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 -
So, what's the deal with Fluoride in the water anyway?
According to this tweet by Marc Andreesen, a U.S. government review has concluded that Fluoride in the drinking water lowers IQ's in kids. The literature reviewed suggests that high levels of exposure reduce IQ's by 2 to 5 points.
If so, this would absolutely dominate any conceivable benefit from putting the stuff in the drinking water.
And it also seems largely unnecessary given that fluoridated toothpastes and mouthwash exist. Drinking the stuff is an incredibly poor intervention compared to, you know, actually applying it directly to our teeth.
Assuming Anddreesen's tweet is true (which I assume by default given his status as a top venture fund leader), this is absolutely scandalous.
I seem to be getting into a bit of a rut with my comments here (I guess I'm frustrated when people display certainty in something that I think is unfounded), but why would a venture fund leader have some premium access to the capital T truth that others do not?
Does your assessment of his accuracy change if, for example, you knew that he had spent 1 minute looking into the issue versus an hour?
Nothing about his tweet implies he looked into this issue in any depth. Maybe there ARE significant benefits that would outweigh the supposed drop in IQ. Maybe other studies found no such IQ drop at all. I have no idea whether this is true, but it seems like an error to dismiss all such claims as completely improbable right off the bat.
I'm not saying it's certainly wrong or a lie or whatever, but taking action based off this tweet seems rather premature
Edit: the report says that fluoride at DOUBLE the recommended limit had this effect. Is it really a scandal that a chemical provided above the recommendations set by health agencies would cause health problems?
Yeah, I believe him more than I do a random kook. He's proven to be intelligent and has a reputation to protect.
Obviously, this doesn't mean that he has access to special sources of truth, or that the government report he linked to is correct. But it does mean that the substance of the tweet is true namely 1) That there actually is a government report and 2) That is shows fluoride leading to a decline in IQs.
Yes, this is a huge scandal. 1.5ppm, while more than twice the recommended level, is only 40% of the EPA limit.
0.7 = CDC recommendation for dental health
1.5 = Causes lower IQ's
4.0 = EPA limit
So a level of 1.5 is still well below the EPA limit. This could be a crisis on the level of lead paint and leaded gasoline. Imagine if we were putting lead in the water to prevent cavities, and then just assuming that the amount delivered to the consumer was the perfect amount to prevent cavities without causing negative effects. That's seemingly what we are doing here with fluoride.
Doesn't the actual article imply that this could only possibly effect 0.6% of water systems in the US? And even then only to children and pregnant women. And even then the cause is not government addition of fluoride, but rather government failure to remove fluoride below the separately arrived at EPA number?
If 1.5 ppm causes 2-5 points of IQ loss, how much does 0.7 ppm cause?
On the other hand, the benefits of fluoridation appear to be a (poorly studied) 30% reduction in cavities. That seems... minor. Especially given that fluoridated toothpaste exists which would appear to confer all the benefits with none of the downsides.
If 1.5ppm causes 2-5 points of IQ loss, how much does 1000ppm in toothpaste cause?
You're claiming this is a huge scandal on the level of leaded gasoline. Given what the report found, that seems hysterical.
2-5 IQ points are very important. Getting fluoride via toothpaste is superior solution.
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
More options
Context Copy link