Really disappointed by this comment, totally uncalled for and extremely disrespectful, and in case you were living on the moon the lockdowns have been very hard on alot of people, see skyrocketing suicide and overdose numbers from these actions.

The lockdowns have been hard, yes indeed.

The lockdowns are in fact nothing to do with the virus, and instead are part of a scheme to hide the true nature of contemporary capitalism? Please ...

It sure was a convenient way to move around trillions of dollars

Oh, wait, now we're onto "it wasn't just the lockdowns. They set up the lockdowns knowing that some months later, they would inject billons of dollars into the economy in a way that would, GASP, benefit the already rich at least as much as the not-already-rich"? That's the claim now?

Look, I get it, the "bailouts" distributed huge sums of money and lots of it went to people who, viewed through the lens of some sort of moral common sense, should not have received it. That's unfortunately the price you pay for a big country with a big economy. Trying to ensure that none of it was misdirected would have ensured nobody got any at all.

No, you're right. Everything happened exactly as the experts and fact-checkers said it did

That's not the (only) alternative to the paranoid style.

It's possible to believe that government (like all human institutions) can be deeply flawed and corrupt while simultaneously still doing things that in aggregate are beneficial to the whole of society.

What was paranoid? It was a convenient way to move around trillions of dollars

The vast majority of which was dispensed to US individuals via checks.

Did some of it go to places it should not have done? See my previous responses.

This is a very insulting comment, and seems to have been prompted by practically nothing at all. I'd urge you to consider how your condescending attitude appears to anyone who doesn't agree with you.

I generally try not to be condescending, and seek to take seriously the opinions of people who do not agree with me. However ...

> And that ... Theory about the lockdowns supposedly not being because of the virus but to hide a larger financial crisis/weath reallocation is spreading quite quickly at least at far as I can tell.

to even mention this "theory" as if it had any credibility whatsoever crosses a line where I'm not willing to cede good faith, sensible thinking etc., and can only react with dismissal and condescension.

"And that ... Theory about the earth not really being round but actually flat but the illuminati prefer that we think it is round because reasons ..." is in the same ballpark.

I think you need to get your knee jerk reactions under control. Just because someone says something that seems outrageous to you doesn't mean you should just jump directly to insults. Moreover, the parent comment did not endorse this theory, it merely noted that the theory "is spreading quite quickly... as far as I can tell".

If you're interested in debunking the parent comment, perhaps reading it carefully and responding to the points would work better. This could potentially open people's eyes and even make them agree with you. Instead you have opted to go for divisive insults, which likely reinforces the belief of anyone who is inclined to disagree with you.

If someone on HN posts my example quote about flat earth theory, do you think that anyone is under an obligation to calmly explain just why flat earth theory is wrong?

Of course, you could claim that flat earth theory is so disproven that there's no need to even bother, whereas "the lockdowns are to stop public unrest" theory might have something to it, so if I want to criticize it, I should explain all the evidence that says it's false.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree. From my POV, this idea is so utterly and obviously false prima facie that I'm under no more obligation to explain my dismissal of it than I would be in the flat earth case.

Also, where did I opt for "divisive insults"?

In the original comment you implied that the parent lacked critical thinking skills and mocked the idea that lockdowns even exist. I hope you can see how that is insulting, especially considering that in a later reply you said "The lockdowns have been hard, yes indeed". It kind of leads me to believe that you are the one arguing in bad faith here.

And I am not saying you are "obligated" to do anything. What I am saying is that by reacting the way you did, you are contributing to the hardening of beliefs and the polarization of this issue. If you want to live in a world where "utterly and obviously false" ideas continue to gain traction, then by all means keep insulting anyone who you disagree with.

I didn't mock the idea that lockdowns existed. I mocked the idea that they were of a nature that could possibly allow them to function as part of a cover up of the sort being claimed.

Lockdowns also took place in nations around the earth with entirely different economic and governmental systems to the US, so unless you're a believer in some sort of hidden global order that managed to get the Chinese, the Norwegians, the Germans and the US to all do more or less the same thing, then the existence of lockdowns seems to A LOT more to do with a virus than some cover up of contemporary capitalism.

There's a limit to how much politeness we need to extend to edge-dwelling ideas. Most people (not all, I know) on HN would include flat earth theory as stuff that doesn't require politeness (though perhaps a little sympathy ... I dunno). The question is where do you draw that line, and my POV, we already draw it far too close to people who have bad-faith reasons for proposing, publicizing and discussing a bunch of ideas.

Ok, fair enough. To be honest though, this quote that you just posted:

"Lockdowns also took place in nations around the earth with entirely different economic and governmental systems to the US, so unless you're a believer in some sort of hidden global order that managed to get the Chinese, the Norwegians, the Germans and the US to all do more or less the same thing, then the existence of lockdowns seems to A LOT more to do with a virus than some cover up of contemporary capitalism."

That makes a ton of sense and is a great argument! I wish you had replied to the original comment with this instead. I know you aren't arguing in bad faith, and I apologize for being a stickler on this.

I'm not sure how good your reading comprehension generally is, but at least in this case you've clearly misinterpreted what I've written there.

You wrote (full sentence):

> And that ... Theory about the lockdowns supposedly not being because of the virus but to hide a larger financial crisis/weath reallocation is spreading quite quickly at least at far as I can tell.

Maybe you think you can mention "that ... theory" without endorsing it in any way. I say that even mentioning this completely bogus garbage in a way that doesn't say that it's completely bogus garbage is effectively endorsing it. That's just the way communication systems work, unfortunately.

I'm not implying that you believe "that ... theory". I am saying that it's essentially insane, has no credibility, and is spreading only because people mention it in this sort of "offhand" way ("oh, I didn't mean anything").