/page/17... and ] The fundamental reason for the size of C++ is that it supports more than one way of writing programs, more than one programming paradigm. From one point of view, C++ is really three languages in one: - A C-like language (supporting low-level programming); - An Ada-like language (supporting abstract data type techniques); - A Simula-like language (supporting object-oriented programming) - https://archive.org/details/designevolutiono0000stro/page/198/mode/2up?q=paradigm https://archive.org/details/designevolutiono0000stro/page/19... > ~45 years ago psychology was equivalent to voodoo. What? I don't remember it that way either. I really don't think viewers of "The Bob Newhart Show" (1972-1978) were expected to view Robert "Bob" Hartley, Chicago psychologist, as a voodoo practitioner.
  - kodah 3y ago
    > To the extent that it was true then (taking saalweachter's comment in mind), it's still true now. It is entirely possible to be skeptical and critical of the labs handling of the virus and want investigation into it without assuaging anything about the Chinese people or some grandiose theory involving their military. Most people are interested in the former, not the latter, but people who don't want this discussed rule all discussion about the latter. As for the rest of what you wrote, you can definitely object that there are exceptions today and that there exceptions years ago but I'm talking about prevailing attitudes, not that there weren't zero people who did or didn't believe something. Case in point, the 1990s is when the idea about OOP being dominant began to die. This was culturally marked in the show Halt and Catch Fire.
- foogazi 3y ago
  > ~1.5 years ago it was totally racist and xenophobic to think a lab escape in Wuhan could be a viable source of the pandemic. Did it matter if it escaped the lab or natural transmission ?
  - kodah 3y ago
    Of course it does. If it occurred in the wild and then was transmitted to humans by eating or interaction the way we defend against a future pandemic will be fundamentally different from if there were certain things done or not done in a lab that could've prevented it.
    - foogazi 3y ago
      Ok but did it matter for the last 3 years in terms of COVID response / vaccines / masks ?
mcv 3y ago
I think there's a big difference in really believing in an issue, pushing it whenever it comes up, and then changing your mind and saying "forget I said anything", versus really believing in that issue, and then changing your mind and explaining why you changed your mind, putting effort in correcting your earlier mistake, and now putting at least as much effort in the better side of the issue. The latter is a convincing change of mind. The former looks more like abandoning a feebly held belief.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
igiveup 3y ago
You can be wrong about your level of confidence just as you can be wrong about the rest of the world. Either is just a prediction made by your neural network.

kodah 3y ago

~25 years ago I had teacher after teacher tell me (and my parents) that the time I spent learning and on computers was a total waste of time. ~1.5 years ago it was totally racist and xenophobic to think a lab escape in Wuhan could be a viable source of the pandemic. ~15 years ago being queer was something you should be quiet about. ~10 years ago a language supporting simple asynchronous paradigms, static and cross compilation was a "waste of time". ~30 years ago OOP was the only acceptable and superior paradigm. ~45 years ago psychology was equivalent to voodoo. These attitudes do not exist in a vacuum where the people that hold them hold them all. Had I ejected and mocked people from my life for them, I'd have very few friends today, and maybe a good percentage of those friends would've never changed their minds. In net, less people changing their minds yields less progress over time. It also results in an Orwellian sense of right without reason and decreased dialogue between opposing views to determine rightness; some people call this a "chilling effect". The point of life is not to be right, but to continually try to understand better. The cynicism and mockery of today's society combined with exacting tools like weaponizing shame and guilt are abhorrent and anti-progress.

saalweachter 3y ago
> ~1.5 years ago it was totally racist and xenophobic to think a lab escape in Wuhan could be a viable source of the pandemic. I really dislike the framing that the only objection people have ever had to the lab leak theory is that it is "racist".
- kodah 3y ago
  There are discussions that have merit that point to other theories, and I believe in a couple theories, not just one. However, none of those other theories or objections were put into a paper that was signed and circulated with the entire intent to stifle discussion about the topic. It's also particularly disgusting that xenophobia and racism were used to ward off talking about a theory that had just as many legs as other theories.
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  That was the MSM framing.
  - foldr 3y ago
    1.5 years ago? I heartily pooh-pooh the idea that the so-called MSM speaks with a single voice about anything. But in any case, the WHO was already calling for the lab leak theory to be investigated in 2021, and this was certainly being reported by mainstream media outlets without the suggestion that any of the people involved were racists. E.g. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/10/13/covid-lab-leak-theories-must-investigated-says-world-head-organisation/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/10/13/covid-lab-leak-t...
eesmith 3y ago
> ~1.5 years ago it was totally racist and xenophobic to think a lab escape in Wuhan could be a viable source of the pandemic. To the extent that it was true then (taking saalweachter's comment in mind), it's still true now. > ~15 years ago being queer was something you should be quiet about. "Queer" is a very broad term, which also includes trans- men and women, drag queens, and so-called "Don't Say Gay" bills which make it more difficult to bring up many queer issues now than it was 5 years ago. Members of ACT UP in the 1980s certainly did not believe that being queer was something you should be quiet about. > ~10 years ago a language supporting simple asynchronous paradigms, static and cross compilation was a "waste of time". I remember people being enthusiastic about Go, which came out more than 10 years ago and fits that description. > ~30 years ago OOP was the only acceptable and superior paradigm. Not true. In 1994 Stroustroup wrote: ] One reason often given for learning Smalltalk is that it is ‘‘pure’’ and thus forces people to think and program ‘‘object-oriented.’’ I will not go into the discussion of ‘‘purity’’ beyond mentioning that I think that a general-purpose programming language ought to and can support more than one programming style (paradigm). - https://archive.org/details/designevolutiono0000stro/page/170/mode/2up?q=paradigm https://archive.org/details/designevolutiono0000stro/page/17... and ] The fundamental reason for the size of C++ is that it supports more than one way of writing programs, more than one programming paradigm. From one point of view, C++ is really three languages in one: - A C-like language (supporting low-level programming); - An Ada-like language (supporting abstract data type techniques); - A Simula-like language (supporting object-oriented programming) - https://archive.org/details/designevolutiono0000stro/page/198/mode/2up?q=paradigm https://archive.org/details/designevolutiono0000stro/page/19... > ~45 years ago psychology was equivalent to voodoo. What? I don't remember it that way either. I really don't think viewers of "The Bob Newhart Show" (1972-1978) were expected to view Robert "Bob" Hartley, Chicago psychologist, as a voodoo practitioner.
- kodah 3y ago
  > To the extent that it was true then (taking saalweachter's comment in mind), it's still true now. It is entirely possible to be skeptical and critical of the labs handling of the virus and want investigation into it without assuaging anything about the Chinese people or some grandiose theory involving their military. Most people are interested in the former, not the latter, but people who don't want this discussed rule all discussion about the latter. As for the rest of what you wrote, you can definitely object that there are exceptions today and that there exceptions years ago but I'm talking about prevailing attitudes, not that there weren't zero people who did or didn't believe something. Case in point, the 1990s is when the idea about OOP being dominant began to die. This was culturally marked in the show Halt and Catch Fire.
foogazi 3y ago
> ~1.5 years ago it was totally racist and xenophobic to think a lab escape in Wuhan could be a viable source of the pandemic. Did it matter if it escaped the lab or natural transmission ?
- kodah 3y ago
  Of course it does. If it occurred in the wild and then was transmitted to humans by eating or interaction the way we defend against a future pandemic will be fundamentally different from if there were certain things done or not done in a lab that could've prevented it.
  - foogazi 3y ago
    Ok but did it matter for the last 3 years in terms of COVID response / vaccines / masks ?

mcv 3y ago

I think there's a big difference in really believing in an issue, pushing it whenever it comes up, and then changing your mind and saying "forget I said anything", versus really believing in that issue, and then changing your mind and explaining why you changed your mind, putting effort in correcting your earlier mistake, and now putting at least as much effort in the better side of the issue. The latter is a convincing change of mind. The former looks more like abandoning a feebly held belief.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

igiveup 3y ago

You can be wrong about your level of confidence just as you can be wrong about the rest of the world. Either is just a prediction made by your neural network.