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 -
Thanks for the more elaborate response, as I wasn't sure how to respond to the other one.
Because they're powerful people in influential positions of mainstream medical and academic institutions.
I have a different perspective on what happened.
There was a consensus of experts and it said the opposite. Just look at this article by Jack Turban, yeah yeah it's just pop-sci, but Turban is an acclaimed expert in the field, and his article cites an alphabet soup of psychological and medical associations, and it seemed pretty clear that the science was settled. This consensus was not shaken by internal debate among experts, Cass was ordered by the government to conduct her review, and for that matter the government did not do so at their own initiative either, but has done so due to public pressure stemming from the controversy. Now, I'm not familiar with who exactly lobbied for the review. For all their faults, the British medical experts seem to have a skeptical streak, so I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out some of them spearheaded it... that said, surely you see how the topic being controversial among the general public would prompt them to look into the issue?
In other words, at each step, the review was prompted by outsiders questioning the experts in their field of expertise, and none of it would have happened if people followed the approach you recommend. Further, despite evidence for "gender affirming care" being judged to be of poor quality, it seemed to have no impact on the worldwide status of the procedures themselves - some countries limited the precures in a UK-like fashion, but it's largely a local affair, not a global one like Ivermectin, and I haven't seen an analogue to pharmacies declining valid prescriptions from a doctor, which is what was happening with Ivermectin - or on the professional status of it's proponents.
I don't know all about these political details. I think they are irrelevant. What is relevant is that we follow scientific process. Initially with new ideas, things, it is common that practice does not follow scientific evidence but gradually there is a demand for evidence-based practice and that what happened with transgender therapies in the UK. Science is never settled in the stone, however. I expect more studies and more reviews etc., all moving towards more evidence-based practice. And obviously, evidence can change with time with better studies and reviews.
As for ivermectin, we get a lot of prescriptions in the UK, both for tablets and cream, for parasite treatment. I have never seen it prescribed for covid. Why would someone do that? Not risky but unnecessary. It is irrelevant if someone gets it for covid. Those are rare cases, just expensive placebo.
What to speak of ivermectin, even Paxlovid was a dud. Maybe helped some half-dead elderly people. The UK had a scheme to dispense it in the pharmacy without needing a prescription. But that lasted only a couple of months because the further evidence was not good. The US, however, under Biden's administration spent 10 billion on this medicine. Total waste of money.
And what I'm saying is that outsiders questioning experts in their field of expertise is a critical part of making that happen.
Definitely. Communication in both ways is very important.
But even outsiders should learn some basic principles of evidence. Otherwise they would just demand placebos and snake oil.
I just had a thought about demographics. We all know that in the west (but realistically the whole world is going in the same direction) not enough children are being born. No one knows how to reverse that. And yet, in political discourse we hear people who are so sure that if only they could implement their policies, it would all be solved.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link