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.
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.
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.
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.