4 ms·
It was never an implausible theory so the censorship over it was foolish. Of course the immediate jump to conclusion in the first few months by some who found
by steveBK123 2y ago
It was never an implausible theory so the censorship over it was foolish.
Of course the immediate jump to conclusion in the first few months by some who found it politically expedient was no better either.
People need to be more comfortable saying I don’t know but we are looking into it.
- nxm 2y agoBack then anyone who suggested the lab leak theory was immediately labeled a conspiracy theorist by main stream media.
- Johanx64 2y ago[flagged]
- gejose 2y ago[flagged]
- starspangled 2y agoMany.
- steveBK123 2y agoYes and I’m saying that was bad.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- gigatree 2y agoHopefully this helps people realize how meaningless it is to be labeled a conspiracy theorist.
- PoignardAzur 2y agoI think the conspiracy theorist label is associated with common patterns (believing in a cover up in cases where there's no incentive / the cover up would be more expensive than the crime / the evidence would be impossible to cover up, etc) but in this case these patterns don't apply. The lab leak theory was extremely plausible even assuming no secret conspiracy at all. Lab leaks do happen, that lab did do gain of function research, the State did shut down investigations, etc.
- gigatree 2y agoYou might be surprised how many things labeled conspiracy theories have strong evidence, incentives, etc. but get scoffed at as kooky impossibilities nonetheless - like the lab leak theory.
- gtgvdfc 2y agoOut how many conspiracy theories end up being right.
- indoordin0saur 2y agoI think when it comes to conspiracy theories the two heuristics to use are: 1.) Do they have an incentive to conspire? 2.) Do they have the ability to conspire? Where both are true I think conspiracies exist every where, often to such an extent it just gets labelled as corruption rather than conspiracy.
- DonHopkins 2y ago[flagged]
- subsistence234 2y agoit's always easier to dismiss imaginary strawmen than real people.
- gtgvdfc 2y agoWho's "they"? You just grabbed a bunch of different arguments you disagree with and then bunched them all together with the lab leak. Btw, I wouldn't remind people of "horse dewormer" debacle I were you - you come off as anti-science.
- philjohn 2y agoWere they? Or were those who claimed it was the only possible answer, without the evidence to back that up?
- mrcsharp 2y agoThat's not a good enough reason to censor.
- AngryData 2y ago99% of the time there isn't a good reason to censor things, that doesn't stop it from happening constantly though. Especially in China where censorship of anything with bad publicity for the country or government or people is the default stance.
- arp242 2y agoThe major reason for that is that many were doing this in language that was generally considered racist and/or mixed in some other weird stuff like how COVID lockdowns were like the Jewish persecution, rants about masking, or that type of stuff. I'm not saying everyone did that, but there was a huge overlap.
- lolinder 2y ago> there was a huge overlap. There was a huge overlap because within a month it became completely taboo for anyone who cared about not being seen as an alt-right activist to say anything about it. Even freaking Jon Stewart got caught in the instant-cancellation blast [0]. A major problem with our world today is that anything that the alt right supports instantly becomes taboo for the rest of us. People are more concerned with distancing themselves from the alt right than they are with finding and supporting the truth—and that goes for just about anything, not just COVID. [0] https://nypost.com/2023/02/28/jon-stewart-recalls-outrage-after-he-backed-covid-19-lab-leak-theory-f-k-you-im-done/ https://nypost.com/2023/02/28/jon-stewart-recalls-outrage-af...
- morepedantic 2y agoHave you considered the possibility that you infer racism more often than people imply it?
- chowells 2y ago[dead]
- PoignardAzur 2y agoThe fact that there's a biolab doing gain-of-function research a few blocks away from ground zero is much stronger bayesian evidence than "but maybe it's true". (And then the fact that ground zero is a wet market is strong evidence against. It's so weird that we have two plausible origins for this virus and they're almost right next to each other.)
- gpm 2y ago"but maybe this could have happened"* is the exact evidence being input into your bayesian model. The fact that this particular thing could have happened is a bit surprising, so it does count as some evidence, but it's not strong enough to then go run around saying on the internet it definitely did happen. Especially in the context where, as you point out, there's also other evidence of the form "but maybe <this other thing> could have happened and that's also surprising". Which to address a different subthread, is exactly what some people did (go around on the internet confidently stating it did happen). Which is why, I think, other people then labelled the people seriously discussing the theory as conspiracy theorists. Which is a step too far, it's only the people confidently asserting from weak evidence that it definitely did happen who should be labelled as conspiracy theorists. Which is all to say since when does the internet do any of this nuance at all well on any side. * GP's phrasing, which is arguably different from your phrasing of "but maybe it's true"
- morepedantic 2y agoJFC, finally someone that understands specific evidence changes probabilities. It's unlikely we'll ever know the truth. If it's a cover up, then it's possible that someone will come forward in 30 years. For example, Luis Salas spilled the beans on Lyndon B Johnson's 1948 election fraud. But it's unlikely, because the PRC doesn't have a statute of limitations on STFU. If it's natural zoonosis, then maybe we'll manage to find and prove the origin.
- 2y ago
- bufferoverflow 2y agoIt was never implausible, it has always been the most likely the most straightforward theory. A lab that worked on gain of function of coronaviruses. All other theories sound as made up bs.
- Glyptodon 2y agoIt only went the way it did because people were making "lab leak" synonymous with "genetically engineered."
- morepedantic 2y agoI think you're confusing genetic engineering with the bioweapons research. The WIV did collect natural coronaviruses and genetically engineer them.