site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8d ago (text post)   34094 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 3, 2025

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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

After Mandela, things would get much worse. Thabo Mbeki, the next President, denied the link between HIV and AIDS, and the number of South Africans suffering from the disease skyrocketed to a quarter of the population.

Hey, all these people were saying the US was following in the footsteps of Brazil and South Africa, but I never believed it until now:

In the fifth chapter of the book, titled "HIV Heresies," Kennedy writes several times that he is neutral on the whether HIV causes AIDS. "From the outset I want to make clear that I take no position on the relationship between HIV and AIDS," he says at the beginning of the chapter. Later on, though, Kennedy says in a parenthetical passage that he believes that HIV is "a cause of AIDS" and there are numerous mentions throughout the chapter of HIV infection not being the sole cause of AIDS.

Despite assertions that he is not taking sides, Kennedy spends much of the chapter on HIV presenting arguments made by Peter Duesberg, a molecular biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, and perhaps the most influential HIV "denier." Duesberg has argued that HIV does not cause AIDS but is a "free rider" common to high-risk populations who suffer immune suppression due to environmental exposures.

In "The Real Anthony Fauci,” Kennedy sums up Duesberg’s theory as follows:

“Duesberg and many who have followed him offered evidence that heavy recreational drug use in gay men and drug addicts was the real cause of immune deficiency among the first generation of AIDS sufferers. They argued that the initial signs of AIDS, Kaposi’s sarcoma and Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP), were both strongly linked to amyl nitrate—poppers—a popular drug among promiscuous gays.”

Thabo Mbeki, the next President, denied the link between HIV and AIDS

°

Kennedy says in a parenthetical passage that he believes that HIV is "a cause of AIDS"

Even the obviously hostile second hand source written to gin up fear about lenacapavir possibly maybe potentially being banned by Kennedy you found for your smear by association admits that Kennedy believes HIV is a cause of AIDS.

Kennedy is doing the same skeptic thing he's been doing for years, on a variety of topics. I'm sorry to say this, but I don't think he is ever going to learn that skepticism is evil and dangerous and bad and killing people. He's too much of a monster, I mean he literally growls instead of speaking.

To me it is interesting why Kennedy while believing the scientific evidence, delves so much into speculations that are known to be without strong evidence?

In a way, it could be healthy skepticism. We can benefit by examining our beliefs once in a while. Science changes, new evidence appears and sometimes people forget to update. But it doesn't seem what is happening here.

Maybe it is just that his tribal consciousness has become stronger with age that now it supersedes his rational thinking.

Most people are very tribal. They don't think deeply and just repeat what their tribe leaders tell them. Only a rare person is looking for truth. That is a hard work and requires to be in constant defiance towards the rest of the society who is very tribal. At the end you get tired and decide to live like everybody else, have an easier life and even make some profit.

The US is in practically no danger of a HIV running rampant, though, so it's kind of irrelevant. Yes, we'll lose some sodomites and drug addicts. We have people demanding fentanyl be allowed to run rampant for the same purpose on this very forum.

I think that HIV is rather irrelevant in the US because most people, including drug addicts have correct beliefs about it. They will try to use clean needles when injecting to avoid getting infected and so on.

I just look at this from public health point of view – if beliefs are causing people to make wrong health choices, then how can we change those beliefs?

Atul Gawande writes in detail how polio vaccination programs worked in India. The organizers knew that some people have beliefs that polio vaccine is causing disease or making people infertile etc. They also knew that shaming people or forcing vaccine doesn't work. If someone refuses, calmly explain why vaccine is beneficial and move on. In one episode the supervisor who otherwise was calm about all problems, got angry to vaccinator who berated a mother for refusing to vaccinate her child. He said, “she was listening to you before but now she will not listen at all”.

This approach was slow but successful, polio was eradicated in India. One has to be very stoic by allowing people to make wrong choices and then empathising with them when bad things happen without the slightest reproach.

Somehow we forgot all this and during covid acted very irresponsibly by forcing people to get vaccinated, by shaming them officially etc. Child vaccination rates predictably are going to fall and it will be hard work to improve them again.

With HIV beliefs in Africa, it's probably because we don't have vaccine against HIV so they never had contacts with field workers like that. Those people with HIV in Africa who happen to be involved in programs that provide treatment, quickly understand how all this work. But there is no a systemic reach like going from home to home to vaccinate or treat everyone.

The leaders could do that but they are tribal leaders. They have no capabilities to think or act rationally. It requires deep political scheming to entice them to implement such programs. The WHO is often accused to be working for China and other dictators but I don't see a way how they could not be. Otherwise those dictators are not going to listen to them.

This isn’t germane to the discussion. If you don’t like RFK Jr fine. We aren’t discussing RFK Jr but feel free to take potshots at your local political opposition.

Can someone explain to me why it's a matter of controversy that HIV causes AIDS?

IIRC, many people dramatically worsened after taking the earlier, largely ineffective treatments for HIV such as AZT.

Even if AZT created marginally longer life spans, it had severe side effects that took place immediately, so people might reason that it was actually AZT that was killing them. And, in some cases, it was AZT that was actually killing them. It's possible, though perhaps not likely, that it killed more people than it saved.

There's a lot more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duesberg_hypothesis

It's not totally out of left field, and it's not unreasonable for a person to have considered this in the 1980s.

Of course, this is totally different than Thabo Mbeki, who had a totally different belief system that made no sense, lived in the era of effective HIV treatments, and who presided over a country where 25% of adults were infected with HIV.

The comparisons that the original poster made between RFK and Mbeki seem motivated more by Current Thing than by an actual analysis of the AIDS epidemic or South Africa. It's a bit disappointing.

IIRC, many people dramatically worsened after taking the earlier, largely ineffective treatments for HIV such as AZT.

There's a lot more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duesberg_hypothesis

I don't understand why this isn't out of left field. The article seems to list about four different hypotheses (it's AZT, no it's poppers, no it's opioids, no it's sodomy), and most everything (except I guess AZT) was a thing before the AIDS epidemic. Given that AZT is a treatment for AIDS and nobody gets AZT without having AIDS, it doesn't pass the sniff test that the causality actually runs the other way.

Of course, this is totally different than Thabo Mbeki, who had a totally different belief system that made no sense, lived in the era of effective HIV treatments, and who presided over a country where 25% of adults were infected with HIV.

The comparisons that the original poster made between RFK and Mbeki seem motivated more by Current Thing than by an actual analysis of the AIDS epidemic or South Africa. It's a bit disappointing.

What is so disappointing about it? RFK also lives in the era of effective HIV treatments, so you can't let him off because AZT is not good. He was writing those things in 2021. Surely we're way past the "not unreasonable to consider this" time window you describe.

In any case I encourage you to discuss with the poster directly rather than taking potshots in a grandchild comment.

I suspect because people can be HIV positive for years even untreated and not show symptoms of AIDS. Most people are used to things like colds where exposure leads to symptoms in less than a week. So a germ that causes a disesase years out leads to people doubting that that is the true cause.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats