Taking a step back, does he not at least bring up some valid points?
The CCP did bar scientists from early investigation and has gone to considerable lengths to suppress national news outlets from properly reporting on the issue at hand.
Of course. The issue is simply that it needs to happen within the site guidelines, for example this one: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive." (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)
Commenters here need to learn the difference between posting in the flamewar style and having curious conversation. The issue is not the topic—it's which mode people's nervous systems are functioning in as they discuss it. Here is what to watch for:
(1) One mode is battle mode, in which people use grandiose, aggressive rhetoric to try to defeat an enemy, and take any opportunity they can to twist what the other side says to gain an advantage...
(2) ... and the other is curiosity mode, in which people explore together to find the truth and are interested in what each other are actually saying, thinking, and feeling.
(3) You can tell which mode you're in by sensing into your level of activation while posting. If you're not sure about it yet, or if you're feeling agitated, slow down before posting, set an intention to observe your own state, and it will soon become clear.
Another way of explaining this is the distinction between reflexive and reflective responses: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor.... Reflexive responses are lightning fast, associated with high activation, and oriented towards threat assessment and defense. They come from the fight-or-flight layer that we're all dealing with in ourselves. They're also highly repetitive, because they basically come from cache—that's why we're able to generate them so quickly. The reflexive system is not about responding to or creating anything new. It's there for survival and to prevent the recurrence of past painful experiences.
Reflective responses are slow, come from the drive to explore and learn, and have to do with new responses to new information—which take time to come together. They lead to conversations and outcomes that aren't simply replays of past reactions. They aren't primarily about past traumas and threat defense. In order to function this way, the nervous system needs a certain baseline of safety. One way to get there is simply to wait until the initial wave of reactiveness subsides, and then look around and orient to what's specifically new and interesting in the present situation.
Empathy comes into this too, because the ability to put oneself in the other person's position, instead of quickly scanning their comment for weaknesses to exploit, is a complex process that requires the slower cognitive systems to come online.
Wow, this is def the next level of what you have been getting at with posting and moderation. Making me think deeply about my consumption and interaction here on yet another axis; my best posts are my most highly edited so why not edit first?
You always make me think, dang. Criticisms by me and others aside, thanks for doing your job.
Admiring your efforts as an admin to maintain a civil discourse. I wish the remaining handful of scientists who dismiss lab-associated escape pathways as unworthy of investigation would be so civil: https://twitter.com/BlockedVirology
Particularly the mudslinging ('It's plausible she can't assemble them [referring to a Broad Institute genomicist supporting investigation into both lab-leak & zoonosis], but that's because of a lack of expertise'): https://twitter.com/K_G_Andersen/status/1373027946684837893?...
The CCP did bar scientists from early investigation and has gone to considerable lengths to suppress national news outlets from properly reporting on the issue at hand.
This does at least deserve some criticism.