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 -
The apa isn't elected, they just produce a document that is currently being fed into the legitimate system. It's like there being an exposed config file for some important system that has been found and captured by a special interest, in time the hole will be patched. But we shouldn't pretend this is a legitimate purpose of the design, it was never intended for the DSM to be used as a political lever. To the extent it is being used as one it should be objected to.
This impulse people have, to recognize that there is a legitimate process for achieving some goal but instead using some hacked work around to subvert the process because it is easier than arguing your case convincingly to the public is just tyranny. That's all it is. Of course tyranny is expediant. I do not trust people who defend this impulse.
No, I think choosing whether or not homosexuality is a disorder is exactly the legitimate purpose, as intended, of the DSM.
The government wants a way to tell what insurance should and shouldn't pay for. That means it absolutely has to include judgment about what requires treatment. There can be no alternative that just describes symptoms.
Consensus, at some point, settled on this document produced by some technocrats. Now you're convinced that they've altered the deal, that the earlier version was privileged in some way that DSM-5 is not.
How do you propose such a document gets updated, if not by the authors coming together and saying "hmm yeah, that's a good pull request"?
You could have, you know, two different lists? You understand that what insurance has to pay for mean the rest of us are required to pay into it right? This is a tax benefits system with extra steps.
Yes, unelected authors. Not the people. Unelected beaurocrats vetted by the industry that brought us frontal lobe lobotomies and repressed memories. I am not impressed by this process.
So what process would impress your cynical self?
I get that you're unhappy about unelected bureaucrats raising your taxes. What's your solution?
Tangentially but the actual truth would be to change our medical/insurance/regulatory system be different in so many ways that this question would be irrelevant. But more in line with your question continue having the scientific body produce a descriptive sheet according to whichever natural category carried out in the best possible faith. Hell make multiple lists if you think there are competing natural categories. And have a department of the federal government responsive to the people take those recommendations into account and create a clear regulatory document detailing the diagnostic and treatment criteria that insurance must accept. Ideally this would be a relatively bipartisan commission. If the people want boner pills covered in all cases or no cases that should be a decision left to the people. Not some group of people who are totally not bought and sold by Viagra LLC.
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