Marinos is making a credible argument from statistics and science. He ought to be able to do so without constantly taking shots at anyone. When he does so I've been reasonably impressed. The fact that he chooses not to leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
I trust Marinos less because I get the impression that he is using Scott (and the broader community) for clout-chasing. I don't see why that should make him more credible.
He ought to be able to do so without constantly taking shots at anyone.
He's not so much taking shots as being a bit of a sea-lion. I can understand how it's annoying, but aspies gonna aspie.
Why?
It's not just Scott, the sum total of hostility towards ivermectin, combined with the absolute refusal to debate Alexandros on the merits of the arguments comes off as "oh shit, he makes good points, that I don't know how to argue against". I'm not saying Scott has to talk to him, but it if he's so obviously wrong, shouldn't there be someone among the science trusting cloutsharks that would be happy to take him on?
It's an asymmetric strategy. Marinos will expend more time and effort constructing his castle than 99% of readers can spend attacking it. He's made that his brand--he makes money off of angry skeptics who want to signal they "do your own research."
But what about the other 1%? You make a good point about the absence of Trust Science clout-chasers. They don't seem too eager to take on his fortified position. If I had to guess, I'd say they're off on a different part of Twitter, building up their own forts, because that's their brand.
I'm honestly not sure I want to see those deboonkers come out and get into a slapfight with Marinos. I don't really trust them for the same reasons. They're showing up to make money and promote the brand. A showdown between two open partisans (pretending to be neutral) is less appealing than a polite conversation between two reasonable authors.
Truth-seeking is supposed to be a two-way street, and all I see from Marinos is one-way. Should some commenter point out "hey, strongyloides was theorized to stress the immune system, not kill through hyperinfection!" or "I reran the meta-analysis and got blah blah blah," does Marinos pick that up and signal-boost it? Does he have any reason to do so? His fame is based on giving reasonable arguments for ivermectin. He doesn't have to answer to random commenters unless he thinks he can score points off them. I've seen that happen on reddit, most clearly here and here. Note the lack of any concessions, just claims that he welcomes criticism, followed by grilling anyone who remotely indicates skepticism.
Should some commenter point out "hey, strongyloides was theorized to stress the immune system, not kill through hyperinfection!" or "I reran the meta-analysis and got blah blah blah," does Marinos pick that up and signal-boost it?
Scott didn't convince me, I thought parasite load was the reason before he came to his conclusion. And trawling through all the studies quoted in the meta-analysis showed that the best results were in places that also had high parasite infections. Same with the Itajaà study that Alexandros is touting: it's a big port city, has a lot of the kinds of fun social diseases you would expect in such a place, and being sub-tropical climate has a ton of those kinds of diseases and infestations as well. So dosing sick people with ivermectin would probably see an improvement for any illness, never mind Covid, and the study although it was thorough about co-morbidities, doesn't seem to have checked people for infestations by threadworm, parasites, etc.
Show me a study where it's "we tested patients beforehand for worms and parasites and their results came out clean, we gave the test group ivermectin and didn't to the control group, and the ivermectin group had better outcomes" and I'll be convinced. I'm not convinced yet.
I can get why it seems that way if someone is only absorbing the pathos.
If I pulled up Alexandros's blog today and saw he was still talking about it, I would say "oh, okay" and move on.
But Alex keeps on trying to drag Scott back into the argument. I get that Alex found someone who is not was not treating him like a freak and that was a relief, just like it was for Ralph Wiggum when he got a pity valentine from Lisa Simpson. And now Alex stalks Scott and demands Scott pay attention to Alex's latest argument.
I did a control-F for "scott" on this blog and got sixty-three matches. It shows up over twice as many times as "ivermectin."
So it is not "why are you still talking about ivermectin" and more "why are you still talking about Scott!"
Alex deciding to keep on holding onto this issue is fine. Right or wrong, it is A-OK for him to keep going on it.
But Alex demanding Scott's attention -- whether or not Alex is right -- needs to be shut down.
Speaking from the minority position, the duty is on Alex to behave in a fashion that makes people want to engage with him, instead of him constantly giving off danger signs that say "DO NOT TOUCH".
I am sure some goof will say HA HA YOU ADMIT YOU DO NOT CARE ABOUT WHO IS RIGHT, THEREFORE I WIN, and
you can never make sure you get the last word,
damn straight, I care much more about not ending up some stalker's new hobby.
Other than the obsession with the subject, I don't see signs of demanding Scott's attention. Using his name isn't much of an argument. Substack is not Reddit or Twitter where you get pinged every time someone mentions you. If you come from the view that Alex isn't trying to get Scott's attention, the constant chorus of "why don't you leave him alone" ends up coming off as trying to shut down the conversation on the topic.
Speaking from the minority position, the duty is on Alex to behave in a fashion that makes people want to engage with him, instead of him constantly giving off danger signs that say "DO NOT TOUCH".
Nah. Obviously there needs to be a balance, otherwise you're giving one side a blank check to never address valid criticism from upstarts. Currently I'm of the view that it's fine for Alexandros to keep writing, and for Scott to not respond, but comparing his reaction to Alexandros to his reaction to Nathan Robinson gives me a whiplash (well, it would, if I didn't know one of them has a lot more clout than the other).
I just pulled up Alex's post-summary page, and of his recent articles 6 are clearly about Ivermectin (maybe the others are too but not obviously from the title or summary).
Five of the six of them mention Scott in the title or summary. What. The. Fuck.
Maybe Alex does not know he is acting like a fucking stalker. Maybe no one has told him.
otherwise you're giving one side a blank check to never address valid criticism
I truly and honestly think it is bad that this issue has gotten so little debate.
But it is not Scott's fault that there is so little debate here. Scott has done much more to make sure Alex has his voice heard than anyone else. And the reward is to get constant articles written about him. No wonder no one else wants to engage with this loser.
Alex is picking on Scott because he can pick on Scott. If Alex attacks CNN, no one cares, there is no chance of CNN admitting they are wrong or even acknowledging Alex's existence. But Scott gave Alex some attention once, and the only possible victory Alex has left is getting Scott to admit that he was somehow unfair to Alex.
(Scott has dozens of old articles with the basic complaint "feminists spend most of their energy attacking men who deign listen to women instead of men who abuse women" and this is basically just that all over again.)
It is bad that Alex is in that situation where he cannot get a fair debate partner. But he needs to stop attacking the one person who showed him a shred of dignity once. Do not be the guy who stalks the girl that said hi to him at a party. It is creepy and it sets up bad incentives for anyone to ever talk to you.
I already conceded his behavior is a bit on the spergy side, but you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Again, is Scott pinged every time his name is mentioned? Is he forced to read those headlines via some Clockwork Orangesque torture device?
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Scott's reward for interacting with this guy is that this guy will now not leave him alone.
The reactions of Scott, his fans, and Trust The Science people to Alexandros' posts leave me convinced that Ivermectin probably works against covid.
And it's pretty fun to watch the counterarguments collapse to "why are you still talking about it!"
Why?
Marinos is making a credible argument from statistics and science. He ought to be able to do so without constantly taking shots at anyone. When he does so I've been reasonably impressed. The fact that he chooses not to leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
I trust Marinos less because I get the impression that he is using Scott (and the broader community) for clout-chasing. I don't see why that should make him more credible.
He's not so much taking shots as being a bit of a sea-lion. I can understand how it's annoying, but aspies gonna aspie.
It's not just Scott, the sum total of hostility towards ivermectin, combined with the absolute refusal to debate Alexandros on the merits of the arguments comes off as "oh shit, he makes good points, that I don't know how to argue against". I'm not saying Scott has to talk to him, but it if he's so obviously wrong, shouldn't there be someone among the science trusting cloutsharks that would be happy to take him on?
That's the thing about sealioning, though.
It's an asymmetric strategy. Marinos will expend more time and effort constructing his castle than 99% of readers can spend attacking it. He's made that his brand--he makes money off of angry skeptics who want to signal they "do your own research."
But what about the other 1%? You make a good point about the absence of Trust Science clout-chasers. They don't seem too eager to take on his fortified position. If I had to guess, I'd say they're off on a different part of Twitter, building up their own forts, because that's their brand.
I'm honestly not sure I want to see those deboonkers come out and get into a slapfight with Marinos. I don't really trust them for the same reasons. They're showing up to make money and promote the brand. A showdown between two open partisans (pretending to be neutral) is less appealing than a polite conversation between two reasonable authors.
Truth-seeking is supposed to be a two-way street, and all I see from Marinos is one-way. Should some commenter point out "hey, strongyloides was theorized to stress the immune system, not kill through hyperinfection!" or "I reran the meta-analysis and got blah blah blah," does Marinos pick that up and signal-boost it? Does he have any reason to do so? His fame is based on giving reasonable arguments for ivermectin. He doesn't have to answer to random commenters unless he thinks he can score points off them. I've seen that happen on reddit, most clearly here and here. Note the lack of any concessions, just claims that he welcomes criticism, followed by grilling anyone who remotely indicates skepticism.
Try it, and find out!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Scott didn't convince me, I thought parasite load was the reason before he came to his conclusion. And trawling through all the studies quoted in the meta-analysis showed that the best results were in places that also had high parasite infections. Same with the Itajaà study that Alexandros is touting: it's a big port city, has a lot of the kinds of fun social diseases you would expect in such a place, and being sub-tropical climate has a ton of those kinds of diseases and infestations as well. So dosing sick people with ivermectin would probably see an improvement for any illness, never mind Covid, and the study although it was thorough about co-morbidities, doesn't seem to have checked people for infestations by threadworm, parasites, etc.
Show me a study where it's "we tested patients beforehand for worms and parasites and their results came out clean, we gave the test group ivermectin and didn't to the control group, and the ivermectin group had better outcomes" and I'll be convinced. I'm not convinced yet.
More options
Context Copy link
I am more pro-ivermectin than the median or mean.
I can get why it seems that way if someone is only absorbing the pathos.
If I pulled up Alexandros's blog today and saw he was still talking about it, I would say "oh, okay" and move on.
But Alex keeps on trying to drag Scott back into the argument. I get that Alex found someone who
is notwas not treating him like a freak and that was a relief, just like it was for Ralph Wiggum when he got a pity valentine from Lisa Simpson. And now Alex stalks Scott and demands Scott pay attention to Alex's latest argument.I did a control-F for "scott" on this blog and got sixty-three matches. It shows up over twice as many times as "ivermectin."
So it is not "why are you still talking about ivermectin" and more "why are you still talking about Scott!"
Using someone’s name in an article whose whole topic is a piece they wrote is demanding their attention now? How so?
More options
Context Copy link
Seems mostly* par for the course given the impact his piece had.
*) ok maybe a bit on the spergy side, but come on, we're all autistic here
Alex deciding to keep on holding onto this issue is fine. Right or wrong, it is A-OK for him to keep going on it.
But Alex demanding Scott's attention -- whether or not Alex is right -- needs to be shut down.
Speaking from the minority position, the duty is on Alex to behave in a fashion that makes people want to engage with him, instead of him constantly giving off danger signs that say "DO NOT TOUCH".
I am sure some goof will say HA HA YOU ADMIT YOU DO NOT CARE ABOUT WHO IS RIGHT, THEREFORE I WIN, and
you can never make sure you get the last word,
damn straight, I care much more about not ending up some stalker's new hobby.
Other than the obsession with the subject, I don't see signs of demanding Scott's attention. Using his name isn't much of an argument. Substack is not Reddit or Twitter where you get pinged every time someone mentions you. If you come from the view that Alex isn't trying to get Scott's attention, the constant chorus of "why don't you leave him alone" ends up coming off as trying to shut down the conversation on the topic.
Nah. Obviously there needs to be a balance, otherwise you're giving one side a blank check to never address valid criticism from upstarts. Currently I'm of the view that it's fine for Alexandros to keep writing, and for Scott to not respond, but comparing his reaction to Alexandros to his reaction to Nathan Robinson gives me a whiplash (well, it would, if I didn't know one of them has a lot more clout than the other).
I just pulled up Alex's post-summary page, and of his recent articles 6 are clearly about Ivermectin (maybe the others are too but not obviously from the title or summary).
Five of the six of them mention Scott in the title or summary. What. The. Fuck.
Maybe Alex does not know he is acting like a fucking stalker. Maybe no one has told him.
I truly and honestly think it is bad that this issue has gotten so little debate.
But it is not Scott's fault that there is so little debate here. Scott has done much more to make sure Alex has his voice heard than anyone else. And the reward is to get constant articles written about him. No wonder no one else wants to engage with this loser.
Alex is picking on Scott because he can pick on Scott. If Alex attacks CNN, no one cares, there is no chance of CNN admitting they are wrong or even acknowledging Alex's existence. But Scott gave Alex some attention once, and the only possible victory Alex has left is getting Scott to admit that he was somehow unfair to Alex.
(Scott has dozens of old articles with the basic complaint "feminists spend most of their energy attacking men who deign listen to women instead of men who abuse women" and this is basically just that all over again.)
It is bad that Alex is in that situation where he cannot get a fair debate partner. But he needs to stop attacking the one person who showed him a shred of dignity once. Do not be the guy who stalks the girl that said hi to him at a party. It is creepy and it sets up bad incentives for anyone to ever talk to you.
I already conceded his behavior is a bit on the spergy side, but you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Again, is Scott pinged every time his name is mentioned? Is he forced to read those headlines via some Clockwork Orangesque torture device?
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