I think your first paragraph makes a valid point.

Your second is just raising the temperature without adding any real value, hence the downvotes you appear to be getting.

I'm sorry, but I don't think invoking a conspiracy is adding much value either. I think it's completely unwarranted. That conspiracy nuts don't like it is their problem. You'll get downvoted if you enter a flat earth convention and describe those assholes accurately too.

Hacker news is weirdly populated by people with no grounding in reality on very specific topics, like this and the MOND bullshit people spew in all physics discussions. I think it's an unhealthy obsession with being contrarian mostly.

> Hacker news is weirdly populated by people with no grounding in reality on very specific topics

You see the phrase "the Cathedral" flung about a lot. I take this as a fairly solid indicator of ESR-fellating big-L Libertarians.

Do you have a better description of the journo political academical hivemind? Big brother maybe? Because it was almost Orwellian the way narratives switched and no one admitted at being wrong even as the policies prescribed were either less effective or counterproductive.

The first paragraph paints a picture, where all skeptics are crazy or idiotic.

It's worth remembering the definition of skeptic as stated here:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/skeptic

"a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.".

But COVID discussions tend to be extremely black and white, with no place for a middle ground.

The comment about skeptics serves only to keep that black and white picture, which is one reason for downvoting.

The first paragraph does not paint that picture. If you're reading that into it, maybe you should look into yourself and figure out why. I said, extremely clearly, that the group of "COVID skeptics" includes all those crazy people, not that those people make up the entire group. There are people who are skeptical of the official narrative but in a non-crazy way; the people who gave some credence to the idea that there might've bean an accidental leak from some lab, for example, aren't crazy, even though they contradict the official narrative.

I think the comment I replied to would've been much more valuable if it specified which groups of COVID skeptics they're backing up. As it stands, it's just playing apologetics for crazy people.

Using the word includes does a disservice to skeptics and COVID discussions.

It would be far healthier for discussions to separate skeptics and obviously crazy or idiotic. Those are two very different groups.

Well then that's your responsibility, as a COVID "skeptic", to make the distinction clear -- especially if you invoke phrases such as "the Cathedral" as a big nebulous conspiracy. People who think the vaccine gives you autism also consider themselves COVID (vaccine) skeptics.