midwitedu

The theoretical ability to falsify something (or to prove it) has no bearing on the realities of propaganda, extensive domain knowledge or the lack thereof, and how such positions are ultimately arrived at.

Namely, trust in the institutions.

How many facts that form the bedrock of your worldview have you, personally, verified? Have you, personally, walked down the chain of evidence for certain scientific (i.e. falsifiable) claims and personally attempted to falsify them?

I didn't think so.

A conflation at best idiotic and at worst actively disingenuous.

Not listening would be you choosing to ignore someone. You don't have the right to throw them to the curb for expressing an opinion.

Really, it's like HN has fallen three standard deviations on the IQ bell curve today.

Dreary, historically-ignorant myopia.

Neither you nor the era in which you live are special enough to erode generations of protections for the ability to think freely, speak freely, and to do so without fear of repercussions.

Don't flatter yourself. Americans are, by and large, tired of the abject stupidity behind that speech.

Yes, yes. Popper always ends up trotted out by the people most interested in framing their censorious impulses as somehow above scrutiny.

Let's call this the paradox of rationalization: those quickest to engage in the behavior tend to be those whose motives for doing so are the least genuine and trustworthy. And anyone with access to the levers of censorship must earn a high degree of trust.