3 ms·

I haven't really followed the lab leak theory but it's so frustrating when claims of "racist undercurrents" or "dog whistling" are made without substantial evid

I haven't really followed the lab leak theory but it's so frustrating when claims of "racist undercurrents" or "dog whistling" are made without substantial evidence. Those terms are just used to halt constructive dialogue and make unsubstantiated accusations. And they are often an instance of the following logical fallacy: "Racists support X, therefore supporting X is racist." Those terms were frequently used to shut down discussion when the Quebec government made the decision to prohibit certain public employees from displaying religious symbols a few years ago.

CamperBob2 3y ago
I think what they're saying, though, is that constructive dialogue is impossible on this topic, making it a poor fit for Wikipedia regardless of one's personal opinions and beliefs on the subject. Which, until the Chinese decide to be more forthcoming with the world, is likely true. We can't know, and we won't know, because they won't talk.
- nvm0n2 3y ago
  Of course it's possible, there are more heated and controversial topics than this one out there and Wikipedia tries to cover them all. But due to its wiki workflow Wikipedia never tried to stop the most maniacal editors from dominating its content through sheer bloody mindedness. > We can't know, and we won't know, because they won't talk. So no crime can ever be solved unless the criminal admits guilt? We do accept that things can be proven about events without the perp admitting directly they did it, and COVID's origins as a genetic engineering experiment gone wrong have long ago passed the threshold of all reasonable doubt.
  - ckoerner 3y ago
    Wikipedia relies on reliable secondary sources to write an article. If the majority of sources were to claim X came from Y, then yes, but without that, we can't state it as fact.
    - nvm0n2 3y ago
      Clearly it doesn't rely on reliable sources, otherwise they wouldn't be making such ridiculous claims.
hot_gril 3y ago
If I see "racist undercurrents" brought up as reasoning against something, the argument is worthless to me. And yes, this article does read like an argument, which is unusual for Wikipedia.

CamperBob2 3y ago

I think what they're saying, though, is that constructive dialogue is impossible on this topic, making it a poor fit for Wikipedia regardless of one's personal opinions and beliefs on the subject. Which, until the Chinese decide to be more forthcoming with the world, is likely true. We can't know, and we won't know, because they won't talk.

nvm0n2 3y ago
Of course it's possible, there are more heated and controversial topics than this one out there and Wikipedia tries to cover them all. But due to its wiki workflow Wikipedia never tried to stop the most maniacal editors from dominating its content through sheer bloody mindedness. > We can't know, and we won't know, because they won't talk. So no crime can ever be solved unless the criminal admits guilt? We do accept that things can be proven about events without the perp admitting directly they did it, and COVID's origins as a genetic engineering experiment gone wrong have long ago passed the threshold of all reasonable doubt.
- ckoerner 3y ago
  Wikipedia relies on reliable secondary sources to write an article. If the majority of sources were to claim X came from Y, then yes, but without that, we can't state it as fact.
  - nvm0n2 3y ago
    Clearly it doesn't rely on reliable sources, otherwise they wouldn't be making such ridiculous claims.

hot_gril 3y ago

If I see "racist undercurrents" brought up as reasoning against something, the argument is worthless to me. And yes, this article does read like an argument, which is unusual for Wikipedia.