This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
In the particular case of fluoridating water, the ruling elite had a good story. Scientists knew that naturally occurring levels of fluoride varied from place to place. Did it matter? They did the epidemiology thing and decided that less than one part per million made tooth decay noticeably worse. More than four parts per million caused dental fluorosis, but nothing else showed up strongly with natural levels of fluoridation. So topping up fluoride to bring low fluoride water up to one part per million seemed super safe; lots of people were already living with 1ppm. And had been for their entire lives. It was a rare case where we have data (albeit epidemiological) on all cause mortality, due to pre-existing "natural experiments".
Your confusion is the result of a garbled account of events. That is bad in itself, but I want to make the case that it is important to say that "topping up" and "adding" are different and that the claim that we "add" fluoride to the water supply is a lie.
First I will offer paradigms of "topping up" and "adding" and then make my case that things can go horribly wrong if we tolerate people confusing them.
Topping up Measure the level. If it comes in at 0.5 ppm, add enough to increase the level by 0.5 ppm. Measure again. If it is in the range 0.9 to 1.1 ppm declare victory. If outside that range, find out why, and adjust appropriately.
Adding Don't bother measuring, or if some-else has measured, just ignore it. Add enough to increase the level by 1 ppm. Continue to fail at measuring and be smug that the level is at least 1 ppm because our addition guarantees that out-come.
Now picture a town debating water fluoridation. Why? Well, Mr Bad Guy hopes to get kick backs from the contracts for fluoridation equipment and chemicals. He persuades his fellow citizens to top up fluoride levels at public expense. They vote for it. Mr Bad Guy sets it in motion. The measured natural level turns out to be 1.3 ppm. There is nothing to be done. No contracts, no kick backs. Mr Bad Guy looks around and notices that nobody is watching. He arranges contracts for equipment and chemicals to add enough fluoride to increase the levels by 1 ppm. He pockets his bribe money. Fluoride levels increase to 2.3 ppm. Mr Bad Guy feels safe. No-one will notice 2.3 ppm and if he falls under suspicion for corruption, he can always say that he misunderstood.
Later Dr Nerd measures the fluoride and checks the records of the old measurements. Dr Nerd is unhappy about the waste of public money, or about the dangers of fluoride, take your pick. He tries to "blow the whistle". But what language does he speak? If he uses the vernacular he complains that we are adding fluoride to the water supply and we shouldn't be doing that, we should instead be adding fluoride to the water supply [sic]. Nobody understands his point. So he switches to Nerd-speak and complains that we are adding fluoride to the water supply when we should be topping up; very different. Topping up is free! But the towns-folk don't speak Nerd-speak, so Dr Nerd still fails to make himself understood.
Talking about topping up fluoride levels using the word adding is bad. It covers up corruption and is why we cannot have nice things.
Is this an actual thing that happens with any regularity? And even if it is, I'm skeptical that trying to teach the public scientific jargon will fix it.
A much better solution for Dr. Nerd-boy here would be to use vernacular language like a normal person instead of like an idiot. "The town government is wasting money adding extra fluoride to the water supply, when our water already had enough fluoride in it naturally!" Boom, now everybody understands what he's talking about.
But the language of "adding" rather than "topping up" has erased the concept of already has enough fluoride in it naturally. The idea is missing from the discourse. Lots of ordinary people have naturally occurring fluoride in their drinking water and have no idea that it has always been like that. Dr Nerd's third attempt at making his point will make not make sense to those people and they will ignore him.
We can tell that the idea of already has enough fluoride in it naturally has been erased from the discourse, simply by listening out for the missing follow-up questions. When some-one is on the media, arguing against fluoridation on the grounds that the recommended level is a health hazard, the interviewer questions them. The obvious line of questioning is "What about places with naturally occurring fluoridation? Do you advocate removing it? How? Are the health problems actually showing up? There have been multiple life times for them to appear!" But the obvious questions don't occur to the interviewer. The concepts have somehow gotten erased :-(
Yes, it would be nice if reporters interviewing anti-flouride activists would ask about this. Genuine, hard-hitting reporting is a rare and valuable thing in all sorts of fields, alas.
I do continue to wonder, though, whether your scenario of a town official deliberately adding unnecessary extra fluoride in exchange for kickbacks from the fluoride company has ever actually happened anywhere, and if it did happen how the situation was handled once it became public knowledge.
And this is an extraordinarily bad idea. Any time you take a statement which is clearly true in vernacular speech, and try to tell normies it's false because Science(tm) has assigned a different definition to one or more of the component words, you are lowering the general public's respect for science and scientists.
You are right to press me on whether my corruption scenario has ever actually happened. My gut feeling is no, never. But the past few years have wrecked my world view, and I fear that I am old and have been left behind while the world changes.
Back in March 2021 I had the Astra-Zenaca mRNA vaccine for COVID. How dangerous could it be? I knew that the messenger RNA would cause my cells to produce the protein that the snippet coded for. Scary! But I knew that that is what happens in a viral infection, and what happens when you take a "weakened" vaccine. Indeed Edward Jenner's original cowpox vaccination for smallpox is doing the same thing; spoiling the host for the smallpox virus by getting host cells to produce a shared protein and getting the host to produce anti-bodies to it. I was a science enthusiast and marveled at the invention of mRNA vaccines.
I saw public health as a nerdy area, and took it for granted that traditional standards of safety and efficacy would be upheld. I was disappointed. The https://meaningness.com/geeks-mops-sociopaths dynamic had played out while I wasn't paying attention. The blot clots and myocarditis problems would have lead to the swift withdrawal of the vaccines when I was young; but the world had moved on.
My current understanding of how the world works goes something like this:
It is year N and Mr Blackpill has noticed that the incentives tend towards corruption. He claims that year N is already corrupt. It isn't. Mr Blackpill is undaunted; he claims that dynamics created by the incentives are fast acting and predicts that year N+10 will be corrupt. Nope. Mr Blackpill has complete faith in his reasoning and in human avarice. Year N+20 will definitely see a corruption scandal. Mr Blackpill is wrong again.
Eventually year N+30 arrives and with it a big corruption scandal. Mr Blackpill was right in the end. Worse, it turns out that the corruption is entrenched and hard to root out. It has been going on for fifteen years. Mr Blackpill was right about N+20. There are a variety of forces that tend to hide scandals and when they break out into the mainstream it turns out those in the know had been complaining, correctly, for many years.
Returning to adding versus topping up. I see the language here as one of those forces that tend to hide scandals. Ecbatic not telic. I don't know whether we are in year N, year N+10, or year N+20. Mostly I don't know because I'm not in the business. But I cannot know by reading the newspapers. People complain about fluoride being added to the water supply and I'm left to guess that they mean topping up. If there was a scandal of the kind that I speculate about, adding, not topping up the news reports would say much the same and the I wouldn't be any the wiser. It would be the year N+20 situation, where there is corruption but still ten years to go before the facts break into mainstream news.
At the end of the day, my guess is that there just isn't enough money in water treatment to attract the avaracious, and the potential for corruption goes unrealized. But the clumsy language, that stands ready to hide it if it ever happens, still give me the ick.
I'm aware that I completely lack the common touch, so it is best that I defer to your expertise here. I would be interested if you had any ideas on how to push back against the confusion of adding and topping up.
IMO the best thing to do to clear up fluoride confusion is to remind people that it is a naturally occurring mineral, and therefore many water sources naturally contain some, without any human intervention. I suspect most of the anti-flouride sentiment would go away if people understood that, and the language question of adding vs topping up wouldn't make much difference.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link