Current Events > Will hivemind liberals at least admit they were wrong about this?

(+) Yeah! (+)

MedeaLysistrata posted...

At that rate I'd never be able to talk again

generally you have time on here to think about what you actually want to say in a way that you don't with real-time verbal communication

but aside from that, I would not be opposed to joe being unable to talk

---

averagejoel posted...

then maybe you should have figured out what you were trying to say before you said it

I did. I went into TONS of detail about my argument, my thoughts on the issue and who specifically I was frustrated with. People got quite mad at me for having such a long OP so I took the top part of the argument and left it in the OP and posted the OP in it's entirety as a second post.

In this OP I specifically say my anger isn't at liberals but the ideologically hiveminded, in this case those liberals like that.

So I said what I meant to say from the start. Maybe you should have actually read it before getting mad.

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

It's really hard to see this as a genuine thought when Joe basically insults Liberal in the topic title.

I'm critical of hivemind liberals because they don't think for themselves. And here is a case where not thinking for yourself and just following the consensus makes you have a pretty indefensible position, that reality itself changed in the past week or two.

---

COVxy posted...

Do you believe SARS-CoV-2 was created during gain of function research?

?

---

joe40001 posted...

You got this more right than most people who talked for the whole topic. Yes, that's the big problem. People went from "This is a crackpot theory for dumb dumb crazies and literally should be banned from being discussed" to "this is something that is an obviously valid topic of discussion because CNN changed it's mind today." And nobody noticed how absurd that is.

Reality itself doesn't change when the political winds change, but plenty of people are acting like it does.

Yeah like the fact that "it came from a lab" meant "China/Bill Gates/Fauci created it"

Because otherwise that fact would've only been relevant to epidemiologists.

You're deliberately misrepresenting the viewpoints of the people who espoused them last year, and this latest revelation is not in any way vindicating for them.


---

I'm critical of hivemind liberals because they don't think for themselves.

I'm critical of people who think watching YouTube videos constitutes research.


---

Yes, that point was conveniently ignored I think

---

What_ posted...

Hivemind liberals

*claims to be liberal*

Yes I am critical of hivemind liberals, which doesn't make me critical of all liberals. Just like a person being critical of Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists doesn't make them critical of all Feminists.

If you can't wrap your head around that, that's your own cognitive problem and not my responsibility.

---

joe40001 posted...

Yes I am critical of hivemind liberals, which doesn't make me critical of all liberals. Just like a person being critical of Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists doesn't make them critical of all Feminists.

If you can't wrap your head around that, that's your own cognitive problem and not my responsibility.

Strawmanning and gaslighting seems to be your thing.

---

joe40001 posted...

I'm critical of hivemind liberals because they don't think for themselves

Lol!!!

---

COVxy posted...

Do you believe SARS-CoV-2 was created during gain of function research?

@joe40001
???

---

joe40001 posted...

Yes I am critical of hivemind liberals, which doesn't make me critical of all liberals. Just like a person being critical of Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists doesn't make them critical of all Feminists.

If you can't wrap your head around that, that's your own cognitive problem and not my responsibility.

Why is several people agreeing with each other a hivemind?

---

joe40001 posted...

I'm critical of hivemind liberals because they don't think for themselves. And here is a case where not thinking for yourself and just following the consensus makes you have a pretty indefensible position, that reality itself changed in the past week or two.

Do you point that same critical analysis against the huge "hivemind Cons" who also do the same thing? People who claim that the virus is a bioweapon of the Chinese, or that it is a way to institute population control, etc. Etc.?

Because the thing is what you are talking about, people not using facts and not taking the time to fact check what they hear, is a problem on all sides of the political spectrum. For example the "hivemind" who are anti-vaccination.


---

Getting real tired of people trying to make what they say sound less crazy by redefining the context for which it was said.

---

COVxy posted...

Do you believe SARS-CoV-2 was created during gain of function research?

?

I've been slow to respond to this answer because I wanted to do research before responding. But clearly for some reason not instantly responding is a demerit against me.

At this point I would have to do research on a few different things:

1Q. Am I certain the Wuhan Insitute of Virology participate in Gain of Function research.
1A. Currently I my understanding is that they do, but I would want to double check multiple sources before integrating this into a truth claim.

2Q. Would the alterations to the virus be sufficient to identify SARS-CoV-2 as unique from the base natural virus they are experimenting on.
2A. This is a classification problem, this isn't as important as I more care about the impacts of the potential alterations more than if from a classification level those alternations make this technically distinct or not.

3Q. Even if alterations happened to a natural strain that were sufficient to transition it's classification to a new distinct strain would it be appropriate to say that this new strain was "created"
3A. Again this is a classification problem that I am not too concerned on the pedantic level as I care more about reality and it's implications than the specific words we put on it, but I would have to do more research on how the terminology works on this part.

I care about question 1. But it is important to note that question 1 which is very important, was part of the kinds of discussions that were censored by facebook. Which I make the assertion now was a wrong thing to do.

---

See, the issue is: that is absolutely debunked conspiracy theory, and several hundred posts into the topic where you are claiming people had suppressed valid claims you don't understand that.

---

DarkRoast posted...

Yeah like the fact that "it came from a lab" meant "China/Bill Gates/Fauci created it"

Because otherwise that fact would've only been relevant to epidemiologists.

You're deliberately misrepresenting the viewpoints of the people who espoused them last year, and this latest revelation is not in any way vindicating for them.

Reality is relevant to everybody.

You're deliberately omitting the viewpoints of everybody who engaged in a responsible discussion of the lab leak hypothesis as if they don't exist.

I've said it before and I'll say it loud because you keep missing it:
NOT EVERYBODY WHO TALKED ABOUT THE LAB LEAK HYPOTHESIS WAS AN IGNORANT RACIST TRUMPER, MANY OF THEM WERE SIMPLY PEOPLE DISCUSSING WHAT IS AN INTELLECTUALLY VALID IDEA.

ME DEFENDING THEM DOES NOT MEAN I DEFEND EVERY STUPID IDEA OUT THERE.

---

1Q. Am I certain the Wuhan Insitute of Virology participate in Gain of Function research.

Then you are also certain that they don't literally have the tools necessary to create gain of function viruses.


---

joe40001 posted...

Reality is relevant to everybody.

You're deliberately omitting the viewpoints of everybody who engaged in a responsible discussion of the lab leak hypothesis as if they don't exist.

I've said it before and I'll say it loud because you keep missing it:
NOT EVERYBODY WHO TALKED ABOUT THE LAB LEAK HYPOTHESIS WAS AN IGNORANT RACIST TRUMPER, MANY OF THEM WERE SIMPLY PEOPLE DISCUSSING WHAT IS AN INTELLECTUALLY VALID IDEA.

ME DEFENDING THEM DOES NOT MEAN I DEFEND EVERY STUPID IDEA OUT THERE.

There was no intellectual discussion, stop being disingenuous about it.

---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Do you point that same critical analysis against the huge "hivemind Cons" who also do the same thing? People who claim that the virus is a bioweapon of the Chinese, or that it is a way to institute population control, etc. Etc.?

Yes, I have done it countless times in countless topics which get conspicuously ignored by all the people who come into topics like these to dunk on me and call me a trumpist anti-vax racist conservative.


---

I know you think you're trying to make your views sound reasonable and palatable, but we can see through them, because the things you're saying are right out of the conspiracy theory textbook. The fact that you can't tell that these questions and views are irrational should concern you, not us.

---

DarkRoast posted...

There was no intellectual discussion, stop being disingenuous about it.

So your claim is that nobody on facebook was discussing the lab leak hypothesis in a sincere intellectual way?

---

DarkRoast posted...

1Q. Am I certain the Wuhan Insitute of Virology participate in Gain of Function research.

Then you are also certain that they don't literally have the tools necessary to create gain of function viruses.

What?

Me being currently uncertain of something and wanting to do more research does not mean I am certain of it's inverse.

I would hope somewhere in college they would have taught you that much.

---

joe40001 posted...

So your claim is that nobody on facebook was discussing the lab leak hypothesis in a sincere intellectual way?

No, I'm claiming that you are deliberately misrepresenting the "lab leak hypothesis" and, in particular, misrepresenting the obvious message of the vast majority of people discussing it

---

joe40001 posted...

What?

Me being currently uncertain of something and wanting to do more research does not mean I am certain of it's inverse.

I would hope somewhere in college they would have taught you that much.

1) you don't do research.
2) you reject information that runs counter to your own, and disregard experts because they counter your narrative.
3) the questions you ask are disingenuous, not only because you are uninterested in the answer but also because you are incapable of understanding the answer.

You ask questions with very obvious bias, and your lack of knowledge in the subject makes you believe those questions have merit and haven't been addressed, without realizing that even a basic knowledge of molecular biology would render those questions unnecessary. If you lack that knowledge, and want to do your own research, I highly suggest you get that knowledge first. Otherwise your research will be pointless.

---

DarkRoast posted...

I know you think you're trying to make your views sound reasonable and palatable, but we can see through them, because the things you're saying are right out of the conspiracy theory textbook. The fact that you can't tell that these questions and views are irrational should concern you, not us.

Maybe this issue you are having is that my views sound reasonable because they are reasonable, and this cognitive dissonance that you are having is because you can't reconcile me sincerely having reasonable thoughts that go against liberal mainstream and with your apparent believe that everybody who goes against the talking points of the liberal mainstream is just a dumb dumb trumper.

---

This topic needs to be closed.

---

You are JAQing and Sealioning in an attempt to gaslight and distract from the fact that you believe that this lab could somehow create or modify a virus, but lack the knowledge of molecular biology necessary to explain it in a way that would be convincing to someone like me.

It's no different than saying "we don't know if mRNA can alter our DNA, it should be researched."

It has been researched for over three decades.

---

Alucard188 posted...

TC should go to the hospital with how much he's hemorrhaging words all over his keyboard.

I can't believe this was the 15th post in this topic, by a Lead Mod, and yet over 200 posts later...
---

DarkRoast posted...

No, I'm claiming that you are deliberately misrepresenting the "lab leak hypothesis" and, in particular, misrepresenting the obvious message of the vast majority of people discussing it

If 90% of people are talking about X in a dumb way, and 10% of people are talking about X in an intellectual and smart way, my defense of that 10% is not a defense of the 90%. As far as I'm concerned they are separate discussions.

I don't understand where you get off telling me that my defense of the right to discuss X is because I claim X is always discussed in the smart way, or that I claim the 90% being dumb were somehow not being dumb.

I am making neither of those claims.

---

joe40001 posted...

If 90% of people are talking about X in a dumb way, and 10% of people are talking about X in an intellectual and smart way, my defense of that 10% is not a defense of the 90%. As far as I'm concerned they are separate discussions.

I don't understand where you get off telling me that my defense of the right to discuss X is because I claim X is always discussed in the smart way, or that I claim the 90% being dumb were somehow not being dumb.

I am making neither of those claims.

You're not making any claims, you are diarrhea farting all over a keyboard in an attempt to reframe idiotic views in a way that makes them seem rational, by pointing out that a very small number of people may have been having rational discussions in a tangential way to the subject.

The only people having rational discussions about lab origins were epidemiologists and pathologists. Everything beyond that was conspiracy theory 101.

You are claiming that the liberal hivemind was wrong to stop those discussions, and for that you are wrong.

---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

Why is several people agreeing with each other a hivemind?

Like I said earlier:
What is ok:
A person studies data and arguments from people -> They assess that info as a function of how much they think they can trust those data/people -> They make up their own conclusions about issues -> They identify with the political party that most reflects those conclusions

What is not ok:
A person identifies with a political party -> They receive their conclusions on issues from that party and treat that as truth

---

A person studies data and arguments from people -> They assess that info as a function of how much they think they can trust those data/people -> They make up their own conclusions about issues -> They identify with the political party that most reflects those conclusions

A person who thinks or claims that they're studying without actually even knowing how to study is even worse than a hive mind, because you have fooled yourself into thinking you're an expert in a subject for which you know nothing.

---

joe40001 posted...

Maybe this issue you are having is that my views sound reasonable because they are reasonable, and this cognitive dissonance that you are having is because you can't reconcile me sincerely having reasonable thoughts that go against liberal mainstream and with your apparent believe that everybody who goes against the talking points of the liberal mainstream is just a dumb dumb trumper.

You're being disingenuous about what the issue Facebook and this "hive mind" had with the original phrasing. The reason people were not going to be open about the "lab grown virus" narrative is because that narrative was pointing towards the Chinese creating the virus and using it as a weapon. This in turn was being used to create anti-Asian sentiment which has led to a rapid increase in anti-Asian hate crimes across North America in particular.

Reasonable people were not creating a nuanced discussion about the validity of the virus perhaps having been researched in China and it being accidentally released. Many of this "liberal hive mind" as you called it did not want to give fuel to Asian discrimination that was rampant at the time. While perhaps the better response in your opinion to these assholes would be, "Yes it is possible that the Chinese government was researching on this virus in a lab and it spread by unfortunate circumstances" many were just like, "Shut the hell up buddy and stop calling it the Wuhan Flu and telling Asian-Americans to go back to where they came from"

---

DarkRoast posted...

You're not making any claims, you are diarrhea farting all over a keyboard in an attempt to reframe idiotic views in a way that makes them seem rational, by pointing out that a very small number of people may have been having rational discussions in a tangential way to the subject.

It's not tangential to the subject it IS the subject. Rational discussions were being shut down and that's fucked up. At least admit you are saying "ok a very small amount of rational discussion was suppressed but that is justifiable collateral damage", because that seems to be what you are claiming.

The only people having rational discussions about lab origins were epidemiologists and pathologists. Everything beyond that was conspiracy theory 101.

1. Do epidemiologists and pathologist not exist on facebook? Was banning their discussions of this subject on facebook appropriate
2. I believe this to be false, plenty of people were having the ration discussion but are unwilling to acknowledge them because you hate the conspiracy theorists so much. In your world apparently literally everybody who isn't on your side must be a conspiracy theorist. This is obviously dumb

---

joe40001 posted...

Like I said earlier:
What is ok:
A person studies data and arguments from people -> They assess that info as a function of how much they think they can trust those data/people -> They make up their own conclusions about issues -> They identify with the political party that most reflects those conclusions

What is not ok:
A person identifies with a political party -> They receive their conclusions on issues from that party and treat that as truth

Is it actually true that Trump's version of this was that the virus was created, while Biden's version of this was that it escaped from a lab?

Because those are two completely different reasons to want to talk about this

---

DarkRoast posted...

A person studies data and arguments from people -> They assess that info as a function of how much they think they can trust those data/people -> They make up their own conclusions about issues -> They identify with the political party that most reflects those conclusions

A person who thinks or claims that they're studying without actually even knowing how to study is even worse than a hive mind, because you have fooled yourself into thinking you're an expert in a subject for which you know nothing.

Where did I claim I was an expert?

You gave me shit for talking about the areas for which I wanted to do more research, which is antithetical to the claim that I think I'm an expert. I think I have a valid opinion, but that isn't an unreasonable thing to think.

---

joe40001 posted...

Where did I claim I was an expert?

You gave me shit for talking about the areas for which I wanted to do more research, which is antithetical to the claim that I think I'm an expert. I think I have a valid opinion, but that isn't an unreasonable thing to think.

I didn't say you claimed to be an expert, but you are claiming that you have done research, and I am stating that you lack the background necessary to do that research objectively, as you lack the knowledge needed to be able to discern valid information from propaganda.


---

DarkRoast posted...

1) you don't do research.
2) you reject information that runs counter to your own, and disregard experts because they counter your narrative.
3) the questions you ask are disingenuous, not only because you are uninterested in the answer but also because you are incapable of understanding the answer.

Everything you said here is false.

You ask questions with very obvious bias, and your lack of knowledge in the subject makes you believe those questions have merit and haven't been addressed, without realizing that even a basic knowledge of molecular biology would render those questions unnecessary. If you lack that knowledge, and want to do your own research, I highly suggest you get that knowledge first. Otherwise your research will be pointless.

What questions are "unnecessary"?

"Could gain of function research done in a lab have altered existing natural viruses to create the strand that we now call COVID19?"

In your mind is that question "settled" as no, and it is only my obvious ignorance that is making me think otherwise is a possibility?

---

DarkRoast posted...

I didn't say you claimed to be an expert, but you are claiming that you have done research, and I am stating that you lack the background necessary to do that research objectively, as you lack the knowledge needed to be able to discern valid information from propaganda.

And on what basis do you make such a claim?

Research can include researching arguments and the track record and intellectual rigor of the people making them. Surely you have opinions on things for which you don't have a PhD.

Do you have a PhD in firearms and psychology? Do you still have opinions about gun laws?

---

"Could gain of function research done in a lab have altered existing natural viruses to create the strand that we now call COVID19?"

In your mind is that question "settled" as no, and it is only my obvious ignorance that is making me think otherwise is a possibility?

That question is settled merely by knowing the subject of molecular biology.

Asking such a question and believing it to be valid is like asking "how are we sure light is both a particle and a wave?" and then ignoring the slit experiment.

---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

Is it actually true that Trump's version of this was that the virus was created, while Biden's version of this was that it escaped from a lab?

Because those are two completely different reasons to want to talk about this

I don't much care about what Trump's version or the conservative hivemind's version of this was. Like I said I value truth and the ability of have intellectual honest discussion of reality without it being banned.

If that stance gives more points to team trump or team biden I really don't give a flying fuck.

---

DarkRoast posted...

"Could gain of function research done in a lab have altered existing natural viruses to create the strand that we now call COVID19?"

In your mind is that question "settled" as no, and it is only my obvious ignorance that is making me think otherwise is a possibility?

That question is settled merely by knowing the subject of molecular biology.

Ok so your claim is "no" then? Your claim is "Gain of function research done in a lab could not have altered existing natural viruses to create the strand that we now call COVID19"?

---

I dunno what a bunch of idiots claiming something was 100% true based on zero evidence and instead solely on the grounds of retribution and racism has to do with it being a considered only a possibility after a year and half of evidence gathering.

A stupid racist's idiotic babbling is right once every 500 days, I guess.

---

joe40001 posted...

Ok so your claim is "no" then? Your claim is "Gain of function research done in a lab could not have altered existing natural viruses to create the strand that we now call COVID19"?

I don't have to claim anything. The only thing I have to state is that the technology necessary to generate such a virus, and have it be viable, is far beyond the scope of the laboratory in question. And, not only that, is generally beyond the current level of virology advancement.

---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

You're being disingenuous about what the issue Facebook and this "hive mind" had with the original phrasing. The reason people were not going to be open about the "lab grown virus" narrative is because that narrative was pointing towards the Chinese creating the virus and using it as a weapon. This in turn was being used to create anti-Asian sentiment which has led to a rapid increase in anti-Asian hate crimes across North America in particular.

Reasonable people were not creating a nuanced discussion about the validity of the virus perhaps having been researched in China and it being accidentally released. Many of this "liberal hive mind" as you called it did not want to give fuel to Asian discrimination that was rampant at the time. While perhaps the better response in your opinion to these assholes would be, "Yes it is possible that the Chinese government was researching on this virus in a lab and it spread by unfortunate circumstances" many were just like, "Shut the hell up buddy and stop calling it the Wuhan Flu and telling Asian-Americans to go back to where they came from"

As I understand it what you are saying is "we should have suppressed discussion of the truth because racists might latch on to it and use it to racist ends." Is that a correct interpretation of this statement?

Also how is saying it originated in a Chinese lab racist and saying it originated in a Chinese wet market not racist?

Finally why are you intimating that my defense of the right of people to discuss a realistic possibility is a defense of racist assholes?

---

It's cute that you think you can hide the reality of your beliefs behind the facade of legitimate scientific inquiry, yet you lack even the most basic knowledge of molecular biology to realize how ludicrous your question is.

---

Can you imagine having Donald Trump's tiny sweaty fist so far up in there that you consider this a win?

Conservatives called it a certainty when they had zero evidence, now theyre calling it a certainty while theres still zero evidence and its merely considered "not impossible".

Of all the people to get conservative America on their knees and ready to service, you guys simp for DONALD TRUMP?

---

Jerry_Hellyeah posted...

I dunno what a bunch of idiots claiming something was 100% true based on zero evidence and instead solely on the grounds of retribution and racism has to do with it being a considered only a possibility after a year and half of evidence gathering.

A stupid racist's idiotic babbling is right once every 500 days, I guess.

The point is just because stupid racists say something doesn't make it false, if we are to ban speech for being false we should do it because it's false and not because a lot of racists say it.

Vanilla Ice cream tastes good, I'm sure some racists even think this, that doesn't mean if a racist says it on facebook, or even if a racist says it on facebook and uses that claim as evidence that "Vannila is good because it is pure white and thus pure whiteness is good", even if they do that, that does not make the statement that "Vannilla Ice Cream tastes good" to be "known to be false" or a racist statement.

---

None of us libs believed it didnt come from a lab. It was always a possibility. The whole point of stopping people from saying that it was from a lab was to try and discredit conspiracy theorists from making up stories so it went along with the Trump supporter agenda. It was all about waiting until the truth came out which it still hasnt fully. It was acknowledged now and that is the straw TC is balancing on it seems.

---

DarkRoast posted...

It's cute that you think you can hide the reality of your beliefs behind the facade of legitimate scientific inquiry, yet you lack even the most basic knowledge of molecular biology to realize how ludicrous your question is.

I hope you didn't start your master's thesis with "It's cute that the people who disagree with me think..."

If you are so confident in your intellectual integrity make a specific falsifiable statement about gain of function research and it's potential effect on COVID19.

---