An appeal for an objective, open, transparent debate re: the origin of Covid-19 • Hacker News Board

Re: An appeal for an objective, open, transparent debate re: the origin of Covid-19

#291

Post by scrollaway » Mon, Sep 20, 2021, 10:42 AM UTC

nkrisc wrote: post #184

armchairhacker wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No I do put most of the blame on conservatives. They're the ones who aren't taking vaccines or wearing masks. It just doesn't excuse some liberals from encouraging this left/right divide and just being nasty. Things like r/HermanCainAward, being proud when vaccine deniers get sick. At least understand that when someone is literally putting themselves in danger, they're not evil or selfish, they're delusional and misi…

Everyone has a choice. They choose their actions, they choose who to listen to, they choose what to believe. They choose to be open or closed minded. They choose to listen to new ideas or not. A lot of people are choosing wrong and suffering for it. They had a choice. No one can take that away from them, they always had a choice. Propaganda only works if you choose to believe it.

It's not always a free choice.

For you and me it might be, because we may have the acquired skills to research sources, spot bullshit, etc. We still miss stuff.

But for a lot of people "choosing wrong", it might just be the sum of their environment. A media diet too heavily reliant on Facebook for example.

Ah but they're choosing to stay on Facebook you say... Well, yes, but if they can't directly make the link between Facebook and the propaganda, they don't even know they have a choice to make.

"Free will exists" is a hand wavy way of victim blaming here, imo. There is a reason these people are called victims of propaganda, not willful soldiers.

Re: An appeal for an objective, open, transparent debate re: the origin of Covid-19

#292

Post by disgruntledphd2 » Mon, Sep 20, 2021, 11:05 AM UTC

varelse wrote: post #153

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was that satire? I honestly couldn't tell.

That's pretty much my take on America right now as well coincidentally.

I mean, who cares? If it gets one person to get vaccinated it's probably worth it.

See also, the impact of claims of voter fraud/rigged elections on Republican turnout in Georgia Senate and the California recall election.

Re: An appeal for an objective, open, transparent debate re: the origin of Covid-19

#293

Post by mensetmanusman » Mon, Sep 20, 2021, 11:05 AM UTC

clairity wrote: post #251

mensetmanusman wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a political view of religion, most religious I know are simply asking ‘why something instead of nothing?’

but that's like looking at a function and defining it by its initial value. a function has meaning and importance beyond the 0th-order. and it's a philosophical view moreso than a political one (a political view posits how to use religion in the service of power).

Maybe. That wouldn’t explain why religion (asking these questions) has existed in every human tribe forever.

Re: An appeal for an objective, open, transparent debate re: the origin of Covid-19

#294

Post by disgruntledphd2 » Mon, Sep 20, 2021, 11:11 AM UTC

iammisc wrote: post #278

epakai wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obama wasn't that shocking. There was just a massive outrage factory attacking him. There are controversial things the Obama administration did, but the outrage wasn't commensurate.

Obama's association with Ayers, his pastors sermons while Obama sat through them, his derision for people clinging to guns and religion were all things very reasonable people could be upset by. You are being purposefully selective in your remembrances.

Yeah, i remember how upset conservative voices on the Intenrt were at the election of Obama.

It was like a mirror image of Trump's election in 2016.

While personally I preferred Obama (as a non-US citizen) it's really sad how much anger and rage is expressed over these political differences.

Personally I think gerrymandering is the proximate cause, as it creates more safe districts for party members, which allows them to be more extreme than would be acceptable in a more competitive district.

Re: An appeal for an objective, open, transparent debate re: the origin of Covid-19

#295

Post by sleepysysadmin » Mon, Sep 20, 2021, 12:27 PM UTC

advael wrote: post #98

It's a mantra at this point that polarization has gotten out of control, but one of the biggest effects it seems to have is this reverse-psychology effect I'm in a big American city, and I remember that until the online kids and snarky liberals started moralizing about mask protocol, there wasn't as much resistance to wearing masks among right-wing crazies. I remember when there was that controversy about 5G networks…

>It's a mantra at this point that polarization has gotten out of control, but one of the biggest effects it seems to have is this reverse-psychology effect

Covid19 is a religion. You cannot question religions. It's also not a problem until something goes beyond.

>I'm in a big American city, and I remember that until the online kids and snarky liberals started moralizing about mask protocol, there wasn't as much resistance to wearing masks among right-wing crazies.

Until it became a religion. Those right-wing crazies are religious seeing it as religion vs religion.

Compared to the flu seasons, which we go get a shot and then do nothing else. Covid for ages 25-35 is 40 times less likely to harm you compared to the regular flu season.

If you are 25-35, you go get the shot and then stop giving a shit about covid because it's virtually no risk. By all measures soon as the covid shot was available. You offer it as the flu shot and tell people to get it and you go back to flu season measures. Which is basically nothing.

Yet I know how many people who will drive 100km/h in a school zone are scared shitless by covid. The risk mismatch is not because of actual risk but rather because it's a religion. Morality tells them they need to be scared.

>It reminded me of the time people were worried about pollutants causing hormonal changes in indicator species, and then Alex Jones started talking about how "they're turning the frogs gay" and the meaningful version of that discourse vanished too.

There are 9 confirmed estrogens in our drinking water. Especially true of salt-water coastal cities. Hence why you pretty much MUST have water filtration.

How well would society function if we were doing mass hormone replacement therapy on everyone? Would people start being far more likely to be gay frogs or trans or just emotional messes like typical HRT symptoms. Especially if you aren't aware HRT is occurring. Why the huge increase in trans people? Is it because of these estrogens in our drinking water? Nestle and others approve though.

> It's made me wary of the sport of finding what crazy things my political enemies believe to make fun of them, because it seems like the net effect of this is creating "opposite" erroneous beliefs with no evidence

We are on this world together. Finding 'crazy things' or trying to start fights by calling people names does not benefit anyone.

Re: An appeal for an objective, open, transparent debate re: the origin of Covid-19

#296

Post by memling » Mon, Sep 20, 2021, 1:05 PM UTC

wolverine876 wrote: post #272

memling wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm in a big American city, and I remember that until the online kids and snarky liberals started moralizing about mask protocol, there wasn't as much resistance to wearing masks among right-wing crazies. The Law always provokes its opposite.

It happens occasionally, but rarely.

> It happens occasionally, but rarely.

For some definitions of "law" this is probably true. But I think under the more general principle it's much more likely to happen than not. If you look at the law as any set of rules, you find that they generally accuse you (it is not the subjunctive mood, but the imperative that is the mood of least reality): why do I have to tell my kids to wash their hands after going to the bathroom? Because they don't. It's the law of hand-washing. (For a more humorous take, Gary Larsen forever immortalized the idea with the alarm + light over the men's room.)

COVID's hand-washing suggestions are the grown-up version. And the way my kids resent it when I tell them to go back and wash their hands is not much different than the way some of my otherwise reasonable co-workers reacted. Of course not everyone reacted this way, but if the messaging were somewhat different I wouldn't be surprised to have found compliance higher.

Law is always paired with a consequence. For my kids, it's a short trip back to the washroom and possibly a haranguing depending on whether I'm extra irritable. For our society, it's sometimes death and/or being subjected to schadenfreude (haha, stupid rednecks took ivermectin and not only poisoned themselves but also died of COVID).

YMMV, but I have found this basic principle explains a lot: the law always accuses, and it always provokes its opposite. Moreover, people are really good at hearing law even if that's not the intent of the speaker. Communicating is hard.

A friend was a climbing instructor for awhile, and she related that when teaching people who were scared of heights to climb that the phrase "don't look down" (the law of "don't look down") was verboten. Instead, the command was "keep looking up." The difference between the two phrases was illuminating.

Re: An appeal for an objective, open, transparent debate re: the origin of Covid-19

#297

Post by TheFreim » Mon, Sep 20, 2021, 1:27 PM UTC

advael wrote: post #98

It's a mantra at this point that polarization has gotten out of control, but one of the biggest effects it seems to have is this reverse-psychology effect I'm in a big American city, and I remember that until the online kids and snarky liberals started moralizing about mask protocol, there wasn't as much resistance to wearing masks among right-wing crazies. I remember when there was that controversy about 5G networks…

> polarization has gotten out of control

> right-wing crazies

Seems to be a bit hypocritical, no?

Re: An appeal for an objective, open, transparent debate re: the origin of Covid-19

#298

Post by dham » Mon, Sep 20, 2021, 1:31 PM UTC

titzer wrote: post #172

advael wrote: post #98

It's a mantra at this point that polarization has gotten out of control, but one of the biggest effects it seems to have is this reverse-psychology effect I'm in a big American city, and I remember that until the online kids and snarky liberals started moralizing about mask protocol, there wasn't as much resistance to wearing masks among right-wing crazies. I remember when there was that controversy about 5G networks…

As an American who has lived abroad for a significant number of years and returned recently, it becomes abundantly clear, that if we only measure by the amount of time spent bitching, moaning, and fighting, Americans hate each other more than anything else on this planet. Disease, war, famine, injustice, genocide, plague? None will garner as much sincere unflagging burning rage as what those other fuckers did or said…

In my opinion this is a sign of America becoming a utopia. Most people have so little to worry about we start fighting on stuff that literally doesn't matter.

Re: An appeal for an objective, open, transparent debate re: the origin of Covid-19

#299

Post by dham » Mon, Sep 20, 2021, 1:51 PM UTC

eunos wrote: post #250

iammisc wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only people who think Trump was the source of the division are out-of-touch liberals. I don't even mean this pejoratively. I just encourage you to look beyond the current predominant media narratives. This society has been breaking apart for a while. All the signs have been there. Trump shocked the liberals, but Obama shocked the conservatives before him, and we can ping pong back and forth for a while I'm sure.…

I just puzzled how did Obama win with a landslide yet very divisive (not Obama fault).

Hint it's the internet, mainly social media. It's a poisonous parasitic infection that oozes puss throughout society. If the 2000 election happened in this era, America would have been blown up by now.

Re: An appeal for an objective, open, transparent debate re: the origin of Covid-19

#300

Post by sudosysgen » Mon, Sep 20, 2021, 1:55 PM UTC

civilized wrote: post #241

chitowneats wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people I know would say it's idiotic to use "horse paste" as an early prophylactic against covid, despite how much context such a statement obscures. You are making a mistake generalizing the case of your aunt to the rest of society. You come off as quite emotional about it, frankly. Sure, maybe you can psychoanalyze her accurately given your close relation. It's not helping your argument in a public setting lik…

Ivermectin is safe in humans, and it isn't difficult to find that out. I'm ignoring your speculation about me and plan to continue to do so, so let's not bore each other.

Ivermectin is not safe in humans at the quantities required for it's observed antiviral effect against COVID.