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 history of masking (especially cloth) showed very little ability to slow aerosols.
Thus the default should’ve been masking doesn’t work until proven otherwise.
The CDC studies to support masking were absurd (hair dresser anyone). The closest they came was the Bangladesh study which had some problems that likely put a thumb on the scale for masking. There they found cloth masks did nothing whereas surgical masks reduced the spread by about 10% but only in the very old.
Some people took that analysis and re-examined it and found even that claim was stretching.
There just is so little evidence supporting the efficacy of masks I don’t see why anyone would start with the default you’re asserting.
It seems to me there are two different claims here. First, did the evidence for the effectiveness of masks in reducing spread of covid warrant government mandated masking? Second, is the evidence against the effectiveness of masks strong enough to warrant the claim that they are "entirely ineffective"? I am not interested in arguing about the first claim. For the second claim, which is specifically the claim OP reported RFK Jr making and therefore the claim that is relevant to this discussion, I do not think you have provided strong evidence. For example, you only mention cloth and surgical masks and do not discuss other masks such as N95. I realize that the efficacy of cloth and surgical masks is relevant to the policy question, but leaving out N95 and the like is unconvincing if you want to argue that masks are "entirely ineffective" (and note that in my original comment I specifically mentioned that cloth masks are not very effective). Also, citing a single study that claims surgical masks reduce covid spread by 10% in the old and then vaguely hand-waving about people being skeptical of that study does not convince me that masks are entirely ineffective. It might convince me that surgical masks are not very effective or that the costs of requiring masks are not worth the benefits, but that was not the question at hand.
My point is you’ve reversed the question. There is no reason to expect cloth or surgical masks do anything. It is on you to prove that; not the other way around. Has nothing to do with mandates.
I'm not sure why you keep insisting on specifying "cloth or surgical masks" when the OP just said "masks." Also, there is a major societal dispute about whether masks (including N95 and the like) are effective. It seems reasonable to expect someone who claims they are "entirely ineffective" to have decent supporting evidence.
Let me just ask you directly: do you think it's true that N95 masks are entirely ineffective at reducing the spread of covid? If so, do you think the evidence for this is so obvious that no reasonable person should question it? If not, then I'm not sure what we're arguing about.
Because that’s how language works. Focusing on an entirely non central case (ie N95) obfuscates the issue. When people say they believe in God, I don’t assume them to be talking about Odin.
But to answer your question no I don’t think N95 as used did shit
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