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 -
What do you think of the medical claims of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.?
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an American environmental attorney and activist, has recently announced his candidacy for the presidency and appeared on the Jordan B Peterson Podcast, where I encountered him for the first time. He makes the, um, interesting claim that endocrine disruptors are "everywhere to be found" in our daily lives, and that because they can sexually feminize frogs, they must be responsible for the apparent explosion of gender dysphoria and transgender identity that has taken place over the last 5-10 years.
Some more claims I did a double-take on, having never heard them before: He claims also that a Cochraine collaboration report has declared Pharma drugs are the third leading cause of death in the US after cancer and heart attacks, and that masks are entirely ineffective in preventing the transmission of COVID-19? 70% of advertising on the news is from pharmaceutical companies? Big Pharma gives twice as much as the next biggest industry to congress in lobbying efforts? Most drug research has been corrupted by bad incentives and cannot be trusted?
If you don't know Kennedy, Chat GPT summarizes his "distinctive policy positions and views" as:
Environmental Advocacy: Kennedy is well-known for his advocacy and activism on environmental issues. He has been a strong proponent of environmental conservation, fighting against pollution, climate change, and the use of harmful chemicals. He has advocated for sustainable energy solutions, conservation of natural resources, and protection of ecosystems.
Vaccine Safety Concerns: Kennedy has been vocal about his concerns regarding vaccine safety, particularly the potential risks associated with certain vaccine ingredients. He has criticized the vaccine industry and called for further research into the safety and efficacy of vaccines, emphasizing the importance of informed consent and transparency.
Opposition to Industrial Agriculture: Kennedy has expressed opposition to industrial agriculture practices and the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). He has advocated for organic farming methods, sustainable agriculture, and the promotion of healthier food options.
Corporate Influence in Politics: Kennedy has been critical of the influence of corporations on politics and policy-making. He has highlighted the need for campaign finance reform and has called for increased transparency in political donations to reduce the impact of corporate interests on policy decisions.
Energy Policy and Fossil Fuels: Kennedy has been a strong advocate for renewable energy sources and a critic of fossil fuel dependence. He has supported the development and implementation of clean energy technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change.
Civil Liberties and Privacy: Kennedy has expressed concerns about the erosion of civil liberties and privacy rights. He has opposed government surveillance programs and the infringement of individual rights in the name of national security.
He has a lot of "big if true" claims and I would be grateful to know if there is any substance to them or what I need to say in order to efficiently discredit him in the future to anyone who may believe what he says.
He points to some true things and may quote worthwhile science in the manner of a broken clock being right twice a day, but he is just another grifter.
The better question is why people who apply razor skepticism to anything approaching a mainstream view would be so inanely credulous of random shit grifters say on the internet is beyond me. There are people who would lie down in traffic or give their first born to such heroes without having the ability to do the first-person epistemics needed to find out how true any of the claims are. It's hard to know why people are so gullible in certain directions, it's probably a cult thing.
The current social media environment incentivises this of course and COVID was peak grift. Don't get me wrong the establishment got a lot wrong, but that doesn't mean you just trust random people on the internet cause they have a suck it to the man attitude and a cosy supportive audience you can cult-out with. I'll inflame a few people here but Brett Weinstein and most of his COVID guests were also in this camp.
I happen to agree with a lot of what he says, but it's tough to debate you on this topic, because you didn't actually say anything. Your post is a lot of heat, and very little light.
Why do you consider him a grifter? What's his grift? Why do you consider a presidential candidate with the name Kennedy to be a "random person on the internet"? From my point of view, he identifies corporate and government corruption with great accuracy, and speaks well against it.
If you have the ability to do the "first-person epistemics", then please enlighten the rest of us, so we can be less "gullible". But you've made no claims, contradicted no claims, and only asserted your perceived superiority to the kind of people who may agree with the things that RFK says.
If you have anything of value to say, I encourage you to say it.
Yes fair call, it was an opinion and I don't spend any time justifying my belief. Part of it is weariness, I forget the name of the rule but it's a lot more effort to rebut systematically someones claims which they can just throw out relentlessly.
Also, I can do this work and highlight exaggerated claims but I will be proxying my trust to others, researchers etc. I haven't overseen large clinical trials or analysed the statistical evidence first hand. I have to eventually accept that large vaccine trials are done authentically and with sufficient power to detect higher rates of adverse events, or that the knowledge of mercury in the body is sufficiently progressed to give some assurance of safety. I acknowledge various incentive structures within medicine and assign priors that aren't 100% belief for any source. But the point is not how I can know I'm 100% right, it is that among the epistemic challenge I can assign likelihood to consensus view and RKJ view and because RKJ does a lot of sophistry (selective quoting), insufficient statement of details of statistics, study design etc, it's easy for me to weigh up that he seems not to be oriented to truth and so the things he says get low trust.
In short, RKJ doesn't do all the things I try to do myself in terms of epistemics (mainly acknowledging limits of his knowledge and expertise), so I apply a Kantian rational skepticism for alternative explanations. The one that fits very well is conspiratorial thinker and grifter.
Also, the grift is precisely by occupying a place that is already popular and additionally has some merit. Anti-establishment is nothing new, he just harvests it for clicks. There's nothing even controversial or courageous about stating these things in your bubble. The courageous thing to do would be to acknowledge the limits of your knowledge but the incentive landscape doesn't encourage it.
I'm happy to examine some of his claims if you have any you'd like to interrogate.
There's a long history of studies showing that tobacco products are perfectly safe. Those studies had a critical flaw however, they were funded by the same industry that stood to profit from the sale of tobacco.
If you apply this logic to the modern pharmaceutical complex, including the lobbying and legal apparatus, as well as the research and publication apparatus, I think some concern is at least warranted. Why exactly do we trust the pharma companies not to corrupt the science in the name of their own profit?
Oh I agree the pharmaceutical industry is corrupt in many ways and increasingly suspect but there's a lot of good stuff written on this already. I don't think RKJ adds to this scholarship because he makes unsupported claims.
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