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 -
Tell that to my friend, who's going through this right now, and for whom it's required for her mild sleep apnea. Sounds like it's required if the state deems it so for your case. She definitely didn't opt into 2 and 3 of her own accord, she's super pissed about it!
Edit: I did just check in again. Sounds like you are correct that a CPAP may not be required. But for my friend, it was required simply because it was her doctor's recommended treatment. But in my experience which also matches with what I read online, doctors recommend CPAPs for everyone who has sleep apnea. They made it my recommended treatment even though my sleep apnea was at the mildest possible level. And like I said, she didn't opt into having to send her CPAP data, the state took it upon themselves to force her to be treated in a way she does not want, for a condition that has no impact on her driving.
Yes, that was my point. "For your case," not in every case, as you seemed to claim. And, honestly, would you have written if she had had one of the other conditions listed on that web page, such as narcolepsy, or epilepsy, or a heart condition which can cause fainting? Isn't the issue the degree to which her particular condition increases the risks of causing an accident, which at this point we don't know?
I think it's less the risk itself, and more that we (pretend) we do not allow certain invasions of autonomy. If the narcolepsy or epilepsy rule required, as hypotheticals, that you get a 'smart' pillbox showing your compliance with a prescription program, than I'd be outraged by that as well even knowing that there's a pretty significant risk to both. But at least for epilepsy, the rule is to self-report seizures.
And this norm can go to fairly minimal levels of invasiveness: I have to report use of glasses as part of my Driver's License, and it's illegal for me to drive without them, but if I had to get my car outfitted with a camera and a power interrupt that would turn off the engine should I take my glasses that's absolutely be an illegitimate law. See the recent controversies over the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act anti-"impaired driving" tech.
Once someone's broken the law or otherwise had public problems, the state has more authority to move in: requiring a habitual drunk driver to use a breathalyzer interlock doesn't break this norm even if they weren't that drunk when driving. But this reporting requirement does not do that.
More options
Context Copy link
I probably wouldn't have written it for narcolepsy, but that's my point, isn't it? There's no reason why sleep apnea should be considered grounds for license revocation, because it's super common, almost everyone has it sometimes, even if they're not diagnosed, and there's no reason to think that it poses a particular risk to driving. Where is the data that shows this policy is necessary, that untreated sleep apnea is a risk to driving and treated sleep apnea is not? Where are the droves of citizens dying because they were hit by drivers who have sleep apnea? If the state decided to take it upon themselves to declare this is necessary, what else will they declare it for?
And my point is that you don't know that. A quick search online turns up many studies that show a substantial increase in the risk of car accidents from those suffering from sleep apnea. Moreover, this study notes that "Characteristics that may predict crash in drivers with OSA include BMI, apnea plus hypopnea index, oxygen saturation, and possibly daytime sleepiness."
So, there does seem to be some evidence that people with sleep apnea are more dangerous drivers, especially if they have additional risk factors . And it sounds as if the state probably looks for additional factors before imposing conditions.
Whether that danger is high enough to merit driving restrictions of the kinds that the state has imposed on your friend is a different issue, of course.
This study shows that people who have never been married are at higher risk for car accidents: https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/10/1/33
This study shows that people who are more angry are at higher risk for accidents: https://www.apa.org/monitor/jun05/anger
I don't think most people would be in favor of the government telling you you have to be married to drive. I don't think most people would be okay with the government putting microphones in your home to hear if you shout too much, and revoking your license if you do.
I'm not disputing that. As I said, "Whether that danger is high enough to merit driving restrictions of the kinds that the state has imposed on your friend is a different issue, of course."
So I'm not really clear what you are saying then. From the top of the thread you started off by saying that you thought my initial post was BS and wasn't actually happening in real life and now you're no longer saying that... you're saying that you know that scientific studies can be abused in order to justify policies like this that most people will find to be unreasonable, unwanted, and without value... but you're okay with it happening anyway? I think I missed something, I'm confused. I'm not certain I see the common thread throughout what you were trying to say, except that you're playing devil's advocate for everything.
No, I am saying the exact same thing that I have said all along: That your claim, that every person who has sleep apnea is given the mandates you list, seems to be incorrect. We only know that they are imposed on some people.
The issue that I have not addressed is whether the mandates are sound policy.
I see, I think I misinterpreted some of what you previously said. So when you said:
You're somehow making the assumption that the state must be trying to figure out on an individual-by-individual level whether their sleep apnea poses a risk, and sanctioning them appropriately? Where are you drawing that conclusion from? I've seen no such indication of that, whatsoever.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link