site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   25431 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 17, 2024

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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Fun, or at least !!fun!! update:

In the original indictment, Dkt. No. 1, the government charged one count of violating HIPAA under false pretenses. The allegations in the indictment were built around the idea that Dr. Haim had no reason whatsoever to have access to TCH’s electronic medical records (EMR) system after finishing a surgical rotation at TCH in January 2021 because he had no patients there. The specific allegations included that after Dr. Haim completed his rotation at TCH in January 2021, he “did not return to TCH for any additional pediatric rotations or medical care”; in April 2023, Dr. Haim sought re-activation of his TCH login to access “pediatric patients not under his care” but emailed TCH “claiming urgency for adult care services...”; Dr. Haim “did not treat or access any adult care patients during this time period at TCH”; and Dr. Haim claimed “under the false pretenses that he needed to urgently attend to adult care services”...

At the September 26 th hearing on Dr. Haim’s renewed motion for a continuance, counsel for Dr. Haim further revealed that the government should have known about the procedures Dr. Haim performed past his last full rotation at TCH in January 2021 because 1) the government in discovery had provided an audit trail from Dr. Haim’s access to TCH’s EMR system showing that he made entries for TCH patients past the rotation ending date and 2) TCH had told the government as part of a Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights (HHS OCR) investigation that TCH considered Dr. Haim to have appropriately had access to its EMR system through the relevant times in 2023 because he was continuing to cover patients at TCH even while rotating at other hospitals.

The government has now obtained a superseding indictment. The primary changes include deleting all of the specific allegations noted above that were contradicted by the records TCH discovered and the other evidence in the government’s possession. The deletion of those supporting allegations leaves the sole allegation regarding false pretenses unsupported: “HAIM contacted TCH numerous times under the false pretense that he needed access to the electronic records system for the treatment of patients under his care.” Nevertheless, the government added false pretenses to all of the charges including counts 2–4.

Ed Whelan claims that (Haim's lawyers claim that) Texas Children's Hospital made this disclosure to the government nine months before the indictment, though I will caveat that he is a partisan in general and on this particular topic.

More subtly, the initial indictment's claim :

Instead, HAIM caused malicious harm to TCH, pediatric patients at TCH and its physicians by contacting a media contact, PERSON1.

has since been revised to :

Instead, HAIM, with the intent to use the individually identifiable health information to cause malicious harm to TCH and its physicians, obtained the individually identifiable health information and disclosed portions of the health information to a media contact, PERSON1.

On the other side of things, CBS reports:

Lau is an associate professor in the pediatrics department at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, according to the UT Southwestern website. The lawsuit said she has hospital privileges at two area Children's Health hospitals. The lawsuit accuses her of "falsifying medical records, prescriptions, and billing records to represent that her testosterone prescriptions are for something other than transitioning a child's biological sex or affirming a child's belief that their gender identity is inconsistent with their biological sex." Paxton is asking the court for an injunction against Lau and for her to be fined as much as $10,000 per violation.

The stated defense is hard to take seriously -- "doctors should not have to fear being targeted by the government when using their best medical judgment" is absolutely not a rule that cuts where the ACLU disagrees with the practice -- and a steelman of Paxton's position focused specifically on the fraud bit would be pretty strong. In turn, though, these also aren't exactly the central examples of a surgical and/or sterilizing interventions, instead being purely hormonal or implanted-hormonal processes for patients between the age of 14 and 17, and it's near-certain that Paxton doesn't really distinguish these cases from his central ones.

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