(no title)
uwuhn | 6 years ago
It sounds like you ultimately support censoring knowledge of the origins of a virus.
E.g., no one without some sort of exemplary privilege should be allowed to know where Ebola originated from, because if they have that knowledge, they will behave in a discriminatory and fearful matter. The general public just can't be trusted with that information because they will react to it inappropriately.
Changing the name adds an extra degree of separation between hearing/reading the name and knowing the origin (you have to perform an additional step to learn the origin, like reading the Wikipedia article), but your intent remains the same.
I am not saying that this mindset is good or bad, right or wrong. I just want to clarify that I am understanding you correctly.
lovehashbrowns|6 years ago
Discovered in 1993 near the Canyon del Muerte on the Navajo Reservation, it was originally named the Muerto Canyon hantavirus, in keeping with the convention for naming new pathogens.[2] However, the Navajo Nation objected to the name in 1994.[3] It was also near the Four Corners point in the United States, so the virologists then tried naming it the "Four Corners virus". The name was changed after local residents raised objections.[4] In frustration, the virologists changed it to Sin Nombre, meaning "without a name" in Spanish.
uwuhn|6 years ago
You aren't responding to my question regarding intent at all.
>This is to help curb irrational fears against a certain area.
...by adding an extra degree of separation between the name and knowledge of the origin. Right? Do you disagree?