Re:Five major Canadian banks mysteriously go offline in hour...
by bee_rider on Thursday February 17, 2022 @12:24PM
(#30375892)
It does seem like there are some folks out there who, for some reason, want to be overly broad as a way of rejecting an idea more intensely. I don't really get this instinct. In particular:
> I know many people who were labelled a "consipracy theorist" for saying the virus came from Wuhan lab
It was always the case that the right answer to this is, "we haven't seen enough evidence to say this is the case. It is possible, but there are also lots of natural sources it could have come from." This is still the case as far as I know. (?)
"Insufficient evidence of X so far" being misinterpreted as "X is impossible and if you believe in X you are a bad person" is pretty much the story of science communications for this pandemic. It seems like a really big problem.
> they were labelled nutjobs for saying that the government would implement vaccine passports to restrict where you could and couldn't go.
Restricting movement was always on the table. If someone was called a nutjob for understanding that, the person who called them a nutjob wasn't really taking the situation very seriously. The conspiracy theorist (in the pejorative sense) angle comes from the implication that there's some evil behind-the-scenes motivation for it, when it is just an expected pandemic response.
> They said the government would force you to be vaccinated, etc.
Same here. Mandatory vaccinations have always been a possibility in some places. That's not a conspiracy theory (in the pejorative sense). The idea that this implies some malicious behavior on the part of the government, is.
> I know many people who were labelled a "consipracy theorist" for saying the virus came from Wuhan lab
It was always the case that the right answer to this is, "we haven't seen enough evidence to say this is the case. It is possible, but there are also lots of natural sources it could have come from." This is still the case as far as I know. (?)
"Insufficient evidence of X so far" being misinterpreted as "X is impossible and if you believe in X you are a bad person" is pretty much the story of science communications for this pandemic. It seems like a really big problem.
> they were labelled nutjobs for saying that the government would implement vaccine passports to restrict where you could and couldn't go.
Restricting movement was always on the table. If someone was called a nutjob for understanding that, the person who called them a nutjob wasn't really taking the situation very seriously. The conspiracy theorist (in the pejorative sense) angle comes from the implication that there's some evil behind-the-scenes motivation for it, when it is just an expected pandemic response.
> They said the government would force you to be vaccinated, etc.
Same here. Mandatory vaccinations have always been a possibility in some places. That's not a conspiracy theory (in the pejorative sense). The idea that this implies some malicious behavior on the part of the government, is.