Great thread by 17c. Expanding a bit: The system compulsively cultivates "expert opinion" in every area - co-opting the consensus to ensure that it is always pro-expansion of regime power in one way or another and the only valid opinion in an area.https://twitter.com/17cShyteposter/status/1391542660008005633 …
-
Show this thread
-
See the recent N Wade piece about the lab leak hypothesis What was the system doing? In one sense box ticking - the system needs to be thought of as serious so it funds some research that it can plausibly describe as being done to "prevent pandemics"https://nicholaswade.medium.com/origin-of-covid-following-the-clues-6f03564c038 …
1 reply 0 retweets 15 likesShow this thread -
The output existed - papers that were shiny and *peer reviewed* so the reddit tier people can bark like seals about *peer review*. At the same time, it created a stifling "consensus" in the field to *never question the logic of doing that research in the first place*.
1 reply 0 retweets 17 likesShow this thread -
Anyone who did risked getting cut off from grants and out of science and then that person isn't a brave scientist but an outside crank. The system was doing something insane but had to protect it because it couldn't think because to think throws the whole system into question.
1 reply 0 retweets 15 likesShow this thread -
Once the pandemic was unleashed it turns out that there was another "consensus" - based on absolutely nothing at all (so they claim) but actually based on the same needs of protecting the system - the idea that "closing borders doesn't work to stop disease transmission".
1 reply 1 retweet 19 likesShow this thread -
Of course that idea is fundamentally *insane* if the germ theory of disease is correct - if infected people don't cross borders, then infections don't spread but the "consensus" opposed it.https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/30/world/europe/ski-party-pandemic-travel-coronavirus.html …
1 reply 1 retweet 15 likesShow this thread -
How would "open borders fight disease"? Truly a baffling prospect but one *necessary* for the the system - that there is no downside the things the system needs and wants. It only has to consider expert opinion and it owns all the experts - disagree and you're not an expert.
1 reply 2 retweets 24 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon
If you haven't read Mcgoey's "The Logic of Strategic Ignorance" it's an excellent insight into this particular issue - that public expressions of ignorance on a subject are perversely more valuable when coming from experts (as an alibi to decision makers who make bad decisions)pic.twitter.com/dERaxzJgxJ
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
You can see this clearly in this repeating pattern: "No one could have predicted this result, all the experts agreed" "But this guy predicted it" <silence> (which works because experts only have to reply to expert critique)
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.