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 -
So I think we're quite close in ideals maybe. I agree that I would prefer a world with doctors as you describe.
I just don't think its possible. A doctor may earnestly believe that a trans surgery will save the life of a child, just as a Jehovahs Witness doctor believes giving the child blood is worse for them medically because they've both rationalized their belief set through their medical training.
For many medical decisions the outcomes are grey. As you point out fundamentally your medical ethos is buttressed by your belief set. You may not even know you are biased. So how do you ban that?
You see the same with dentists in much less culture war ways. I have a really old NHS filling in a tooth. My last US dentist said it was old but ok and if it started crumbling he would crown it. My new dentist says I must remove it and replace it with a crown because he expects it to start crumbling and that will make crowning it harder and more painful for me.
Presumably this difference is to do with their risk tolerances or experiences with fillings or because they read it in a book. Or maybe my new dentist is a sadist or wants the extra money from my insurance company. I heavily suspect though its not a conscious choice. They are different people, one a shy, almost reserved Indian chap, while the new dentist is a mile a minute talker with shoulders like a prop forward from Iowa. I have no idea which one is objectively right. They may well both believe they are right.
As for bloodless doctors..wait until you find out about Doctors of Osteopathy (D.O.).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Osteopathic_Medicine
"One notable difference between DO and MD training is that D.O.s spend an additional 300–500 hours to study pseudoscientific hands-on manipulation of the human musculoskeletal system (osteopathic manipulative technique) alongside conventional evidence-based medicine and surgery like their MD peers"
Currently about 1/3 of student doctors in the US are D.O., not M.D. in theory they have to study the same conventional medicine. But being taught a whole non-scientific process seems like its likely to influence your decision making. Or maybe just being the kind of person who would choose that route does. There are practices and programs that don't hire D.O.s but they are fully licensed physicians.
Anyway, the US at least has no grounds to complain about activist doctors pushing treatments with little or no scientific backing. They've been accepting that for a long time. Maybe make a Doctor of Trans (D.T.) school so you can tell them apart and call it a day.
Ugh, don't get me started. My cousin used to run a chiropracty clinic in the UK. Every time he talked to me about it, I had to bite my tongue.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link