Future History
July 17, 2023 1:52 AM Subscribe
What is ignored or neglected by the media -- but will be studied by historians? a thread by George Mack
I thought I knew about the obesity rate, but I was utterly shocked by the changes from 1985 to the most recent. Wow.
posted by jamjam at 2:20 AM on July 17, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by jamjam at 2:20 AM on July 17, 2023 [4 favorites]
What an interesting, if US-centric, list.
I don't understand #24, both the title and the text. The "rise of the leveraged individual" - I thought this would be something to do with how we borrow too much. But then the text talks about there being no such thing as mainstream media, and there are now new media "personalities" that outrank... brands? I don't understand it.
The stat cited in #25 may not be the best way to tout the importance of exercise. I am certain exercise is extremely important to health, but I think comparing the bottom 25% of "exercise fitness" (what does that mean?) to the top 2% is extremely unfair. I exercise regularly for health and don't consider myself unfit, but I know what people who are actually fit are capable of and they are so much better than me on all axes that I may as well be a slob in comparison. Shouldn't the comparison be between the middle or average batch, and the above average batch?
Also I wonder if the bottom 25% is made up of people who can't exercise, in which case the comparison is not just unfair but cruel.
posted by theony at 3:00 AM on July 17, 2023 [24 favorites]
I don't understand #24, both the title and the text. The "rise of the leveraged individual" - I thought this would be something to do with how we borrow too much. But then the text talks about there being no such thing as mainstream media, and there are now new media "personalities" that outrank... brands? I don't understand it.
The stat cited in #25 may not be the best way to tout the importance of exercise. I am certain exercise is extremely important to health, but I think comparing the bottom 25% of "exercise fitness" (what does that mean?) to the top 2% is extremely unfair. I exercise regularly for health and don't consider myself unfit, but I know what people who are actually fit are capable of and they are so much better than me on all axes that I may as well be a slob in comparison. Shouldn't the comparison be between the middle or average batch, and the above average batch?
Also I wonder if the bottom 25% is made up of people who can't exercise, in which case the comparison is not just unfair but cruel.
posted by theony at 3:00 AM on July 17, 2023 [24 favorites]
Since 2010, the media massively increased headlines that use fear, anger, disgust, and sadness.
Is there a certain lack of self-awareness here?
posted by Phanx at 3:52 AM on July 17, 2023 [19 favorites]
Is there a certain lack of self-awareness here?
posted by Phanx at 3:52 AM on July 17, 2023 [19 favorites]
I was looking the replies to the exercise tweet to find the citations for these statistics. If anyone knows the actual study, can you list?
Citation please is needed for a few of these.
posted by jilloftrades at 4:12 AM on July 17, 2023 [5 favorites]
Citation please is needed for a few of these.
posted by jilloftrades at 4:12 AM on July 17, 2023 [5 favorites]
What an interesting, if US-centric, list.
...which probably points to exactly what is neglected by the media but will be studied by historians. (No doubt by the historians of whichever currently-neglected future hegemon takes over from the US.)
posted by clawsoon at 4:13 AM on July 17, 2023 [7 favorites]
...which probably points to exactly what is neglected by the media but will be studied by historians. (No doubt by the historians of whichever currently-neglected future hegemon takes over from the US.)
posted by clawsoon at 4:13 AM on July 17, 2023 [7 favorites]
I don’t know anything about the author of this thread, but somebody whose preoccupations are that COVID.lockdowns cause drug addiction and suicide, and that we aren’t reproducing enough, is a red flag for me.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 4:34 AM on July 17, 2023 [69 favorites]
posted by Horace Rumpole at 4:34 AM on July 17, 2023 [69 favorites]
Could somebody overlay a crime rate graph on the institutionalization graph? (Recognizing, of course, that this ignores virtually all of the crimes committed by institutions against their wards.)
posted by clawsoon at 4:34 AM on July 17, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by clawsoon at 4:34 AM on July 17, 2023 [3 favorites]
Sorry, but this list is a load of right wing leaning (with numbers 7, 11, 12, and 24 making that clear if you follow these things) bullshit.
Let's take #1 for example - what happened to cause mental hospitals to empty (and more importantly, why did prison intake skyrocket?) The drop in mental hospital intake happened because a) we depathologized a lot of things that got people thrown into mental hospitals like queer identity, and b) revelations about the actual (fucking horrific) conditions of mental hospitals caused a public backlash which led to the push for outpatient care as the standard. As for why outpatient care failed, we know why as well - like many other horrible things, it comes back to Reagan being horrible and defunding mental health programs - resulting in those abandoned winding up in prison, and oh look, the prison population begins to shoot upwards in the 80s, what a fucking surprise.
So no, these things aren't stories because a) we either know about them or b) they're right wing dog whistles that they want to make into stories. Be cautious about someone who tries to sell you on "this is what they don't want you to know!" - because oftentimes, that person has an agenda.
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:37 AM on July 17, 2023 [74 favorites]
Let's take #1 for example - what happened to cause mental hospitals to empty (and more importantly, why did prison intake skyrocket?) The drop in mental hospital intake happened because a) we depathologized a lot of things that got people thrown into mental hospitals like queer identity, and b) revelations about the actual (fucking horrific) conditions of mental hospitals caused a public backlash which led to the push for outpatient care as the standard. As for why outpatient care failed, we know why as well - like many other horrible things, it comes back to Reagan being horrible and defunding mental health programs - resulting in those abandoned winding up in prison, and oh look, the prison population begins to shoot upwards in the 80s, what a fucking surprise.
So no, these things aren't stories because a) we either know about them or b) they're right wing dog whistles that they want to make into stories. Be cautious about someone who tries to sell you on "this is what they don't want you to know!" - because oftentimes, that person has an agenda.
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:37 AM on July 17, 2023 [74 favorites]
The mental illness graph is interesting since the fall off predates 1972. More on the hospital/jail crossing graphs here.
Branding in marketing started in the 1500's.
Branding in marketing can be found in Pompeii. (I'd self link, but, you know - rules.)
posted by BWA at 4:44 AM on July 17, 2023 [4 favorites]
Branding in marketing started in the 1500's.
Branding in marketing can be found in Pompeii. (I'd self link, but, you know - rules.)
posted by BWA at 4:44 AM on July 17, 2023 [4 favorites]
Interesting! Much of it is clickbaity and breathless, handwaving the fact that some of these subjects are, in fact, regularly studied and discussed by academics and policymakers (at least in the U.S.).
The "what will historians" study question is interesting, too, but it doesn't address either how the aims of historians change over time, or what is interesting to them. Historians don't spend much time in print these days talking whether a nation's failures are associated with their weakening moral fiber, or their lack of devotion to God/gods, but both have been significant elements of some historians' work in past.
The "rise of the leveraged individual" (#24) is, IMHO, either a goof or so inaccurate as to be itself a lure for readers. Obviously there's a major debt story to be brought out, globally and in the U.S., but something-something "intellectual leveraging" is a story, too.
The exercise bit (#25)... I am not personally interested in tracking down the sources the poster used, but there are many studies, and meta-analyses synthesizing those studies, demonstrating gross declines in physical fitness, at least in the U.S. In the interest of convincing myself to take exercise more seriously, I read dozens of them a couple years ago. I was convinced. I think the comparison structure of the tweet is awkward, but the broader point ("people are dangerously less fit than they used to be") should no longer be controversial. The various reasons people are not fit are often upsetting or infuriating to some people, so this discussion tends not to go well, but (e.g.) it's been getting harder for decades for the U.S. armed forces to find physically qualified recruits for training, and they're getting injured at greater rates.
On preview: the NIH found that youth suicide rates increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. That may be a conservative dogwhistle, but it's also... something that happened. I think the thread does have a leaning (and/or agenda), but I don't think we shouldn't talk about things that are happening because they are talked about by Joe Rogan or whoever.
posted by cupcakeninja at 4:45 AM on July 17, 2023 [15 favorites]
The "what will historians" study question is interesting, too, but it doesn't address either how the aims of historians change over time, or what is interesting to them. Historians don't spend much time in print these days talking whether a nation's failures are associated with their weakening moral fiber, or their lack of devotion to God/gods, but both have been significant elements of some historians' work in past.
The "rise of the leveraged individual" (#24) is, IMHO, either a goof or so inaccurate as to be itself a lure for readers. Obviously there's a major debt story to be brought out, globally and in the U.S., but something-something "intellectual leveraging" is a story, too.
The exercise bit (#25)... I am not personally interested in tracking down the sources the poster used, but there are many studies, and meta-analyses synthesizing those studies, demonstrating gross declines in physical fitness, at least in the U.S. In the interest of convincing myself to take exercise more seriously, I read dozens of them a couple years ago. I was convinced. I think the comparison structure of the tweet is awkward, but the broader point ("people are dangerously less fit than they used to be") should no longer be controversial. The various reasons people are not fit are often upsetting or infuriating to some people, so this discussion tends not to go well, but (e.g.) it's been getting harder for decades for the U.S. armed forces to find physically qualified recruits for training, and they're getting injured at greater rates.
On preview: the NIH found that youth suicide rates increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. That may be a conservative dogwhistle, but it's also... something that happened. I think the thread does have a leaning (and/or agenda), but I don't think we shouldn't talk about things that are happening because they are talked about by Joe Rogan or whoever.
posted by cupcakeninja at 4:45 AM on July 17, 2023 [15 favorites]
(I'd self link, but, you know - rules.)
I thought the rule was that self-linking is okay in comments, just not in FPPs.
posted by clawsoon at 4:46 AM on July 17, 2023 [14 favorites]
I thought the rule was that self-linking is okay in comments, just not in FPPs.
posted by clawsoon at 4:46 AM on July 17, 2023 [14 favorites]
cupcakeninja: On preview: the NIH found that youth suicide rates increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. That may be a conservative dogwhistle, but it's also... something that happened.
My vague impression is that the side effects of the lockdowns were, overall, much more worth talking about than the side effects of the vaccines.
I think the thread does have a leaning (and/or agenda), but I don't think we shouldn't talk about things that are happening because they are talked about by Joe Rogan or whoever.
Indeed. That'd be like no longer talking about child sex trafficking just because some Qanon Christians made a movie about it, or no longer talking about the problems of American hegemony just because Putin and Trump started talking about it.
posted by clawsoon at 4:52 AM on July 17, 2023 [8 favorites]
My vague impression is that the side effects of the lockdowns were, overall, much more worth talking about than the side effects of the vaccines.
I think the thread does have a leaning (and/or agenda), but I don't think we shouldn't talk about things that are happening because they are talked about by Joe Rogan or whoever.
Indeed. That'd be like no longer talking about child sex trafficking just because some Qanon Christians made a movie about it, or no longer talking about the problems of American hegemony just because Putin and Trump started talking about it.
posted by clawsoon at 4:52 AM on July 17, 2023 [8 favorites]
COVID school closures definitely caused or worsened mental health issues for a lot of kids. There's no serious question about that. They also saved a lot of lives. We can be grownups and accept that the extreme measures that were necessary to fight COVID were in fact extreme and didn't come without costs.
posted by saturday_morning at 4:56 AM on July 17, 2023 [34 favorites]
posted by saturday_morning at 4:56 AM on July 17, 2023 [34 favorites]
but I don't think we shouldn't talk about things that are happening because they are talked about by Joe Rogan or whoever.
The point isn't that these things aren't being talked about - but that they're not being talked about in the way the author wants. In the case of things like #1 and #2, it's clear that the author is very uninformed, and that these aren't "discussed" because we know what the underlying dynamics are, for the most part. Others (like fertility rates) are brought up for dog whistle reasons.
Overall, the author comes across as unaware and more than a little dishonest (see #21 for a pointed example.)
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:01 AM on July 17, 2023 [10 favorites]
The point isn't that these things aren't being talked about - but that they're not being talked about in the way the author wants. In the case of things like #1 and #2, it's clear that the author is very uninformed, and that these aren't "discussed" because we know what the underlying dynamics are, for the most part. Others (like fertility rates) are brought up for dog whistle reasons.
Overall, the author comes across as unaware and more than a little dishonest (see #21 for a pointed example.)
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:01 AM on July 17, 2023 [10 favorites]
This feels like an AskReddit. I’ve seen every one of those topics covered in the mainstream media I read, and some of them never shut up about it. Seriously, The New York Times nags me about exercise more than my mother ever did.
posted by betweenthebars at 5:02 AM on July 17, 2023 [13 favorites]
posted by betweenthebars at 5:02 AM on July 17, 2023 [13 favorites]
The fertility and testosterone items on their own are red flags here.
posted by brundlefly at 5:09 AM on July 17, 2023 [28 favorites]
posted by brundlefly at 5:09 AM on July 17, 2023 [28 favorites]
The fertility and testosterone items on their own are red flags here.
I suspect that what future historians will be talking about was the point at which we realized that lower fertility, especially in nations which consume massive amounts of resources, was a good thing.
posted by clawsoon at 5:16 AM on July 17, 2023 [21 favorites]
I suspect that what future historians will be talking about was the point at which we realized that lower fertility, especially in nations which consume massive amounts of resources, was a good thing.
posted by clawsoon at 5:16 AM on July 17, 2023 [21 favorites]
NoxAeternum, I don't disagree with you--some of the tweets treat as open questions things that are very well discussed and documented, as I said above--but I do think that many MeFites jump to "that's a dogwhistle" or "that's a red flag" or "that's a conservative narrative" as a response. This often stops discussion cold, which I don't think is a good thing, as long as the initial provocation/text is not (essentially) offered as an op with the goal of defanging political action.
For instance, I think that there are probably more people on MetaFilter than average who know something about the history of institutionalization, mental hospitals, and the associated crimes/"crimes" than in the average population. That's softball here. More interesting to me is the question of where we land (if we do) on how we think understanding of that issue may change over time. Or, for people for whom Reagan is not just history but ancient history, whether his closure of institutions will be seen as a cause or a symptom of societal attitudes. Or, to clawsoon's point, whether a serious focus will emerge on mental hospitals as sites of harm/crime vs. treatment, or whether we'll look at, say, 1970s-era mental health care as better or worse than 1870s-era mental health care.
posted by cupcakeninja at 5:16 AM on July 17, 2023 [8 favorites]
For instance, I think that there are probably more people on MetaFilter than average who know something about the history of institutionalization, mental hospitals, and the associated crimes/"crimes" than in the average population. That's softball here. More interesting to me is the question of where we land (if we do) on how we think understanding of that issue may change over time. Or, for people for whom Reagan is not just history but ancient history, whether his closure of institutions will be seen as a cause or a symptom of societal attitudes. Or, to clawsoon's point, whether a serious focus will emerge on mental hospitals as sites of harm/crime vs. treatment, or whether we'll look at, say, 1970s-era mental health care as better or worse than 1870s-era mental health care.
posted by cupcakeninja at 5:16 AM on July 17, 2023 [8 favorites]
(Ack, sorry for the bold/italic goof)
posted by cupcakeninja at 5:22 AM on July 17, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by cupcakeninja at 5:22 AM on July 17, 2023 [1 favorite]
I can guess that you don't see the coverage if you're not in the UK but the huge rise in housing costs here is very well covered by media of all types.
The story about "UK government advertising for a Head of Cybersecurity at £57k" is deeply misleading. One small but important government department is hiring a cyber security expert for £57k. They are not going to be "the" cybersecurity person for the whole government and they're probably not even the person in that department with overall responsibilty for cybersecurity.
I assume everything is is equally disingenuous.
posted by plonkee at 5:22 AM on July 17, 2023 [12 favorites]
The story about "UK government advertising for a Head of Cybersecurity at £57k" is deeply misleading. One small but important government department is hiring a cyber security expert for £57k. They are not going to be "the" cybersecurity person for the whole government and they're probably not even the person in that department with overall responsibilty for cybersecurity.
I assume everything is is equally disingenuous.
posted by plonkee at 5:22 AM on July 17, 2023 [12 favorites]
It appears (based on a lazy Google) that George Mack may be a marketer. Perhaps, as a marketer, he knows that mixing in some questionable bullshit is what really gets people talking, and getting people talking about him is the goal.
posted by clawsoon at 5:25 AM on July 17, 2023 [14 favorites]
posted by clawsoon at 5:25 AM on July 17, 2023 [14 favorites]
Given that half of the stats came directly from The Economist (their signature is blue/red tones in charts,often with the little red box at the top left), which is a fairly mainstream (if dense) newsource, I'm sort of skeptical at the framing.
posted by larthegreat at 5:28 AM on July 17, 2023 [13 favorites]
posted by larthegreat at 5:28 AM on July 17, 2023 [13 favorites]
Branding in marketing can be found in Pompeii
Not quite so old as that, but Ulfberht branded swords commanded a premium among the Vikings, and were frequently counterfeited.
posted by Phanx at 5:30 AM on July 17, 2023 [10 favorites]
Not quite so old as that, but Ulfberht branded swords commanded a premium among the Vikings, and were frequently counterfeited.
posted by Phanx at 5:30 AM on July 17, 2023 [10 favorites]
One of the things that the Mack brings up, that soccer player Cristiano Ronaldo has more social media followers than various soccer clubs, is a misunderstanding of how soccer fandom works.
Generally, if you’re a fan of a club, it’s something that begins in childhood, and has to do with your physical location or family background. To explain… the two clubs I’ve supported for the longest time are VfB Stuttgart and Paris Saint-Germain. The former I started supporting because my uncle lived in Stuttgart at the same time an Icelander was one of the clubs biggest stars, and he gave me a bunch of Stuttgart merchandise when I was a kid. That was enough to engender a life-long fandom in me. With PSG, I moved to Iceland from Paris when I was six, and supporting the club and the French national team was a way for me to keep my links to the city and country of my childhood. This wasn’t conscious, of course, but looking back this is obvious.
The point is that supporting a football club is entwined with your life in a fairly organic way, which doesn’t translate cleanly into social media follows. I mean, personally I’m very online, and I only started following my clubs on Twitter fairly recently (and I even unfollowed another of the clubs I started supporting later in life, Arsenal, because their tweets were annoying). Following a celebrity like Cristiano Ronaldo is a much simpler thing that being a fan of a football club, and yes, that fits better on social media, but being a megacelebrity is just a different kind of thing. For instance, George Best’s fame in the 60s in Europe rivaled the Beatles and went far beyond his club’s fans. Today’s he’s hardly forgotten, but his club, Manchester United, has kept chugging along picking up new fans who generally stay that way for life, and pass that fandom on to their children.
Social media follows is a poor barometer for fandom.
posted by Kattullus at 5:30 AM on July 17, 2023 [13 favorites]
Generally, if you’re a fan of a club, it’s something that begins in childhood, and has to do with your physical location or family background. To explain… the two clubs I’ve supported for the longest time are VfB Stuttgart and Paris Saint-Germain. The former I started supporting because my uncle lived in Stuttgart at the same time an Icelander was one of the clubs biggest stars, and he gave me a bunch of Stuttgart merchandise when I was a kid. That was enough to engender a life-long fandom in me. With PSG, I moved to Iceland from Paris when I was six, and supporting the club and the French national team was a way for me to keep my links to the city and country of my childhood. This wasn’t conscious, of course, but looking back this is obvious.
The point is that supporting a football club is entwined with your life in a fairly organic way, which doesn’t translate cleanly into social media follows. I mean, personally I’m very online, and I only started following my clubs on Twitter fairly recently (and I even unfollowed another of the clubs I started supporting later in life, Arsenal, because their tweets were annoying). Following a celebrity like Cristiano Ronaldo is a much simpler thing that being a fan of a football club, and yes, that fits better on social media, but being a megacelebrity is just a different kind of thing. For instance, George Best’s fame in the 60s in Europe rivaled the Beatles and went far beyond his club’s fans. Today’s he’s hardly forgotten, but his club, Manchester United, has kept chugging along picking up new fans who generally stay that way for life, and pass that fandom on to their children.
Social media follows is a poor barometer for fandom.
posted by Kattullus at 5:30 AM on July 17, 2023 [13 favorites]
I still don’t understand how lower fertility rates in affluent countries is a bad thing in a world where we already see an huge increase in mass immigration and migration due to climate change. We have plenty of people.
I mean, I get it, your racism / xenophobia is showing, but still. This one seems obvious.
posted by Mchelly at 5:35 AM on July 17, 2023 [18 favorites]
I mean, I get it, your racism / xenophobia is showing, but still. This one seems obvious.
posted by Mchelly at 5:35 AM on July 17, 2023 [18 favorites]
but I do think that many MeFites jump to "that's a dogwhistle" or "that's a red flag" or "that's a conservative narrative" as a response.
People are saying that because we are discussing dogwhistles and red flags. Like #12 (fertility and testosterone levels) is a well known right wing talking point that ignores that fertility rates are in large part social constructs, and that the choice to have a child is heavily influenced by socioeconomic conditions (and the child-rearing cohorts are consistently reporting that it's literally too expensive to have kids, for an example of how that works.)
There's also (as plonker pointed out) the fact that there's more than a little dishonesty in the arguments presented, which leads to...
This often stops discussion cold, which I don't think is a good thing, as long as the initial provocation/text is not (essentially) offered as an op with the goal of defanging political action.
The reason it stops discussion cold is because the individual involved is not engaging in good faith, and frankly I have better things to do than debunk dishonest arguments. There's a reason why "JAQing off" is a term of art used when discussing bad faith argumentation.
Given that half of the stats came directly from The Economist
It is worth remembering that The Economist is both a) old enough and b) conservative enough to have literally argued against public sanitation.
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:38 AM on July 17, 2023 [36 favorites]
People are saying that because we are discussing dogwhistles and red flags. Like #12 (fertility and testosterone levels) is a well known right wing talking point that ignores that fertility rates are in large part social constructs, and that the choice to have a child is heavily influenced by socioeconomic conditions (and the child-rearing cohorts are consistently reporting that it's literally too expensive to have kids, for an example of how that works.)
There's also (as plonker pointed out) the fact that there's more than a little dishonesty in the arguments presented, which leads to...
This often stops discussion cold, which I don't think is a good thing, as long as the initial provocation/text is not (essentially) offered as an op with the goal of defanging political action.
The reason it stops discussion cold is because the individual involved is not engaging in good faith, and frankly I have better things to do than debunk dishonest arguments. There's a reason why "JAQing off" is a term of art used when discussing bad faith argumentation.
Given that half of the stats came directly from The Economist
It is worth remembering that The Economist is both a) old enough and b) conservative enough to have literally argued against public sanitation.
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:38 AM on July 17, 2023 [36 favorites]
Also this:
or whether we'll look at, say, 1970s-era mental health care as better or worse than 1870s-era mental health care.
isn't a debate. The 1970s is clearly superior because we stopped treating people being their actual authentic selves as mental illness. And I think that treating it as one does actual harm as we force those impacted to continuously argue for their right to exist.
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:49 AM on July 17, 2023 [6 favorites]
or whether we'll look at, say, 1970s-era mental health care as better or worse than 1870s-era mental health care.
isn't a debate. The 1970s is clearly superior because we stopped treating people being their actual authentic selves as mental illness. And I think that treating it as one does actual harm as we force those impacted to continuously argue for their right to exist.
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:49 AM on July 17, 2023 [6 favorites]
I notice that environmental issues are specifically excluded from the list, even where it would help, as with Saudi Aramco- Black environmentalists shut down a very large Saudi Methanol plant last year- or with the sperm count issue, as it s been documented for a long time that the endocrine disruptors lower sperm counts, long enough that this was part of my college courses in the 90's.
Also, not including climate change is goofy
posted by eustatic at 5:54 AM on July 17, 2023 [6 favorites]
Also, not including climate change is goofy
posted by eustatic at 5:54 AM on July 17, 2023 [6 favorites]
Isn't fertility measured as "children per woman?" (Or maybe it's per person?) If that holds true, I celebrate lower fertility rates as it means more agency and freedom for those who can become pregnant.
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:56 AM on July 17, 2023 [8 favorites]
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:56 AM on July 17, 2023 [8 favorites]
NoxAeternum, I think MetaFilter discussions sometimes do extend, but also often run counter to discussions elsewhere. If MetaFilter did not critique the topics brought up for discussion, I might agree with you more, but I've often learned from conversations here. Because MeFites come from many walks of life, are varying ages, etc., things regularly surface during critical discussions that I just have never heard, even on topics I'm interested in. I find that super-valuable!
Like, I've learned multiple new things from this thread I wouldn't have come across otherwise (your point about The Economist and public sanitation, knockoff branded swords among Vikings, etc., etc.). The number of things I don't know is legion, and I occasionally have my worldview shifted in small or large ways when someone trots out a "doesn't everyone knows tomatoes are actually fruits?"-type thing.
posted by cupcakeninja at 6:04 AM on July 17, 2023 [8 favorites]
Like, I've learned multiple new things from this thread I wouldn't have come across otherwise (your point about The Economist and public sanitation, knockoff branded swords among Vikings, etc., etc.). The number of things I don't know is legion, and I occasionally have my worldview shifted in small or large ways when someone trots out a "doesn't everyone knows tomatoes are actually fruits?"-type thing.
posted by cupcakeninja at 6:04 AM on July 17, 2023 [8 favorites]
but I do think that many MeFites jump to "that's a dogwhistle" or "that's a red flag" or "that's a conservative narrative" as a response.
People are saying that because we are discussing dogwhistles and red flags. Like #12 (fertility and testosterone levels) is a well known right wing talking point that ignores that fertility rates are in large part social constructs, and that the choice to have a child is heavily influenced by socioeconomic conditions (and the child-rearing cohorts are consistently reporting that it's literally too expensive to have kids, for an example of how that works.)
this seems like a conveniently direct example of cupcakeninja's point.
testosterone levels do in fact appear to be dropping in the us (for example). obviously that instantly becomes an exaggerated right wing talking point because fragile masculinity, etc., but that has no relevance to whether it's true or not, or whether it's something that should be addressed. a sharp drop in testosterone seems like it's probably a bad thing regardless of your politics?
fertility rates are a different story because, as you say, there are known socioeconomic explanations for at least part of the decline in fertility and some level of decline is arguably a net benefit.
the text of #12 addresses testosterone and sperm counts (using a graph from the economist or somewhere else that also includes fertility data). your response to #12 criticises it for ignoring points relevant to fertility, and dismisses it on that basis, in the process dismissing the points about testosterone and sperm count that would bear more discussion.
posted by inire at 6:10 AM on July 17, 2023 [9 favorites]
People are saying that because we are discussing dogwhistles and red flags. Like #12 (fertility and testosterone levels) is a well known right wing talking point that ignores that fertility rates are in large part social constructs, and that the choice to have a child is heavily influenced by socioeconomic conditions (and the child-rearing cohorts are consistently reporting that it's literally too expensive to have kids, for an example of how that works.)
this seems like a conveniently direct example of cupcakeninja's point.
testosterone levels do in fact appear to be dropping in the us (for example). obviously that instantly becomes an exaggerated right wing talking point because fragile masculinity, etc., but that has no relevance to whether it's true or not, or whether it's something that should be addressed. a sharp drop in testosterone seems like it's probably a bad thing regardless of your politics?
fertility rates are a different story because, as you say, there are known socioeconomic explanations for at least part of the decline in fertility and some level of decline is arguably a net benefit.
the text of #12 addresses testosterone and sperm counts (using a graph from the economist or somewhere else that also includes fertility data). your response to #12 criticises it for ignoring points relevant to fertility, and dismisses it on that basis, in the process dismissing the points about testosterone and sperm count that would bear more discussion.
posted by inire at 6:10 AM on July 17, 2023 [9 favorites]
Yeah, a few of these points were actually intriguing, but others (obesity? the fentanyl crisis? education setbacks from covid) are covered adequately in the media, and the idea that historians will find some of them (like the pivot to youtube) to be riveting and essential is dubious. I think the list only does what it claims to do about half the time, at best, and every time he whiffs he loses credibility.
posted by anhedonic at 6:16 AM on July 17, 2023 [10 favorites]
posted by anhedonic at 6:16 AM on July 17, 2023 [10 favorites]
#5 is confusing. Is his argument that the human body shouldn't naturally shut down, or that the news should fearmonger about it more than less natural causes of death, like for instance the subject of #7, which is in the news *all of the time*.
posted by Selena777 at 6:20 AM on July 17, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by Selena777 at 6:20 AM on July 17, 2023 [2 favorites]
They can't have a bunch of happy news stories AND a bunch of headlines about cancer at the same time. Choose one!
posted by kingdead at 6:32 AM on July 17, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by kingdead at 6:32 AM on July 17, 2023 [2 favorites]
others (obesity? the fentanyl crisis? education setbacks from covid) are covered adequately in the media
The idea that the rise in obesity is ignored or neglected by the media is a bizarre assertion. There have been 303 articles in the New York Times alone discussing it over the past few decades, with blunt headlines like 1994's Rise in Obesity in U.S. Is Explored by Experts, 2005's As America Gets Bigger the World Does Too and 2018's America's Adults Just Keep Getting Fatter. What does this guy want, cell phone alerts when the obesity rate goes up?
posted by I EAT TAPAS at 6:39 AM on July 17, 2023 [18 favorites]
The idea that the rise in obesity is ignored or neglected by the media is a bizarre assertion. There have been 303 articles in the New York Times alone discussing it over the past few decades, with blunt headlines like 1994's Rise in Obesity in U.S. Is Explored by Experts, 2005's As America Gets Bigger the World Does Too and 2018's America's Adults Just Keep Getting Fatter. What does this guy want, cell phone alerts when the obesity rate goes up?
posted by I EAT TAPAS at 6:39 AM on July 17, 2023 [18 favorites]
inire - the thing to keep in mind is that there is a difference between talking about a topic vs. talking about a particular framing of that topic. A lot of the topics that the list brings up are important (and as people have pointed out, they do get talked about because of that!) But the issue here is that the framing this particular author has chosen for many of them is dishonest, shows a lack of investigation into the topic, and in several cases is clearly built around harmful arguments. And that should be rejected because we shouldn't be enabling those harmful arguments.
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:42 AM on July 17, 2023 [6 favorites]
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:42 AM on July 17, 2023 [6 favorites]
Also, in my opinion the most interesting thing you can say about "what historians will discuss" is that we have no idea, because we don't know what the people of the future will find relevant and interesting. History is not the objective record of "what really happened," as this guy seems to think - it is a story drawn from fact that satisfies whatever the hell we want to talk about. The historians who will write about the early 21st century will almost certainly have an agenda that we cannot fathom.
posted by anhedonic at 6:47 AM on July 17, 2023 [8 favorites]
posted by anhedonic at 6:47 AM on July 17, 2023 [8 favorites]
testosterone levels do in fact appear to be dropping in the us (for example). obviously that instantly becomes an exaggerated right wing talking point because fragile masculinity, etc., but that has no relevance to whether it's true or not, or whether it's something that should be addressed. a sharp drop in testosterone seems like it's probably a bad thing regardless of your politics?
I don't know (really, I don't...I'm not saying I think you're wrong, I'm saying it's not self-evident that is true). I mean what is the "right" level of testosterone? Is it possible that it's not that testosterone is low now, it's that it was artificially high before because of what hegemonic masculinity looked like in the time when the supposed baseline was measured? I would be more persuaded by "men are having more diseases etc. caused by low testosterone" than "it's lower than before." Ditto sperm counts: How has the number of men having difficulty conceiving when they try changed over time?
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 6:49 AM on July 17, 2023 [5 favorites]
I don't know (really, I don't...I'm not saying I think you're wrong, I'm saying it's not self-evident that is true). I mean what is the "right" level of testosterone? Is it possible that it's not that testosterone is low now, it's that it was artificially high before because of what hegemonic masculinity looked like in the time when the supposed baseline was measured? I would be more persuaded by "men are having more diseases etc. caused by low testosterone" than "it's lower than before." Ditto sperm counts: How has the number of men having difficulty conceiving when they try changed over time?
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 6:49 AM on July 17, 2023 [5 favorites]
I have really ambivalent feelings about the whole declining birth rate thing every time it comes up. The entire topic gets very quickly dismissed in progressive spaces as an agenda being pushed by a toxic stew of racists, nationalists, racist nationalists, and people who don't realize how far we are above the planet's ecological carrying capacity.
It seems to be a real effect that every country that reaches a certain level of peace, prosperity, empowerment of women, effective contraception, and low infant mortality sees birth rates drop below replacement levels. No matter how much the far right worries about "those people" outbreeding "us", there is every reason to believe that whoever "those people" are, they'll experience the same birth rate drop not too far in the future.
So that's good, right? The environmental footprint of 1 billion humans would be way more sustainable than 8 billion, and we seem to be on a pathway to voluntary and somewhat equitable population decline. But that decline would create serious challenges along the way - the demographic bulge would be overwhelming and could no longer be covered over by increasing immigration. There's no particular reason the decline would gracefully stop at 1 billion or whatever number you like. Our economic and political systems are absolutely terrible at "managed retreat" and negative growth which would make abandoning 7/8ths of the world's housing and a considerable amount of industry and infrastructure rather difficult.
Without a progressive approach to tackling these potential problems (the degrowth movement is sort of pointed in this direction but I would argue not exactly the same thing) the topic is ceded entirely to the racist nationalists whose answer is more babies with their preferred skin tone - which, given the voluntary nature of birth rate decline, leads to either Gattaca or the Handmaid's Tale as solutions.
posted by allegedly at 6:56 AM on July 17, 2023 [9 favorites]
It seems to be a real effect that every country that reaches a certain level of peace, prosperity, empowerment of women, effective contraception, and low infant mortality sees birth rates drop below replacement levels. No matter how much the far right worries about "those people" outbreeding "us", there is every reason to believe that whoever "those people" are, they'll experience the same birth rate drop not too far in the future.
So that's good, right? The environmental footprint of 1 billion humans would be way more sustainable than 8 billion, and we seem to be on a pathway to voluntary and somewhat equitable population decline. But that decline would create serious challenges along the way - the demographic bulge would be overwhelming and could no longer be covered over by increasing immigration. There's no particular reason the decline would gracefully stop at 1 billion or whatever number you like. Our economic and political systems are absolutely terrible at "managed retreat" and negative growth which would make abandoning 7/8ths of the world's housing and a considerable amount of industry and infrastructure rather difficult.
Without a progressive approach to tackling these potential problems (the degrowth movement is sort of pointed in this direction but I would argue not exactly the same thing) the topic is ceded entirely to the racist nationalists whose answer is more babies with their preferred skin tone - which, given the voluntary nature of birth rate decline, leads to either Gattaca or the Handmaid's Tale as solutions.
posted by allegedly at 6:56 AM on July 17, 2023 [9 favorites]
"The airline industry might be humans most profound achievement to date"
NO. No no no. Quality Culture is the most profound achievement to date. A very strict regulatory structure with hefty consequences that covers everything from fuel to maintenance to traffic control and probably a hundred little things I'm completely unaware of.
This can apply to so many industries and all of these lessons were paid for in blood.
posted by Slackermagee at 7:21 AM on July 17, 2023 [20 favorites]
NO. No no no. Quality Culture is the most profound achievement to date. A very strict regulatory structure with hefty consequences that covers everything from fuel to maintenance to traffic control and probably a hundred little things I'm completely unaware of.
This can apply to so many industries and all of these lessons were paid for in blood.
posted by Slackermagee at 7:21 AM on July 17, 2023 [20 favorites]
I've seen a video that the lack of homelessness in Japan is a result of being able to rent space in gaming shops cheaply enough that people aren't forced onto the streets.
As I understand it, fertility rates are dropping worldwide, and are generally below replacement, not just in majority white/notably wealthy countries.
I think it's a worthwhile question, but we can't know what future historians will focus on. I wouldn't mind seeing a more sophisticated look at what might be important that isn't well covered in the news.
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 7:25 AM on July 17, 2023 [4 favorites]
As I understand it, fertility rates are dropping worldwide, and are generally below replacement, not just in majority white/notably wealthy countries.
I think it's a worthwhile question, but we can't know what future historians will focus on. I wouldn't mind seeing a more sophisticated look at what might be important that isn't well covered in the news.
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 7:25 AM on July 17, 2023 [4 favorites]
What's up with the rose in homeschooling? That one surprised me with it's scale. Seems like something that has direct connections to our current QAnon-ymized landscape (in the US). But maybe 5m isn't as big a number as it seems?
posted by keep_evolving at 7:26 AM on July 17, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by keep_evolving at 7:26 AM on July 17, 2023 [1 favorite]
What's up with the rose in homeschooling?
The growth of the Dominionist movement and their need for control of the education their children are provided to keep them in that mindset.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:30 AM on July 17, 2023 [7 favorites]
The growth of the Dominionist movement and their need for control of the education their children are provided to keep them in that mindset.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:30 AM on July 17, 2023 [7 favorites]
Homeschooling has more than one motive-- some of it qanon-based or extremely restrictive conservative thinking. Some of it is parents who have normal standards for what they want for their kids-- a kid might be getting bullied, or the school isn't accommodating disabilities or letting the kid learn well.
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 7:35 AM on July 17, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 7:35 AM on July 17, 2023 [4 favorites]
2021 has a big asterisk besides it because of covid. He's asking a question that he posted part of the answer for
posted by Selena777 at 7:37 AM on July 17, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by Selena777 at 7:37 AM on July 17, 2023 [3 favorites]
inire - the thing to keep in mind is that there is a difference between talking about a topic vs. talking about a particular framing of that topic. A lot of the topics that the list brings up are important (and as people have pointed out, they do get talked about because of that!) But the issue here is that the framing this particular author has chosen for many of them is dishonest, shows a lack of investigation into the topic, and in several cases is clearly built around harmful arguments. And that should be rejected because we shouldn't be enabling those harmful arguments.
i may be misunderstanding but this seems like the same point. "many of" the author's points are dishonestly framed and "in several cases" are based on harmful arguments, therefore "that should be rejected" - what should be? all the topics mentioned in the thread, post, etc. or just the dishonestly framed or harmful ones? the argument is that people too often default to the former - intentionally or not - because of their (valid) objections to the latter, per the testosterone / fertility example. baby and bathwater, basically.
also, not to emulate the author and turn into a poundshop joe rogan, but i do get a bit twitchy when we start to talk about rejecting something because it 'enables' something harmful. firstly because the implied causation is quite often simply not in evidence, and secondly because - even where there does seem to be causation - that leads you directly into ignoring or dismissing a fact (or a worthwhile argument, hypothesis, question, etc.) because acknowledging it as being worth looking at might lead to harm.
that's arguably justified in some cases where the likelihood and degree of the potential harm is much more significant than the original fact, argument, etc. - for example, differences in intelligence between ethnic groups - but i think people quite often have this balance out of whack, and heavily overemphasise (a) the prospect of harm resulting and (b) the level of harm that is likely to result from discussion of a not-immediately-harmful topic.
this is all a much bigger problem for the right than the left (i.e. the right's consensus reality is much further removed than the left's from actual reality, which i think is largely for this reason, bearing in mind that the right and left define different things as 'harmful'), but we should still seek to avoid it.
(edit to make absolutely clear that i don't think differences in intelligence between ethnic groups is a worthwhile argument to enter into - i mention it as an example of a topic where engaging with it, even in order to debunk, arguably does more harm than good by legitimising it as something worth studying.)
posted by inire at 7:40 AM on July 17, 2023 [8 favorites]
i may be misunderstanding but this seems like the same point. "many of" the author's points are dishonestly framed and "in several cases" are based on harmful arguments, therefore "that should be rejected" - what should be? all the topics mentioned in the thread, post, etc. or just the dishonestly framed or harmful ones? the argument is that people too often default to the former - intentionally or not - because of their (valid) objections to the latter, per the testosterone / fertility example. baby and bathwater, basically.
also, not to emulate the author and turn into a poundshop joe rogan, but i do get a bit twitchy when we start to talk about rejecting something because it 'enables' something harmful. firstly because the implied causation is quite often simply not in evidence, and secondly because - even where there does seem to be causation - that leads you directly into ignoring or dismissing a fact (or a worthwhile argument, hypothesis, question, etc.) because acknowledging it as being worth looking at might lead to harm.
that's arguably justified in some cases where the likelihood and degree of the potential harm is much more significant than the original fact, argument, etc. - for example, differences in intelligence between ethnic groups - but i think people quite often have this balance out of whack, and heavily overemphasise (a) the prospect of harm resulting and (b) the level of harm that is likely to result from discussion of a not-immediately-harmful topic.
this is all a much bigger problem for the right than the left (i.e. the right's consensus reality is much further removed than the left's from actual reality, which i think is largely for this reason, bearing in mind that the right and left define different things as 'harmful'), but we should still seek to avoid it.
(edit to make absolutely clear that i don't think differences in intelligence between ethnic groups is a worthwhile argument to enter into - i mention it as an example of a topic where engaging with it, even in order to debunk, arguably does more harm than good by legitimising it as something worth studying.)
posted by inire at 7:40 AM on July 17, 2023 [8 favorites]
As I understand it, fertility rates are dropping worldwide, and are generally below replacement, not just in majority white/notably wealthy countries.
Just over two people are born for every one that dies, according to the UN.
posted by biffa at 7:41 AM on July 17, 2023 [2 favorites]
Just over two people are born for every one that dies, according to the UN.
posted by biffa at 7:41 AM on July 17, 2023 [2 favorites]
2023CE poster, after sharing a self-referential meme: we're gonna confuse future archeologists sooo bad 🤣
4971CE archeologist, on the dig site: why do the bones have plastic in them jesus christ jesus fucking christ it's in their bones i don't want to do this anymore i don't want to do this
posted by Rhaomi at 7:49 AM on July 17, 2023 [9 favorites]
4971CE archeologist, on the dig site: why do the bones have plastic in them jesus christ jesus fucking christ it's in their bones i don't want to do this anymore i don't want to do this
posted by Rhaomi at 7:49 AM on July 17, 2023 [9 favorites]
birth rates drop below replacement levels
When this phrase gets used as a pending disaster it reveals a rare hand-tipping moment where the economy is described is a pyramid scheme. It is typically used by elite sympathies, because it's not about keeping factories open, which compete with labor gluts worldwide. There is no guarantee of any replacement job. A retiree can more easily move to a place with cheaper health care than to expect someone to supply their retirement to live a generation longer (to tell about when birds once existed). It is really about quality of life overall, never quantity. Rather than expect things to go on as normal as the world falls apart, we should face it, or else a demand for replacement organs will piggyback on the same elite sentiments. We should have never become addicted to taxing wage earners in the first place, because regressive taxation was never good for the economy, it's just easy to sell as fair when nobody understands marginal rates.
posted by Brian B. at 7:50 AM on July 17, 2023 [4 favorites]
When this phrase gets used as a pending disaster it reveals a rare hand-tipping moment where the economy is described is a pyramid scheme. It is typically used by elite sympathies, because it's not about keeping factories open, which compete with labor gluts worldwide. There is no guarantee of any replacement job. A retiree can more easily move to a place with cheaper health care than to expect someone to supply their retirement to live a generation longer (to tell about when birds once existed). It is really about quality of life overall, never quantity. Rather than expect things to go on as normal as the world falls apart, we should face it, or else a demand for replacement organs will piggyback on the same elite sentiments. We should have never become addicted to taxing wage earners in the first place, because regressive taxation was never good for the economy, it's just easy to sell as fair when nobody understands marginal rates.
posted by Brian B. at 7:50 AM on July 17, 2023 [4 favorites]
We homeschooled our first child because the schools in our area (Louisiana) were horrifically bad, and being an assistant professor in the humanities didn't pay enough to afford any alternatives. Plus we wanted to conduct progressive pedagogy, which we did.
n = 1, yeah, but there were, and are, others like us.
posted by doctornemo at 7:53 AM on July 17, 2023 [6 favorites]
n = 1, yeah, but there were, and are, others like us.
posted by doctornemo at 7:53 AM on July 17, 2023 [6 favorites]
the whole declining birth rate thing ... seems to be a real effect that every country that reaches a certain level of peace, prosperity, empowerment of women, effective contraception, and low infant mortality sees birth rates drop below replacement levels
Yes indeed, pretty much in every nation and society. Modernity clobbers birthrates. There are a few small exceptions - some conservatives in Utah (last time I gave a talk there, one academic told me "Hey, we remember how to have babies!"), some Jewish conservative groups in Israel. Otherwise it's close to an iron law.
Talking about this *enormous*, world transforming fact does not automatically make the speaker fascistic, right wing, or even "right wing leaning." There's a whole academic and professional field of demography, and its members would often be shocked by such political charges, especially as many advocate for more immigration. Yeah, some right wingers are crazy about this, and draw on a tradition of such bonkers-ness. Check out Hungary's desire to get Hungarian women breeding more, for example. But other political flavors of all sorts can do this.
posted by doctornemo at 7:56 AM on July 17, 2023 [5 favorites]
Yes indeed, pretty much in every nation and society. Modernity clobbers birthrates. There are a few small exceptions - some conservatives in Utah (last time I gave a talk there, one academic told me "Hey, we remember how to have babies!"), some Jewish conservative groups in Israel. Otherwise it's close to an iron law.
Talking about this *enormous*, world transforming fact does not automatically make the speaker fascistic, right wing, or even "right wing leaning." There's a whole academic and professional field of demography, and its members would often be shocked by such political charges, especially as many advocate for more immigration. Yeah, some right wingers are crazy about this, and draw on a tradition of such bonkers-ness. Check out Hungary's desire to get Hungarian women breeding more, for example. But other political flavors of all sorts can do this.
posted by doctornemo at 7:56 AM on July 17, 2023 [5 favorites]
Hi! As a fat person, I feel qualified to comment on the last item:
Actually, no one ever shuts up about exercise. What kind of life does this guy live, if he thinks the health benefits of exercise aren't covered in the media?
posted by meese at 7:57 AM on July 17, 2023 [18 favorites]
Actually, no one ever shuts up about exercise. What kind of life does this guy live, if he thinks the health benefits of exercise aren't covered in the media?
posted by meese at 7:57 AM on July 17, 2023 [18 favorites]
Also, if you're interested in the obesity epidemic, please check out Maintenance Phase.
posted by meese at 8:01 AM on July 17, 2023 [7 favorites]
posted by meese at 8:01 AM on July 17, 2023 [7 favorites]
The front page of the NYTimes yesterday was about the aging population crisis, so hard to say the media is ignoring #3 (in addition to the point already made that the population of the world overall is not decreasing).
And as for #10, there has been ample reporting on the teen mental health crisis, which of course cannot only be linked to COVID lockdowns - perhaps the author just doesn't like that other factors are sometimes attributed to it?
#11 - why is homeschool booming? Uh, gee, what could have happened to make it jump up in 2021..... (also a story I've definitely seen covered)
I'd say the interesting question is less what historians will cover of this time period, and more what sorts of arguments/connections will they make to explain some of these trends. Assuming we still have institutions of higher learning not either controlled or defunded by fascists.
posted by coffeecat at 8:17 AM on July 17, 2023 [3 favorites]
And as for #10, there has been ample reporting on the teen mental health crisis, which of course cannot only be linked to COVID lockdowns - perhaps the author just doesn't like that other factors are sometimes attributed to it?
#11 - why is homeschool booming? Uh, gee, what could have happened to make it jump up in 2021..... (also a story I've definitely seen covered)
I'd say the interesting question is less what historians will cover of this time period, and more what sorts of arguments/connections will they make to explain some of these trends. Assuming we still have institutions of higher learning not either controlled or defunded by fascists.
posted by coffeecat at 8:17 AM on July 17, 2023 [3 favorites]
We homeschooled our first child because the schools in our area (Louisiana) were horrifically bad, and being an assistant professor in the humanities didn't pay enough to afford any alternatives. Plus we wanted to conduct progressive pedagogy, which we did.
Anecdotal but homeschooling has become more popular across the political board. If you're Christian, you don't want your child damned to hell; if you're secular but can't afford to live in very specific areas with well funded public schools, you don't want your child damned to stupidity and poverty.
Actual results vary by effort, as in all things.
posted by kingdead at 8:20 AM on July 17, 2023 [3 favorites]
Anecdotal but homeschooling has become more popular across the political board. If you're Christian, you don't want your child damned to hell; if you're secular but can't afford to live in very specific areas with well funded public schools, you don't want your child damned to stupidity and poverty.
Actual results vary by effort, as in all things.
posted by kingdead at 8:20 AM on July 17, 2023 [3 favorites]
We’re already starting to feel the effects of the demographic crunch. The pandemic marked a tipping point in which boomer retirements exacerbated shortages in many fields, particularly education and healthcare. Of course there are other factors driving those shortages, but the demographic crunch is a big driver. The problem is only going to get worse because Gen Z is smaller then the Millennials and the millennials are having less children than the boomers.
Immigration can help somewhat, but relying on people leaving their homes due to climate change and war seems inhuman and exploitative.
posted by eagles123 at 8:21 AM on July 17, 2023 [2 favorites]
Immigration can help somewhat, but relying on people leaving their homes due to climate change and war seems inhuman and exploitative.
posted by eagles123 at 8:21 AM on July 17, 2023 [2 favorites]
Good thing immigrants will also leave their homes for educational and job opportunities.
posted by Selena777 at 8:27 AM on July 17, 2023 [6 favorites]
posted by Selena777 at 8:27 AM on July 17, 2023 [6 favorites]
That’s kind of stating the point in a different way. Anyway, here is a link to a website describing common causes of immigration to the US:
https://www.icdichicago.org/root-of-it
posted by eagles123 at 8:35 AM on July 17, 2023 [1 favorite]
https://www.icdichicago.org/root-of-it
posted by eagles123 at 8:35 AM on July 17, 2023 [1 favorite]
We’re already starting to feel the effects of the demographic crunch.
posted by eagles123
Or is that just coded racism?
You see the point. The demographic transition (that's really the phrase in the literature, bland as it is) is under way and will deepen. The NYTimes piece actually has a nice visualization. It's not fronting for Hitler to point this out.
posted by doctornemo at 9:00 AM on July 17, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by eagles123
Or is that just coded racism?
You see the point. The demographic transition (that's really the phrase in the literature, bland as it is) is under way and will deepen. The NYTimes piece actually has a nice visualization. It's not fronting for Hitler to point this out.
posted by doctornemo at 9:00 AM on July 17, 2023 [2 favorites]
also, not to emulate the author and turn into a poundshop joe rogan, but i do get a bit twitchy when we start to talk about rejecting something because it 'enables' something harmful. firstly because the implied causation is quite often simply not in evidence, and secondly because - even where there does seem to be causation - that leads you directly into ignoring or dismissing a fact (or a worthwhile argument, hypothesis, question, etc.) because acknowledging it as being worth looking at might lead to harm.
So here's the thing - we live in a society that has for decades taught that "the answer to bad/hate speech is more/better speech", that if we just talk about issues, we can resolve them. The reality is that has never worked and too often leaves minorities having to argue for their existence repeatedly as bad faith actors look for new ways and venues to push their ideas.
Assume good faith doesn't mean to do so blindly - it means that as long as someone shows they are not operating in bad faith, then we should treat them as being in good faith. But once they show that they are operating in bad faith, it's not incumbent on us to sus out what is and isn't in good faith. To come back to your point about intelligence - we're not obliged to give Charles Murray a soapbox or debate him out of some obligation to academic freedom (and it's worth remembering that academia shows cranks the door as a matter of policy.)
As I said in a prior thread, nice doesn’t mean being a doormat.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:44 AM on July 17, 2023 [7 favorites]
So here's the thing - we live in a society that has for decades taught that "the answer to bad/hate speech is more/better speech", that if we just talk about issues, we can resolve them. The reality is that has never worked and too often leaves minorities having to argue for their existence repeatedly as bad faith actors look for new ways and venues to push their ideas.
Assume good faith doesn't mean to do so blindly - it means that as long as someone shows they are not operating in bad faith, then we should treat them as being in good faith. But once they show that they are operating in bad faith, it's not incumbent on us to sus out what is and isn't in good faith. To come back to your point about intelligence - we're not obliged to give Charles Murray a soapbox or debate him out of some obligation to academic freedom (and it's worth remembering that academia shows cranks the door as a matter of policy.)
As I said in a prior thread, nice doesn’t mean being a doormat.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:44 AM on July 17, 2023 [7 favorites]
Anecdotal but homeschooling has become more popular across the political board. If you're Christian, you don't want your child damned to hell; if you're secular but can't afford to live in very specific areas with well funded public schools, you don't want your child damned to stupidity and poverty.
Cool - the reason why homeschooling has hit 5M students is primarily due to Dominionists and their need to control their children's education. Secular homeschoolers routinely point out that it is near impossible to find non-Dominionist homeschooling resources today.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:48 AM on July 17, 2023 [5 favorites]
Cool - the reason why homeschooling has hit 5M students is primarily due to Dominionists and their need to control their children's education. Secular homeschoolers routinely point out that it is near impossible to find non-Dominionist homeschooling resources today.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:48 AM on July 17, 2023 [5 favorites]
Marketing bros pick up on and repeat fascist talking points not necessarily because the marketing bros are fascists, but because the fascists designed the talking points to be provocative, deceptive and viral. Parasites adapt to have preferred hosts
Those of us who are seeing the origin of this set of ideas under this particular framing are doing the rest of you all a favor. We could be spending our time discussing important issues that *aren’t* fascist pin setting
Would we be discussing this article if it was titled “What is ignored or neglected by the Jewish (((media)))) -- but will be studied by historians?” Because this article very easily could be titled that and it would honestly make more cohesive sense as a set of ideas if it was
posted by Skwirl at 10:03 AM on July 17, 2023 [7 favorites]
Those of us who are seeing the origin of this set of ideas under this particular framing are doing the rest of you all a favor. We could be spending our time discussing important issues that *aren’t* fascist pin setting
Would we be discussing this article if it was titled “What is ignored or neglected by the Jewish (((media)))) -- but will be studied by historians?” Because this article very easily could be titled that and it would honestly make more cohesive sense as a set of ideas if it was
posted by Skwirl at 10:03 AM on July 17, 2023 [7 favorites]
Secular homeschoolers routinely point out that it is near impossible to find non-Dominionist homeschooling resources today.
Not the homeschoolers I know. It's very easy to find secular homeschooling resources. It's also very easy to homeschool without using a packaged curriculum or anything specifically marketed for use by homeschoolers. Mefites tend to assume homeschoolers are almost all fundamentalist Christians trying to keep their kids isolated and controlled. That's not at all the reality where I live. Most homeschoolers here seem to be motivated by a desire to let their kids have more freedom, time outdoors in nature and real-life experiences or to give their academically advanced kids a chance to really learn something instead of just doing busywork, or both.
But my state is the least religious and the sixth most liberal in the U.S., so I realize what I see here may not be typical. I just tried to find statistics on what percentage of homeschoolers are religious and the figures I'm seeing are all over the place and based on small sample sizes. At one end of the scale, an article from 2016 said the Homeschool Legal Defense Association (a Christian group) reported that about 25% of homeschoolers were secular and about 2/3 were Christian. At the other end of the scale, this article from 2023 reports on a survey of new homeschoolers and says:
Not the homeschoolers I know. It's very easy to find secular homeschooling resources. It's also very easy to homeschool without using a packaged curriculum or anything specifically marketed for use by homeschoolers. Mefites tend to assume homeschoolers are almost all fundamentalist Christians trying to keep their kids isolated and controlled. That's not at all the reality where I live. Most homeschoolers here seem to be motivated by a desire to let their kids have more freedom, time outdoors in nature and real-life experiences or to give their academically advanced kids a chance to really learn something instead of just doing busywork, or both.
But my state is the least religious and the sixth most liberal in the U.S., so I realize what I see here may not be typical. I just tried to find statistics on what percentage of homeschoolers are religious and the figures I'm seeing are all over the place and based on small sample sizes. At one end of the scale, an article from 2016 said the Homeschool Legal Defense Association (a Christian group) reported that about 25% of homeschoolers were secular and about 2/3 were Christian. At the other end of the scale, this article from 2023 reports on a survey of new homeschoolers and says:
Just 1% of new homeschooling parents said their No. 1 reason was based on religious beliefs, down from 14% of parents already homeschooling who said the same;posted by Redstart at 11:09 AM on July 17, 2023 [6 favorites]
47% of new homeschoolers described themselves as “progressive” or “liberal,” up from 32%;
6% of new homeschoolers said they had conservative views vs. 27% of pre-Covid homeschoolers.
I would be really interested in an article with the same premise. Get historians to make guesses: when people in a few hundred years try to make sense of the world we're in, what are the subjects that they'll spend a lot more attention on than we are currently? What will they wish we were talking about and recording currently far more than we actually are?
Of course there are no objective answers available. Whatever you say will show something of your perspective, your biases. But it's an interesting thing to consider, and I'd really be interested in well thought out answers.
posted by meese at 11:44 AM on July 17, 2023 [3 favorites]
Of course there are no objective answers available. Whatever you say will show something of your perspective, your biases. But it's an interesting thing to consider, and I'd really be interested in well thought out answers.
posted by meese at 11:44 AM on July 17, 2023 [3 favorites]
I think class and status have become a bit taboo, and I haven't even finished Wilkerson's Caste.
posted by theora55 at 11:56 AM on July 17, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by theora55 at 11:56 AM on July 17, 2023 [1 favorite]
It'll mostly be topics related to planetary boundaries:
- All the extinct species and how agriculture & medicine became harder without them.
- Also conjecture about what happened previously in the tropics, given humans cannot really live there anymore.
It'll sound impossible that the world ever held so many people, given their world shall have a carrying capacity below 1 billion, maybe well below.
posted by jeffburdges at 12:16 PM on July 17, 2023 [4 favorites]
- All the extinct species and how agriculture & medicine became harder without them.
- Also conjecture about what happened previously in the tropics, given humans cannot really live there anymore.
It'll sound impossible that the world ever held so many people, given their world shall have a carrying capacity below 1 billion, maybe well below.
posted by jeffburdges at 12:16 PM on July 17, 2023 [4 favorites]
Assume good faith doesn't mean to do so blindly - it means that as long as someone shows they are not operating in bad faith, then we should treat them as being in good faith. But once they show that they are operating in bad faith, it's not incumbent on us to sus out what is and isn't in good faith. To come back to your point about intelligence - we're not obliged to give Charles Murray a soapbox or debate him out of some obligation to academic freedom (and it's worth remembering that academia shows cranks the door as a matter of policy.)
As I said in a prior thread, nice doesn’t mean being a doormat.
i agree entirely. but there's a distinction between how you respond to something brought up as a topic in the context of an attempted debate by a particular person who is clearly operating in bad faith (or repeating bad faith points verbatim, like this guy), and how you think about that topic in its own right.
in the former case, dismiss away - you're not necessarily rejecting the topic as relevant / interesting in itself, you're dismissing the attempt to (in effect) use it as a wedge to open up conversational space for whatever horrible outcome your interlocutor wants people to agree with.
in the latter case, dismissing the topic as not to be thought about, simply because it is (at times, in certain forms) used as a talking point by horrible people, isn't a great way to proceed. for example, the fact that fascists promote the great replacement theory, closing borders, etc. is not a good reason to dismiss the possibility that immigration can have negative effects for the receiving country (even if those are far outweighed by the positive effects). take care how you frame your discussions about that topic, sure, but making it off limits is an overreach.
i think it's apparent from this thread that there's substance worth discussing about a number of these topics - the fact that very little of that substance was present in the original thread (and where it was present, wasn't original to george mack) isn't really an issue. it's a conversation between us, not a debate with george mack or the sources he's parasitising.
posted by inire at 12:19 PM on July 17, 2023 [2 favorites]
As I said in a prior thread, nice doesn’t mean being a doormat.
i agree entirely. but there's a distinction between how you respond to something brought up as a topic in the context of an attempted debate by a particular person who is clearly operating in bad faith (or repeating bad faith points verbatim, like this guy), and how you think about that topic in its own right.
in the former case, dismiss away - you're not necessarily rejecting the topic as relevant / interesting in itself, you're dismissing the attempt to (in effect) use it as a wedge to open up conversational space for whatever horrible outcome your interlocutor wants people to agree with.
in the latter case, dismissing the topic as not to be thought about, simply because it is (at times, in certain forms) used as a talking point by horrible people, isn't a great way to proceed. for example, the fact that fascists promote the great replacement theory, closing borders, etc. is not a good reason to dismiss the possibility that immigration can have negative effects for the receiving country (even if those are far outweighed by the positive effects). take care how you frame your discussions about that topic, sure, but making it off limits is an overreach.
i think it's apparent from this thread that there's substance worth discussing about a number of these topics - the fact that very little of that substance was present in the original thread (and where it was present, wasn't original to george mack) isn't really an issue. it's a conversation between us, not a debate with george mack or the sources he's parasitising.
posted by inire at 12:19 PM on July 17, 2023 [2 favorites]
take care how you frame your discussions about that topic, sure, but making it off limits is an overreach.
Good thing that nobody is saying to make things "off limits", then. The point is that bad faith argumentation should not be rewarded, and should be treated as if they are cranks (because, frankly, they are.) If a topic is of genuine import, then its advocates/critics should be able to frame the discussion in a manner that isn't trying to imply arguments that are built around bigotry - and if they can't, that says something about the position.
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:46 PM on July 17, 2023 [2 favorites]
Good thing that nobody is saying to make things "off limits", then. The point is that bad faith argumentation should not be rewarded, and should be treated as if they are cranks (because, frankly, they are.) If a topic is of genuine import, then its advocates/critics should be able to frame the discussion in a manner that isn't trying to imply arguments that are built around bigotry - and if they can't, that says something about the position.
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:46 PM on July 17, 2023 [2 favorites]
Honestly, folks in this thread are likely giving these items more thought than the author did. It appears to be marketing for a podcast episode he did on the Modern Wisdom podcast, which is very much in the Rogan mould. Center-right without being terribly self-aware about it, very surface, and has a big 'this one small fact will blow your mind' vibe.
posted by sid at 12:49 PM on July 17, 2023 [8 favorites]
posted by sid at 12:49 PM on July 17, 2023 [8 favorites]
a sharp drop in testosterone seems like it's probably a bad thing regardless of your politics?
Maybe high testosterone was caused by high lead levels.
posted by clawsoon at 1:22 PM on July 17, 2023 [2 favorites]
Maybe high testosterone was caused by high lead levels.
posted by clawsoon at 1:22 PM on July 17, 2023 [2 favorites]
Isn't the testosterone drop visible in wild animals too? If so, that's bad. It's wonderful in humans and domesticated animals of course.
posted by jeffburdges at 1:24 PM on July 17, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by jeffburdges at 1:24 PM on July 17, 2023 [2 favorites]
Since it is possible to find a paper to prove anything, I've found two papers showing that high lead levels are associated with high testosterone. Lead pollution is pervasive, so it would affect animals, too.
So maybe testosterone levels are returning to normal after a century of elevation due to environmental lead poisoning.
posted by clawsoon at 1:44 PM on July 17, 2023 [8 favorites]
So maybe testosterone levels are returning to normal after a century of elevation due to environmental lead poisoning.
posted by clawsoon at 1:44 PM on July 17, 2023 [8 favorites]
Extending the half-baked theory: Perhaps the lead-testosterone link is why more lead exposure leads to more aggro dudes.
posted by clawsoon at 1:55 PM on July 17, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by clawsoon at 1:55 PM on July 17, 2023 [2 favorites]
I think this thread would be better if we spent more time thinking of our own examples of underreported stories and paid less attention to George Mack's list. How about:
- the rise of Nigeria as it gains more control over its own oil exports
- the flow of machine tools in international trade, since power flows out of the (machine-tooled) barrel of a gun
posted by clawsoon at 2:10 PM on July 17, 2023 [9 favorites]
- the rise of Nigeria as it gains more control over its own oil exports
- the flow of machine tools in international trade, since power flows out of the (machine-tooled) barrel of a gun
posted by clawsoon at 2:10 PM on July 17, 2023 [9 favorites]
Hard to tell from his unsourced graphic which cherry-picks three years (2000, 2004, and 2015) as “proof” of an overall testosterone/fertility rate decline, but if they’re not controlling for age…well, the population is aging! (Sorry XY squad, your hormones don’t stay forever young either.)
The homeless rate table also provides no source, but I find it interesting that the years range from 2012 to 2019. I know data availability probably varies quite a bit by country, but this isn’t exactly apples-to-apples.
“Why aren’t 2016 NYT news headlines about death directly proportionate to the ratios in this bar graph of all-cause mortality?!” (I paraphrase) is also a weird question. The answer is the old “man bites dog” analogy. News is news because it’s noteworthy. Everybody dies of something, but causes of premature or violent death are going to make headlines because they are not (supposed to be) typical.
The graphic about gaming revenues (2021 only) vs. box office takings (2010-2021) does not prove what he claims it does about gaming out-earning “music and entertainment for the last 8 years!”
I’m not accusing this guy of deliberately misrepresenting data, but if he’s not being purposely disingenuous, it points to a lack of sophistication relative to his obvious confidence.
posted by armeowda at 2:38 PM on July 17, 2023 [6 favorites]
The homeless rate table also provides no source, but I find it interesting that the years range from 2012 to 2019. I know data availability probably varies quite a bit by country, but this isn’t exactly apples-to-apples.
“Why aren’t 2016 NYT news headlines about death directly proportionate to the ratios in this bar graph of all-cause mortality?!” (I paraphrase) is also a weird question. The answer is the old “man bites dog” analogy. News is news because it’s noteworthy. Everybody dies of something, but causes of premature or violent death are going to make headlines because they are not (supposed to be) typical.
The graphic about gaming revenues (2021 only) vs. box office takings (2010-2021) does not prove what he claims it does about gaming out-earning “music and entertainment for the last 8 years!”
I’m not accusing this guy of deliberately misrepresenting data, but if he’s not being purposely disingenuous, it points to a lack of sophistication relative to his obvious confidence.
posted by armeowda at 2:38 PM on July 17, 2023 [6 favorites]
historians of the future will talk about america like we do the maya
posted by graywyvern at 3:20 PM on July 17, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by graywyvern at 3:20 PM on July 17, 2023 [2 favorites]
the rise of Nigeria as it gains more control over its own oil exports
Plus its demographics, as they are still producing kids at pre-modernity levels. Depending on projection, Nigeria could become the world's fourth most populous nation in a few decades.
..and yet they are also in a terrible spot for rising temperatures.
posted by doctornemo at 6:17 PM on July 17, 2023 [2 favorites]
Plus its demographics, as they are still producing kids at pre-modernity levels. Depending on projection, Nigeria could become the world's fourth most populous nation in a few decades.
..and yet they are also in a terrible spot for rising temperatures.
posted by doctornemo at 6:17 PM on July 17, 2023 [2 favorites]
Good thing that nobody is saying to make things "off limits", then. The point is that bad faith argumentation should not be rewarded, and should be treated as if they are cranks (because, frankly, they are.)
treating a topic raised in discussion as the preserve of cranks (as you recommend) tends to stop discussion of that topic in non-crank spaces, which is functionally equivalent to making it 'off limits' in that context. the point i and others are getting at is how and when topics and arguments should be identified as being raised in bad faith or otherwise being bullshit, not about what to do once they are identified as such.
most of the interesting discussion in this thread has happened in spite of the early dismissal of the listed topics as bullshit right wing dogwhistles, not because of that dismissal.
posted by inire at 10:49 AM on July 18, 2023 [3 favorites]
treating a topic raised in discussion as the preserve of cranks (as you recommend) tends to stop discussion of that topic in non-crank spaces, which is functionally equivalent to making it 'off limits' in that context. the point i and others are getting at is how and when topics and arguments should be identified as being raised in bad faith or otherwise being bullshit, not about what to do once they are identified as such.
most of the interesting discussion in this thread has happened in spite of the early dismissal of the listed topics as bullshit right wing dogwhistles, not because of that dismissal.
posted by inire at 10:49 AM on July 18, 2023 [3 favorites]
Perhaps the useful perspective is: which of the many of today's concerns - in this list or elsewhere - turn out to have greater (or lesser) impact to the future? In other words, when future historians are dissecting some calamitous or momentous events/occurrences/changes (that haven't happened to us yet), which of our current concerns/trends will they point at as causing said thing?
But yeah, it is a bit click-baity. Fix these X things to stave off world collapse!
posted by Artful Codger at 11:36 AM on July 18, 2023 [1 favorite]
But yeah, it is a bit click-baity. Fix these X things to stave off world collapse!
posted by Artful Codger at 11:36 AM on July 18, 2023 [1 favorite]
most of the interesting discussion in this thread has happened in spite of the early dismissal of the listed topics as bullshit right wing dogwhistles, not because of that dismissal.
I see it as the opposite - the interesting discussion happened because we didn't have to spend yet more time discussing once again why specific framings are dogwhistles for bigoted arguments. That, by the way, is the context of the term "JAQing off" - the use of "just asking questions" to force discussion on lines of inquiry that have long since been debunked, forcing effort to be wasted on debunking them yet again.
the point i and others are getting at is how and when topics and arguments should be identified as being raised in bad faith or otherwise being bullshit,
It's really not that difficult - bad faith isn't all that hidden. The big ways are:
* Did the person do their homework (that is, do they show some understanding of the topic at hand?) Of course, this requires you to have some understanding of the subject. But if you do, and it's clear that the person presenting the topic hasn't, you are not obligated to be an educator. Now, you may choose to be in order to present the topic properly, but it's worth noting that doing so can draw effort from you.
* Are they presenting several questionable arguments in a row? This is a well known bad faith argument known as the Gish gallop, meant to overwhelm people with a deluge of arguments. (And yes, the thread in the OP is a variant in my opinion.)
* Are they using disingenuous/dishonest arguments? This was what people picked up with #21 in particular - the use of several dishonest techniques like using an outlier as a representative sample and dishonest equation of dissimilar measurements.
* Are they using known dogwhistles? Again, this requires awareness on your part - but it's worth learning these so that you can catch them when brought up.
Now, none of these are singularly dispositive, but the more of them that wind up being present, the more likely that the person is operating in bad faith.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:47 AM on July 18, 2023 [4 favorites]
I see it as the opposite - the interesting discussion happened because we didn't have to spend yet more time discussing once again why specific framings are dogwhistles for bigoted arguments. That, by the way, is the context of the term "JAQing off" - the use of "just asking questions" to force discussion on lines of inquiry that have long since been debunked, forcing effort to be wasted on debunking them yet again.
the point i and others are getting at is how and when topics and arguments should be identified as being raised in bad faith or otherwise being bullshit,
It's really not that difficult - bad faith isn't all that hidden. The big ways are:
* Did the person do their homework (that is, do they show some understanding of the topic at hand?) Of course, this requires you to have some understanding of the subject. But if you do, and it's clear that the person presenting the topic hasn't, you are not obligated to be an educator. Now, you may choose to be in order to present the topic properly, but it's worth noting that doing so can draw effort from you.
* Are they presenting several questionable arguments in a row? This is a well known bad faith argument known as the Gish gallop, meant to overwhelm people with a deluge of arguments. (And yes, the thread in the OP is a variant in my opinion.)
* Are they using disingenuous/dishonest arguments? This was what people picked up with #21 in particular - the use of several dishonest techniques like using an outlier as a representative sample and dishonest equation of dissimilar measurements.
* Are they using known dogwhistles? Again, this requires awareness on your part - but it's worth learning these so that you can catch them when brought up.
Now, none of these are singularly dispositive, but the more of them that wind up being present, the more likely that the person is operating in bad faith.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:47 AM on July 18, 2023 [4 favorites]
i'd agree with that on bad faith as applied to arguments, sure. thinking about it more, part of the issue may be a tendency to conflate arguments with topics, and bad faith with bullshit (which i am also guilty of).
an argument purports to be a statement of facts and is a means to an end, which can be made in bad faith ("90% of respondents to our survey are concerned about illegal immigration to the uk, therefore the government should push back boats in the channel") and / or be bullshit ("a million illegal migrants entered the uk in 2022"). in either case, one can be justified in dismissing it.
a topic is the broader subject that people make arguments about (illegal migration to the uk). i'm not sure a topic is capable of being inherently bad faith, though admittedly i haven't thought about it that hard. a narrowly defined topic can be bullshit, in the sense that any argument treating that topic as worthy of engagement is necessarily bad faith and / or bullshit (e.g. the topic of how the million illegal migrants who entered the uk in 2022 have impacted social service provision in the north of england). those topics can be dismissed. but most topics aren't bullshit, and can be the subject of reasoned and good faith arguments.
i agree that a number of the thread's arguments are bullshit, and possibly made in bad faith (although i'm more inclined to see the guy as stupid rather than malicious), but a sweeping dismissal of the thread on that basis also dismisses its topics, which in general aren't bullshit.
this discussion benefited from having had multiple early comments expressing interest in the topics raised, but that's not always the case and, as cupcakeninja said, a sweeping dismissal of a link tout court not infrequently stops, preempts or derails what would otherwise be a decent discussion. that's not to say framing, red flags etc. shouldn't be pointed out, just that it's worth being precise about what should be dismissed out of hand.
posted by inire at 5:36 AM on July 19, 2023 [1 favorite]
an argument purports to be a statement of facts and is a means to an end, which can be made in bad faith ("90% of respondents to our survey are concerned about illegal immigration to the uk, therefore the government should push back boats in the channel") and / or be bullshit ("a million illegal migrants entered the uk in 2022"). in either case, one can be justified in dismissing it.
a topic is the broader subject that people make arguments about (illegal migration to the uk). i'm not sure a topic is capable of being inherently bad faith, though admittedly i haven't thought about it that hard. a narrowly defined topic can be bullshit, in the sense that any argument treating that topic as worthy of engagement is necessarily bad faith and / or bullshit (e.g. the topic of how the million illegal migrants who entered the uk in 2022 have impacted social service provision in the north of england). those topics can be dismissed. but most topics aren't bullshit, and can be the subject of reasoned and good faith arguments.
i agree that a number of the thread's arguments are bullshit, and possibly made in bad faith (although i'm more inclined to see the guy as stupid rather than malicious), but a sweeping dismissal of the thread on that basis also dismisses its topics, which in general aren't bullshit.
this discussion benefited from having had multiple early comments expressing interest in the topics raised, but that's not always the case and, as cupcakeninja said, a sweeping dismissal of a link tout court not infrequently stops, preempts or derails what would otherwise be a decent discussion. that's not to say framing, red flags etc. shouldn't be pointed out, just that it's worth being precise about what should be dismissed out of hand.
posted by inire at 5:36 AM on July 19, 2023 [1 favorite]
« Older Threatened Seabirds Get a Life Raft in Maryland | Understanding the Business You're In Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by johngoren at 2:14 AM on July 17, 2023 [7 favorites]