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 -
While that would probably be a better outcome (to those who value American interests (me)), I don't think it would work. It's too deeply entrenched. I really don't think there's any coming back from it when you look at issues like transgender beliefs. Do you think biologists are about to walk all their support of that back, in favor of what used to be (and, in my mind, still is) an unquestionably obvious conclusion? I don't think it could happen. There will be no surrender on that front of the culture war, especially when you consider the immense reputational damage they'd incur from changing their story like that. It doesn't even matter if it's left wing or whatever at that point, they'd look absolutely retarded to come out and say "Oh, we were wrong about not knowing what a woman is."
Maybe the issue is that, despite a subject mentality, they're absolutely unable to contend with the fact that they are bleeding reputation to people who matter and can exercise control over them. They see the looming threat of admitting failure, and they clearly understand the damage that could incur, but they don't realize that doubling down on what many people see as overwhelming stupidity is causing them to lose substantial trust day after day. All they need to do, they think, is preach endlessly to the choir, those who have already given heart and soul to expert worship and could not think to question them, blind to the irreplaceable losses that their endless march incurs.
They just don't get it. They don't realize that they have a reputational standard that needs to be maintained. You get the certs, you wave a paper, and the people obey. If that's what you're used to, why shouldn't you fight to keep it that way? But any ruler can take things too far. I think there was a perception of invulnerability, that it would not matter what peasants who doubt The Cause think; you just have to yell at them again and again, and reinforce the need to Trust The Science, and all sorts of other patronizing measures. The idea that the experts could be in error is unthinkable, even as Trump hits them in the face with a sledgehammer over and over again while giving them very easy outs. Any mistakes can be corrected, any challenge from the opposition can be waited out (as they are too valuable to be dispensed with, clearly), and anyone noticing their repeated failures can only cause harm by going above their stations to cast doubt on the methods of their betters, who need to remain unchallenged for the ultimate good of America (which they often seem to hate).
I don't want to sound like I am enforcing a consensus, but it is funny. The way you frame the recapture of academia feels to me like The One Ring. You can claim it for yourself, but it will either unmake you into just another dark lord, or it will make you an unwitting pawn of the Enemy himself. Only by destroying it, perhaps, can what's in motion be stopped - and that is the only challenge that has not entered their darkest dreams.
Observably, the medical industry seems to have been able to successfully walk back from several scandals of seemingly similar magnitude (on a logarithmic scale). The lobotomy as a procedure won a Nobel Prize in medicine. The sister of a future president had one! It had similar arguments over its ethics and efficacy, but in the end we don't do them anymore (I hear there are some rare similar procedures, with much more oversight and gatekeeping). It's largely been swept under the rug, though there wasn't zero introspection on the topic. At smaller scales I could point to "repressed memories," Freudian analysis, and such.
But it might take a decent fraction of a generation.
With respect to lobotomies, I think the medical industry managed to restore quite a bit of public trust with the polio vaccine. Right around the time people were realizing what a terrible idea lobotomies actually were, along came this absolute miracle of modern science. If public opinion swings towards "puberty blockers in children are horrific, actually" and then a universal cure for cancer is developed, I think people will be a lot more willing to overlook the misstep.
I know where you are going with this but ironically the polio vaccine ended up being a long term public relations disaster once the pain of polio started to fall off. Check out the whole Salk vs. Sabin thing if you want to dig in.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Exaggerating for effect, but: I will not stand for this lobotomy erasure!!!!!!
But seriously lobotomy was a great idea at the time and we dropped* it as soon as it stopped being a great idea.
Lobotomy (1930s) predates psychopharmacology (thorazine in the 1950s), some psychiatric illness responds to therapy alone but even with modern therapy modalities quite a few conditions can be debilitating to the point people would elect voluntary death (see last week's discussion) and that's with modern support and medication.
Some illness benefits from therapy for outcome improvement but requires medicine. The obvious heavy hitters are schizophrenia and bipolar disorder (~20% fatality rate from a manic episode pre-modern medicine).
Prior to the modern resources and approach you were absolutely going to die or end up locked up in an asylum with zero quality of life. Lobotomy managed to work some of the time. It wasn't great and had hideous side effects but it was the same as trepanning. You got no tools in the toolbox you use what you got.
Usage dropped off sharply after we had options but any modality with understood risks and benefits is going to take time to get replaced by new things.
Meanwhile it got a horrid reputation because mental illness scary and authority bad. The reputation is certainly deserved but the malign is generally misplaced.
It's helpful to consider that the best intervention we have period for psychiatric problems is still electro-shock therapy (now: ECT), which is equally poorly portrayed in media.
It is incredibly effective and safe and it is hard to get patient's to do it because of the media presentation which is basically based off of fear of mental illness and an impression garnered back from when ECT existed but anesthesia didn't (which was...certainly a more difficult time).
*okay started dropping it.
You probably know more of the specifics than I do, but it was at least in some places (notably the Soviet Union and Sweden) seen as controversial at the time.
I'm not an expert on the history of soviet mental health treatments lol but as part of my brief lit review for that comment I did spot that the soviets banned it first, they also had a history of misappropriating mental health stuff for political reasons (see: sluggish schizophrenia).
Secret police with a picture of a stethoscope duct taped to their head is a bit different than the medical establishment going about their regular or irregular business.
Now the choice of death, lobotomy, or locked up and the key thrown away is a tough one but I think when people hear lobotomy that's not quite what they are thinking. Many people then and now are more okay with locking people up and forgetting them than seeing lobotomized people around (which we do do chemically now). This isn't "wrong" per se, but it's not generally fully explored by the people advocating it.
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