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 -
Isn't that literally what you did when you dimissed hydroacetylene point about viewpoint discrimination in therapy by pointing out that medical professionals discriminate against viewpoints like "disease is caused by bad humors" and "disease is caused by spiritual rot"?
The restrictions medical professionals put on adults wanting to do this are much stricter than the ones placed on children wanting to do it as part of gender affirming care.
Except Guyatt's own research shows that there isn't really evidence that treating gender dysphoria helps anyone.
It's just an example. My argument is that your view of the medical profession is rather rosy.
That was an example to demonstrate the principle at work -- namely that viewpoint discrimination is intrinsically part of professional licensure. It wasn't some specific example.
I'm not too sure about that, but I don't think it's worth litigating at this point in the thread. At the least, the point remains that an adult can have (e.g.) her tubes tied.
There isn't evidence, and so in its absence the establishment chose to believe something that wasn't forbidden to them by the research.
There's a famous Scott piece on the different epistemic burdens people put when faced with assessing things they do and don't want to believe. In the former it's "not excluded by the evidence" and in the latter it's "not mandated by the evidence".
Obviously we both agree those beliefs were largely wrong, so what is left to debate here?
If you can draw a direct comparison without it being a specific example, I don't understand what you're getting upset at me for.
If there are stronger restrictions in place, than I don't see how the point stands.
How is it "not forbidden to them by the research" in any sense that doesn't also absolve the "bad humors" or "spiritual decay" theory? Given the negative effects of the hormonal and surgical interventions in question, and the dispositive evidence for positive outcomes, what can possibly justify they're doing?
In this case we can write "mandated by evidence" right off the bat. As for "not excluded by evidence", most things banned by licensing organizations aren't "excluded by evidence". Just take a look at the drama Scott got into around Ivermectin, there aren't studies categorically proving it cannot work, just studies showing lack of evidence for it working. That's standard fare in science, even "bad humors" and "spiritual decay" aren't "excluded by evidence" in the sense you seem to be using the term.
Epistemology, I guess. What constitutes "mandated by evidence" and "not excluded by evidence". Also, whether or not the medical profession actually follows the lofty standards you claim it does.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link