Cheshire90 t1_je3gheq wrote

Hmm thanks for the context. The healthy vs. unhealthy vegan diet and "can a vegan diet be healthy at all?" questions do actually seem like worthwhile ones to me.

It's just confusing that the post title and the authors' recommendation of vegan over non-vegan diets point to that comparison of vegan vs. non vegan, which is completely different. They (authors and OP) really shouldn't do that.


Cheshire90 t1_je38qlf wrote

>Although this type of study cannot show a healthy vegan diet actually caused the improvements in health outcomes, the authors recommend people concerned about chronic disease adopt a plant-based diet that's low in animal products, sugary drinks, snacks and desserts, refined grains, potatoes, and fruit juices.


Also a bit of a cheat to compare specifically healthy vegan diets to all other diets, rather than to specifically healthy diets that include animal products, right?


Cheshire90 t1_j4p1roo wrote

My comment does not assume that.

Neither the study of social disparities nor of disease are helped when saying popular things that you already know is more important than taking a critical and open minded approach to figuring out what is going on. Worrying about what the average person downplays is something politicians and social activists should do; scientists should worry about what the evidence in front of them says.


Cheshire90 t1_iztxxup wrote

So? You seem to have this set up as a dichotomy where either we have complete trust in twitter people or it's so threatening that they be allowed to say what they want that we need to take action against them. Neither of those things are true.


Cheshire90 t1_iztjg8q wrote

Great example. Now that someone you don't agree with is in control of the company, do you still want them to use your standard of censoring any speech that he thinks is bad?


Cheshire90 t1_iztj19u wrote

Which right wing politicians do you think should be in charge of deciding who gets to speak when they have the majority? Whatever standard you advocate for is going to be applied by the exact people you're afraid of.

Free speech is not about equivalency between sides. The idea that you can vet out who is right and silence anyone who doesn't meet your standard is both a fantasy and will surely backfire on you.


Cheshire90 t1_izrciqp wrote

What emotional plea? I'm advocating against the emotion-based argument that we have to suppress people because maybe rationality might not win out.

People who are reporting their own experience aren't responsible for putting that in context of the rest of the population. They are literally just saying what happened to them.

The rest of us should take their report in context of the balance of evidence, not try to dismiss it because we need all evidence to point 100% in one direction. There will always be evidence for and against any position.

It's not really that threatening for people to be allowed to say wrong or exaggerated things; it going to happen all the time no matter what you do. Sorry to break that news. A lot of it will by by people who are on "your side" of any given issue.


Cheshire90 t1_izra7nw wrote

It's taken on this weird in/out group aspect since it became so tied up in politics and people's personal identity that really does not serve us well, no matter what your goals are.


Cheshire90 t1_izr9yyy wrote

The fact that no authority controls discourse has always been part of the tradeoff of an open society. It is significantly more immoral to silence someone genuinely giving their experience than it is to allow some hucksters to speak.

You should also consider that whatever power you give to censor people is going to end up also being wielded by whatever group you currently hate most.


Cheshire90 t1_izr9gis wrote

I stated up front that I am not really skeptical of the COVID vaccines. I'm not the one who's afraid that good evidence won't beat bad evidence.

Considering that I basically agree with the pro-vaccine position I'm really curious, what's the bad faith motive that you're accusing me of for saying "just don't censor people"?

I will say that if someone has a bad reaction to any medical treatment it is flatly immoral to tell them they can't share their experience or to try to silence them. It's completely crazy to me that responsible people would think that's what they should do to control "misinformation".


Cheshire90 t1_izp2wfd wrote

One person's personal experience can't be assumed to generalize, but it's still a hard fact of what happened to them.

I'm pretty pro-vaccine, but this kind of "science says we need to suppress anyone who questions our narrative" paper really creeps me out. We should not have a problem with people sharing their concerns, much less their actual experiences. Aside from it being morally wrong to silence people and depriving us of one source of information, this is exactly the kind of thing that contributes to the "declining authority of scientific expertise in public debates" that the authors note.


Cheshire90 t1_iypwse0 wrote

Unique historical events can't be treated as if they prove a generalization case. The shift from info on NPIs in the 1918 Flu pandemic to pronouncements about NPIs in general is a shocking level of disordered thinking. The motivated reasoning here seems entirely driven by, as they say it, "discussions in contemporary newspapers"