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:
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.
Pro-CDC content like what? What is there lately worth praising the CDC for? What is its proportion to the blameworthy stuff? You can't just assert that it doesn't get posted as evidence the forum is biased if there's simply none of it to be posted.
Also, for someone complaining about bad evidence of bias, you haven't given any evidence of bias on the part of this site, you've merely asserted your own opinion as if that should suffice. By your standards, what we really need is a double-blind statistical analysis of a representative sample of every post on the site and the subreddit containing the word "CDC" in the past 5 years, compared to some privileged benchmark. Good luck with that.
But who's saying they're extremely biased, in particular? Plus they still caved - compare to all the times e.g. bureaucrats under the Trump admin just straight-up ignored instructions, leaked them to the media, then suffered no repercussions. I don't see how it's supposed to be evidence against bias that they didn't immediately do whatever, given that they did do it after a bit of cajoling.
Evidence is evidence is evidence. A small sample size is not as good as a large sample, but that doesn't make it worthless. Plus, the mere fact that leaking requires a motive doesn't mean it's necessarily biased. Any action requires a motive, but that doesn't make every action biased.
Well, for instance, 85% of the CDC's budget is in grant-making, which you can view here. Much of it funds medical research. But, instead of focusing on that, this sub focuses on a one sentence change on one webpage in their enormous website. That is as pure an example of picking the bias needle out of the haystack as I can think of.
Yes, if you wanted to demonstrate bias, use the Internet Archive, and write a scraper to compare all the webpages archived for the CDC. Check in, say, 2019 and now. Look at the changes and compute the percent that demonstrate leftward biased - you could use a differ and a sentiment NPL model. This is quite do-able for a software engineer and, if open-sourced, would be strong evidence of leftward bias in the CDC. I don't expect anyone in this forum to do it, because it's funner to complain about terrible "evidence" than collect strong evidence against your outgroup. I won't do it, because I don't actually care if the CDC is biased - I just unhealthily care about how everyone here is using this silly innocuous event as evidence of deep instituitonal bias, because that is just poor reasoning hygiene that I thought we were all supposed to be working to above.
No, they didn't. The CDC pushed back in those emails and refused to include a study the advocate suggested. Again, not anything anyone in this forum apparently cared enough to notice or signal boost.
You see, this is my point. Either
Y'all are using this as evidence of bias. In which case, I think you're wrong, as I've been arguing.
Y'all pre-supposing bias and then saying, "since we know the CDC is biased, this isn't surprising." But if that's the case, this entire thread is nothing more than an elaborate "Boo outgroup" and should be nuked by the mods.
True, but the fact that I personally don't have an example of right-wing advocacy going is then easily explaiend.
Well, biased towards the extremes at the very least. Otherwise, why leak it?
I strongly dislike the government grant system and the cartelization of science that I think it has produced, so I’m not the person to wave grants in front of as proof of the CDC’s goodness. In any case, you've still given evidence of bias on the part of the site that's just as bad as the evidence about which you're complaining is supposed to be, so how important can you really think that that standard is?
The CDC compromised on their original position by altering their website because activists, a Senator, and the WH browbeat them into doing it. Whether they did literally everything the activists asked is neither here nor there in evaluating whether they caved relative to their original stance.
I don’t think that this is the only example we have of activists influencing the CDC and I reckon they’d add up to plenty over time. (See e.g. the teachers’ unions dictating school responding policy to CDC behind the scenes or the influence of gay activists on the CDC’s renaming GRID to AIDS). Surely there must be at least one right-wing example in the last few decades.
Because they want to encourage the CDC to be less pliant in the face of political pressure?
Context Copy link
Context Copy link
Context Copy link