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 -
My main beef with this entire thing is that Alexandros included one study, which Scott acknowledged was decent, and which to me does seem to lift ivermectin out of the "works as dewormer only" pile into the "maybe could be useful" pile, and that's the Israeli study.
But Alexandros bangs on about this Cadegiani guy and his "studies" (and I put that in inverted commas for a reason) and this bloke is a total snake oil salesman:
Very easy to become a "worldwide expert" in a field where you're writing 70% of the articles. He moved on from ivermectin to an anti-androgen which first looked to be promising, but then oh dear the entire paper was withdrawn because of dodgy methodology, plus he's in trouble with the Brazilian government for getting permission to do a particular trial one way, then going off and doing it completely differently, with possibly bad results for patients who died.
If Alexandros stuck to "this one study is promising" instead of ploughing on with "everyone is WRONG except me" and "this batch of really badly done studies worldwide are EVIDENCE", I could be more easily convinced. As it stands, I thought ivermectin worked, if at all, due to reducing parasite load before Scott came to that conclusion, and I'm sticking to it even after the response to the rebuttal to the original.
More options
Context Copy link