DConf 2020 Canceled

[Anonymous]

to all the people dogpiling the responses against Era's point of 
view:

the reason there is not more dissent, whether here or in other 
respectable forums (eg scientific research in general), is purely 
because of social mechanics (ostracization of dissenters) - not 
the inherent unassailable truthfulness of the apparent consensus 
point of view. when contrary information is personally and 
professionally radioactive, is it a wonder nobody wants to 
associate themselves with it?

but here, as in so many elsewheres, "this is not the place." I'm 
already pushing the boundary with this meta-post containing no 
specific assertions, and will almost certainly put Mike in the 
unfortunate position of having to put his foot down in this 
thread (sorry Mike).

I'm just pointing out that, anywhere that people's real life 
identities are tied to what they are saying, there will be an 
artificial consensus around safe, socially sanctioned viewpoints. 
so you all essentially get an unrestricted platform to say "lol 
we're so informed and naysayers are tinfoil-hat nutters," but if 
somebody made a good-faith effort to respond to any of your 
points, messages would start getting deleted and the thread would 
be locked. and far from exceptional, that happens EVERYWHERE.

I don't expect any of you /respectable, rational/ people to read 
it, but for the shy dissenters among us, here's a short little 
essay on the circularity of scientific peer review (I am not the 
author):

https://www.reddit.com/r/accountt1234/comments/5umtip/scientific_circular_reasoning/