this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2025
762 points (98.5% liked)

News

36270 readers
2908 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

That’s just wild. The one silver lining to T2 is that I’m not shocked by anything anymore. It’s still outrageous, but the surprise is gone.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] turmacar@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I think we're long past trying to be prescriptive about the phrase "conspiracy theory".

There are real conspiracies, but conspiracy theories tend to start from a place of "X must have been at fault" and work backwards from there. Which leads to endless loops of whataboutisms and excuses to try and excuse the existence of the theory at all costs instead of being interested in what actually happened.

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

It sounds like you're suggesting "lab leak implies China is to blame" should be seen as evidence against it being a lab leak? Or that any theory which implies blame must be suspect. This just sounds like an excuse to disregard any evidence that it's a lab leak, since surely anyone who is arguing that it's a lab-leak must be motivated to do so.

The converse is also true though -- surely you must see that there is similarly motivation to argue in reverse. Why don't we just set aside assuming that we're all arguing in bad faith.

[–] turmacar@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (2 children)

It's possible there was a lab leak, and relevant labs should be investigated for the same reason we investigate all plane crashes, it either leads to finding gaps in processes or confirms whether or not a systemic issue was a factor. The probability has decreased as COVID has been further researched and shows more markers of a 'natural' development, but it's generally beneficial to have a comprehensive audit when processes are in question.

That's not what these people are arguing. They're arguing that it's China's fault and not Trump's. That's it. For that to be the case it 'must' be a lab leak, and so they're retroactively finding justification for how that is possible. That they're running parallel to a reasonable line of logic for a portion of their argument does not validate their argument.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

As you are responding to one of my posts I should clarify my position.

They're arguing that it's China's fault and not Trump's. For that to be the case it 'must' be a lab leak.

Zoonotic or lab origin, the outbreak still occurred in China. Fault is only important to reduce further occurrences. Better wet market policies and tighter lab rules can be implemented simultaneously, worldwide without any blame being assigned.

The appalling US response to covid is fully Trumps fault.

The change in the .gov address is designed to compliment the tariffs and anger China.

The reason to highlight the possible lab origin was because original investigations and papers erroneously claimed that a lab origin was not plausible and any discussion about lab origins was censored as being a conspiracy theory.

That censorship is still occurring.

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 months ago

That’s not what these people are arguing.

Yeah I mean I agree. Actually in the top-level comment of this thread, I said the website was BS. I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me.