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 -
Covid global health emergency is over, WHO says
Yes, I know, Covid "has been over" for well over a year, pretty much no-one cares about this topic anyway, but I wonder if we'll now start more getting full appraisals of the entire Covid period. It is bewildering to consider how little people (apart from the two formed and ongoing "Covid tribes" - lockdown/vaccine skeptics on one hand, zero-covidists still wearing masks on the other hand) care about Covid now, considering how large it loomed for two years. For instance, I watched some Finnish election debates a few months ago, and the dire financial/general status of the health care system was frequently discussed with almost no mentions and indications that the Covid crisis and the decisions done during this period might have had anything to do with it.
What are all the ways people here would say the pandemic era changed the world? I don't think that all the effects will be visible or evident for years to come - there will yet be a lot of stuff where people in ten years might say "of course the Covid era changed that" but isn't properly yet considered to be a Covid effect.
Can we start to criticize the response yet?
Can we talk about rolling stone lying about ivermectin overdoses clogging hospitals?
Can we talk about cnn changing joe rogan's skin tone when he got covid for like a day?
Can we now talk about the financial incentives of some of the pharma companies and the hard push for mandatory vaccines?
Or the people who got fired for asking these questions?
Oh, you can even say that it was a lab leak, now:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64806903
More options
Context Copy link
Or the Lancet study for hydroxychloroquinen that had more covid subjects reported than covid cases for some countries. Who fakes a clinical trial to show something is ineffective if they don't have reliable cure waiting in the wings?
I was (and am) a heavy covid response skeptic (and continue to think the need to find a cure was for the vast majority of the population a solution in search of a problem) and saw a lot of sketchy data / science during the lockdown. What you are purporting takes the cake. Do you have a cite?
This summarizes it well https://ahrp.org/the-lancet-published-a-fraudulent-study-editor-calls-it-department-of-error/
More options
Context Copy link
It's the surgisphere scandal. Impossible data initially taken at face value because it was politically convenient.
I read this summary of the scandal and it seems that papers based on false data provided by Surgisphere claimed that hydroxychloroquine was ineffective, which led to delays in real trials of hydroxychloroquine, but also that ivermectin was effective, which led to its use before the results of real trials were available.
Among the people who were arguing about covid treatment based on politics before any sound research was available, there was one side (Trump and co.) that supported the use of both drugs and another (CNN and co.) that claimed both were ineffective and opposed their use. The Surgisphere scandal appears to be embarrassing for both sides.
In the end, the trials determined that neither drug was effective.
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
More options
Context Copy link