6 ms·

Sure, it's possible, but it's also speculation. You can't rationally use speculated possible hushed-up disappearances as evidence to fuel further speculation: t

Sure, it's possible, but it's also speculation. You can't rationally use speculated possible hushed-up disappearances as evidence to fuel further speculation: there lies the road to totally unhinged conspiracy theories. If we see more cases like this one of someone disappearing without a trace and their disappearance getting documented but not explained, I'll accept this one as evidence to fuel future speculation. Until then, speculation used to fuel speculation is a dangerous path. EDIT: Apparently my reference to conspiracy theories is pushing buttons? Unfortunately this is literally true: the logic of the conspiracy theorist builds upon itself, with as minimal reference to exterior circumstances as possible. The lizard people did it. How do we know? Because they did it before! If we want to be different from conspiracy theorists, we need to cultivate an insistence on reasoning from documented facts, rather than building elaborate towers out of theories alone.

slg 2y ago
My first comment was not speculation. I only speculated in my second comment to highlight how your rather definitive "they haven't been "disappearing" people in the manner that would have to be happening here" was also in fact speculation.
- lolinder 2y ago
  Point taken. Better said: We have no evidence that they have been disappearing people in this manner. We also, clearly, have a large body of people who are on guard for any such possible evidence, so I would reasonably expect that if it were happening with any kind of regularity we would have seen it by now. There's a possibility that this is instance #1 and we see repeats. If we do see repeats, I will happily engage in speculation that this is a pattern and the government may in fact be disappearing people. Until then, the known facts don't match a government disappearing program as well as they match other possible explanations.
  - trod1234 2y ago
    In fairness, there was no public evidence of the Nazi death camps up until they decided to turn the prison camps into that at the Wannsee Conference either. It was only in retrospect that we learned the true horror of the Holocaust. Given that period of history, and how it brought the world to the brink, any patterning closely similar to that (which we are seeing today) these things should be considered happening until it can be proven otherwise. Complacency and a lack of accountability in the moment is how these things happen, and turn good people to sloth. Saying "Trust us", just isn't going to cut it given the existing state of no credibility that is a consequence of over a half century of bad acting and abuse of authority, and the trusted news initiative (which is not trustable).
    - lolinder 2y ago
      I'm totally in favor of holding the current administration accountable for what they are doing and clamping down on all the authoritarian actions as much as possible. But I'm not in favor of compromising principles to do it. There are plenty of things that they're doing that are documented that are evil. There's no need to waste energy and credibility speculating about things that aren't yet understood or documented, unless you personally have the means to investigate Wang's disappearance and shed light on what happened.
      - NomDePlum 2y ago
        There is a point where "benefit of the doubt" is not appropriate though. Personal opinion is that point is past.
        fc417fc802 2y ago
        Benefit of the doubt is relative to both the item and setting though. What prior evidence do we have that would cause us _not_ to extend benefit of the doubt to the US government in the specific context of disappearing people? I can think of plenty of examples of shady things various official bodies in the US have done within the past century, but regular occurrences of "extrajudicial kidnapping without a paper trail" isn't one of them. If you go through proper channels and leave a paper trail then regardless of whether or not you agree with what's been done it can't reasonably said to be "disappearing" someone.
  - bigiain 2y ago
    > if it were happening with any kind of regularity we would have seen it by now. If the "unhinged conspiracy theories" turn out to be at least partially true, I'm sure we'll find out it's happening regularly, but only started within the last few weeks. This could easily be the first of the "we would have seen it" cases, not some unexplainable solitary incident. > the known facts don't match a government disappearing program as well as they match other possible explanations. Maybe? The known facts about the way he was removed from his university job and web presence with absolutely no explanation and being referred to the FBI when asked for reasons arguably matches better with a government disappearing program then any of the other possible explanations offered around.
    - lolinder 2y ago
      Sorry to keep doing this to you, but it's a big thread and most arguments have already been made. Here's a link to the best guess I have, which accounts for the delay between university action and law enforcement action (which notably has no explanation in the government disappearing program version): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43528036 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43528036 As with everything, this is pure speculation, merely put forward as a possible explanation that accounts for all known facts. I've yet to see any other explanation account for the sequence and timeline.
  - galaxyLogic 2y ago
    > We have no evidence that they have been disappearing people in this manner Isn't it evidence of "disappearings" that we know many people were transported to a prison in El Salvador but nobody knows who those people in fact are? As far as I've seen from the press the government hasn't released any documentation about who they flew to El Salvador. Or have they? If that is true then isn't it also true that this scientist in question might as well be in that Salvadorean prison, as far as we know?
    - ethbr1 2y ago
      Given that several of the individuals were named clients of the ACLU in the lawsuit, at least some of them are known. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69741724/1/jgg-v-trump/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69741724/1/jgg-v-trump/
bigiain 2y ago
Here's a report of another similar incident: https://www.dailydot.com/debug/furry-hackers-fbi-raided/ https://www.dailydot.com/debug/furry-hackers-fbi-raided/ Once is happenstance, Twice is a coincidence. But I'm way more suspicious of coincidences than I was even just a few months back.
- lolinder 2y ago
  If I'm reading this right, this is a case of the FBI raiding the location of the leader of a ring of hackers and that leader going offline after confirming that the raid had happened. Unless I'm mistaken on that reading, that leaves a few key differences from what's being alleged in this thread: * The target was committing crimes which were documented prior to the raid. * The target was able to and chose to reach friends and tell them what happened. * The target went nonresponsive after informing their friends of what happened. * The friends allege that the location was raided but don't even imply that the leader is in federal custody. * The leader is pseudonymous, so we fully expect that if they decide to go offline and stop using that handle that they will disappear. That's not the same thing as a person with a stable real-world identity vanishing.
- DrillShopper 2y ago
  > Once is happenstance, Twice is a coincidence. Three times is enemy action

slg 2y ago

My first comment was not speculation. I only speculated in my second comment to highlight how your rather definitive "they haven't been "disappearing" people in the manner that would have to be happening here" was also in fact speculation.

lolinder 2y ago
Point taken. Better said: We have no evidence that they have been disappearing people in this manner. We also, clearly, have a large body of people who are on guard for any such possible evidence, so I would reasonably expect that if it were happening with any kind of regularity we would have seen it by now. There's a possibility that this is instance #1 and we see repeats. If we do see repeats, I will happily engage in speculation that this is a pattern and the government may in fact be disappearing people. Until then, the known facts don't match a government disappearing program as well as they match other possible explanations.
- trod1234 2y ago
  In fairness, there was no public evidence of the Nazi death camps up until they decided to turn the prison camps into that at the Wannsee Conference either. It was only in retrospect that we learned the true horror of the Holocaust. Given that period of history, and how it brought the world to the brink, any patterning closely similar to that (which we are seeing today) these things should be considered happening until it can be proven otherwise. Complacency and a lack of accountability in the moment is how these things happen, and turn good people to sloth. Saying "Trust us", just isn't going to cut it given the existing state of no credibility that is a consequence of over a half century of bad acting and abuse of authority, and the trusted news initiative (which is not trustable).
  - lolinder 2y ago
    I'm totally in favor of holding the current administration accountable for what they are doing and clamping down on all the authoritarian actions as much as possible. But I'm not in favor of compromising principles to do it. There are plenty of things that they're doing that are documented that are evil. There's no need to waste energy and credibility speculating about things that aren't yet understood or documented, unless you personally have the means to investigate Wang's disappearance and shed light on what happened.
    - NomDePlum 2y ago
      There is a point where "benefit of the doubt" is not appropriate though. Personal opinion is that point is past.
      - fc417fc802 2y ago
        Benefit of the doubt is relative to both the item and setting though. What prior evidence do we have that would cause us _not_ to extend benefit of the doubt to the US government in the specific context of disappearing people? I can think of plenty of examples of shady things various official bodies in the US have done within the past century, but regular occurrences of "extrajudicial kidnapping without a paper trail" isn't one of them. If you go through proper channels and leave a paper trail then regardless of whether or not you agree with what's been done it can't reasonably said to be "disappearing" someone.
- bigiain 2y ago
  > if it were happening with any kind of regularity we would have seen it by now. If the "unhinged conspiracy theories" turn out to be at least partially true, I'm sure we'll find out it's happening regularly, but only started within the last few weeks. This could easily be the first of the "we would have seen it" cases, not some unexplainable solitary incident. > the known facts don't match a government disappearing program as well as they match other possible explanations. Maybe? The known facts about the way he was removed from his university job and web presence with absolutely no explanation and being referred to the FBI when asked for reasons arguably matches better with a government disappearing program then any of the other possible explanations offered around.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    Sorry to keep doing this to you, but it's a big thread and most arguments have already been made. Here's a link to the best guess I have, which accounts for the delay between university action and law enforcement action (which notably has no explanation in the government disappearing program version): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43528036 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43528036 As with everything, this is pure speculation, merely put forward as a possible explanation that accounts for all known facts. I've yet to see any other explanation account for the sequence and timeline.
- galaxyLogic 2y ago
  > We have no evidence that they have been disappearing people in this manner Isn't it evidence of "disappearings" that we know many people were transported to a prison in El Salvador but nobody knows who those people in fact are? As far as I've seen from the press the government hasn't released any documentation about who they flew to El Salvador. Or have they? If that is true then isn't it also true that this scientist in question might as well be in that Salvadorean prison, as far as we know?
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    Given that several of the individuals were named clients of the ACLU in the lawsuit, at least some of them are known. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69741724/1/jgg-v-trump/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69741724/1/jgg-v-trump/

bigiain 2y ago

Here's a report of another similar incident: https://www.dailydot.com/debug/furry-hackers-fbi-raided/ https://www.dailydot.com/debug/furry-hackers-fbi-raided/ Once is happenstance, Twice is a coincidence. But I'm way more suspicious of coincidences than I was even just a few months back.

lolinder 2y ago
If I'm reading this right, this is a case of the FBI raiding the location of the leader of a ring of hackers and that leader going offline after confirming that the raid had happened. Unless I'm mistaken on that reading, that leaves a few key differences from what's being alleged in this thread: * The target was committing crimes which were documented prior to the raid. * The target was able to and chose to reach friends and tell them what happened. * The target went nonresponsive after informing their friends of what happened. * The friends allege that the location was raided but don't even imply that the leader is in federal custody. * The leader is pseudonymous, so we fully expect that if they decide to go offline and stop using that handle that they will disappear. That's not the same thing as a person with a stable real-world identity vanishing.
DrillShopper 2y ago
> Once is happenstance, Twice is a coincidence. Three times is enemy action