To be challenged, you have to have discussion. What happened was the silencing of an unapproved idea. There was no intellectual process.
What I see are two masses screaming regurgitated talking points at each other and refusing to actually engage in any kind of meaningful way. It is distopian and disturbing.
I do not personally have any thought or idea about which covid origin theory is true. For me this isn't about the lab, but instead the thought police.
I think the suggestion is, when there is not great evidence either way we should not support or shutdown ideas within the realm of probability - let's be honest and simply say "we don't know".
Just an outside observers here, both zoonotic and lab leak lack proper evidence under your standard. Yet, zoonotic is what's been "okay" to discuss.
Re:The history of lab leaks
by throw20210211 on Friday May 28, 2021 @12:35AM
(#27311770)
> Aren't we supposed to shut down arguments presented without evidence?
So we should also have shut down people saying it was not a lab leak ?
Aren't we supposed to shut down arguments presented without evidence? Isn't that what "argument" means?
Explain how you aren't just asking for license to be wrong without challenge here? I mean, when people (the WSJ, notably not the conspiracists) came out with real evidence, we listened!
I'll fully admit, my priors were wrong. This isn't a total dingbat idea, it might have happened. But I think that now, based on better data. I didn't think that then, and nor should you have.