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.
Hard to even pass the smell test as a primary driver when tylenol was invented in the mid 1950s and its use was more prevalent and at higher doses and during pregnancy for decades before some of its dangers were better known. Did the Autism increase markedly in 1960? 1965? 1975? 1985? No, it didn't. Did Autism see a marked decline (even with a delay) when tylenol use collapsed in the early 1980s over the tylenol murders? No, it didn't.
RFK promised to deliver something and maybe even has something. If I had to guess, he was told to slow his roll or even go back and get more and better evidence about vaccines specifically by the Trump admin, or more specifically people like Pam Bondi, Susie Wiles, and others closer to Trump's ear in the admin with deep ties to pharmaceutical companies. And so RFK is going to attempt to dent the barricade or perhaps even craft a trojan horse and test out the message using tylenol because it likely is an aggravating factor to the primary cause which is likely the vaccine schedule. Perhaps this trojan horse will at the very least unlock funding for better studies to target the vaccine schedule. Along with this announcement comes recommendations which alter the schedule or at least how it's typically administered, so I suppose it's a distraction from the other stuff which came along with the announcement and which makes a dent in fortress vaccine.
If weak positive evidence from studies with big flaws isn't good enough to do anything, I cannot help but roll my eyes into the back of my head at so many people here and in the old place during the covid hysteria.
You’re telling me that the right response to a nothingburger is to take it as evidence in favor of the next big reveal?
If RFK had better evidence, he’d have jumped on it. He’s already got the FDA, he’s got Trump in his corner. Building a “Trojan horse,” however that works, doesn’t buy him anything.
File this one with the UAP disclosures, the Epstein files, and the Second Coming. I predict you’re going to be disappointed.
It's not a nothing burger. It's weak positive evidence with flaws.
No. He wants to maintain a good relationship and his position in the Trump admin to do this in a way which can actually get it accomplished. Your assessment of the inner factional politics inside the Trump admin is just wrong.
How "building a trojan" horse would work is to show weak positive evidence which points to tylenol being one possible cause. This results in a motivation to study the connection which could include other correlative causes, e.g., why the person is having pain and/or inflammation in the first place. Getting an excuse, support, and money to do better studies on the subject would be a win compared to the status quo.
given the alternative, it's pretty hard to be disappointed
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link