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 -
Trump and RFK blame acetaminophen for childhood autism. I couldn’t find a transcript yet, but the meandering press conference is recorded here. Was this on anyone’s bingo cards?
I’m confused. I vaguely knew that the Trump campaign had decided to fight autism at some point, but I always figured it was appeasement for the antivaxxers. Is there an untapped pool of Tylenol haters out there? Is this a stalking horse for a broader wave of FDA guidelines targeting the usual suspects?
Maybe there’s some sort of political smokescreen going on. We don’t appear to have started any new wars, and domestic hate for Trump looks more or less like it did since last week. If it’s a distraction, it’s not a very efficient one; I had a hard time finding reporting on it, and all the sites that bothered were also eagerly blasting his abuses of the Justice Department and the Supreme Court. That leaves the old-fashioned political motive of throwing meat to the base. Maybe Trump is just checking off campaign promises. But again, it’s so niche.
I suppose there could be some sort of personal beef. If Trump is trying to tank someone’s stock, uh, this is still a pretty weird way to do it.
That’s not even touching the medical case. The administration doesn’t appear to have provided much substance behind their claim. This will dissuade approximately no one. Enjoy your fresh CW battleground.
This was telegraphed a few weeks ago, the impression I got from Meddit at the time is that their is some inconsistent evidence for RFK's claims but that more likely than not he's wrong - however complicating matters is the fact that the medical community will instantly go blindly anti-Trump obscuring the issue.
Discussion today has seemingly forgotten the (mild) controversy in evidence and mainstream media coverage is repeating "trust the science" lies.
Sigh.
Some relevant facts: -Other analgesics have been slowly contraindicated in pregnancy over time, leaving Tylenol as the primary option. Does this mean a resulting increase in Tylenol is the cause of increased autism? Maybe not, but it is a thought and has been investigated previously.
-We don't actually really know how Tylenol works.* That makes it something of a boogie man.
*Please don't tell me this is one of the times that some important medical fact has changed since the last time I've researched it.
I wonder if we'll see an overall increase in mortality due to consumption of Protest Tylenol over a six month period.
Has that happened for literally any other protest fad?
If “trigger confidence” wasn’t enough to show up in mortality rates, this isn’t going to be any worse.
I vaguely remember a similar trend around ivermectin, which made me think of it.
That said, there was so much propaganda flying in every direction at the time that I would not stake my life on it being true.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I hate having Tylenol in the house. It was one of the scarier parts of pregnancy and neonates. My 2 year old slurped up half a bottle while I was trying to dose the 3 month old and I called poison control crying. Couldn't sleep all night from shaking, though they told me it was below their threshold for going into the ER. An overdose is a miserable death.
That said, pregnancy sucks and you have to be able to give women something. If they can't take willow bark tea, can't have a shot of brandy, can't take anything more modern, they're going to come up with something. And that something is likely going to be dangerous.
This attitude feels odd to me - I wonder if it is a difference in national cultures around paracetamol/acetaminophen (bizzare that the pharmaceutical name and not just the trade name has a BrE/AmE difference - I think it is the only drug where this is the case). I can't imagine not having suitable paracetamol preparations for all family members (Calpol is the brand of children's paracetamol syrup in the UK, the pills for adults are all generic) on hand if needed - and adult paracetamol in Europe is the strength of "extra strong" Tylenol in the US. I keep them safe with the prescription medicines - mostly for the dog's sake. (Paracetamol and antifreeze are the dog poisons our vet is most worried about, although according to the RSPCA slug pellets are the cause of most fatal dog poisonings in the UK). One time I forgot and the 4 yo tried to chug a half-finished bottle of Calpol, although he spilt enough that there was no risk of an OD.
I know the UK licensed safe paracetamol (with an antidote incorporated into the tablets so you can't dangerously overdose) for dementia patients. It was taken off the market because the antidote caused nausea often enough to be a problem, but we now have a better antidote. It seems odd that nobody has tried again.
It might be cultural, my parents always preferred ibuprofen. But also migraines run in the family, and ibuprofen is more useful for that sort of pain.
In the US there was an infamous Chicago Tylenol Murder spree when my parents were in the 20s, which probably gave the brand a bad name.
Actually the response by the company behind Tylenol handled the murder spree so well it's taught in public relations textbooks to this day as a great example of what to do in cases like that. The aftermath was what resulted in the no-tamper foil covers becoming common, for example, and fewer powder-filled capsules. They pulled it from the market for a while, cooperated with a detailed investigation, and then returned it with the new packaging and lots of marketing and they were back up top in market share pretty quickly. I'm sure some people kept grudges, though, because they always do.
Anecdotally some people I know respond more to Tylenol than others. For several members of my family it's kinda so-so in effectiveness compared to ibuprofen.
When pregnant I got headaches at the normal-to-me frequency. With Ibuprofen I can just take one pill, small dose, and it's gone. With Tylenol I would take the recommended dose, wait four hours of suffering, and then on the second dose I could finally feel some effects. The pain was gone but I could still feel the headache waiting. Numb but still pounding? It was weird and not pleasant.
But still better than absolutely nothing, which is what is left to pregnant women now.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Checking the history, ibuprofen was pharmacy-only in the UK until 1996 (whereas aspirin and paracetamol were on general sale). So when aspirin became contra-indicated for children because of the risk of Reye's Syndrome, a generation of kids grew up with paracetamol as the most available pain relief. The messaging from people who send public health messages (I was too young at the time to be more specific) was "ibuprofen is a stronger version of aspirin", so I assumed that it was also unsuitable for young children until I had kids of my own and bothered to check.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If we had organ markets we would be able to track the damage in real time.
Rationalists need to fund prescription markets.
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