Identity culture, echo chambers, and call-out culture

[d4m10n]

Some researchers who shamed various MDs for being provocative off the clock are now being shamed in turn:

https://twitter.com/flowingdoctor/status/1286641349207494656

It's cancel culture all the way down.

In related news, #MedBikini appears to be trending.

 

[Ziggurat]

Then there was the (slightly dated) one of John Travolta holding up a picture of Nick Cage.

It's an obscure reference, but I like it.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Different ideologies fail to different degrees, and can be judged based on how well they work (or don't) in the real world.

It seems odd to me to want to judge them based on anything else.

I don't see why success or failure in the real world would be even relevant

 

[Meadmaker]

Some researchers who shamed various MDs for being provocative off the clock are now being shamed in turn:

https://twitter.com/flowingdoctor/status/1286641349207494656

It's cancel culture all the way down.

In related news, #MedBikini appears to be trending.

The most disturbing thing about that study is that a medical journal would think it worthy of publication.


I don't know quite how to phrase this, but I really hate the way that surveillance is used to justify surveillance. What I mean by that is that we are told that it's ok to monitor people's social media accounts to see what they are doing outside of work, and the justification is that people might be monitoring social media accounts outside of work.

It's ok for companies to invade your privacy because they have to know if other people are invading your privacy because those other people might take it out on the company if they didn't like what you did in your time off.

Where does it end? We will be owned 24/7 by our employers.

And....what the heck is the idea that a picture of someone in a bikini is "inappropriate"? Or with alcohol? Why do we need the morality police checking up on us?

(That being said, I would be very disturbed to see a picture of my doctor in a bikini. He's way to old for that look, and he could stand to lose a few pounds.)

 

[bruto]

I don't see why success or failure in the real world would be even relevant

What is relevance to you? To what is the real world not relevant? If what you want is to live, not dying is relevant. If success or failure in the world is not relevant to your cause, in what possible way can your cause itself be relevant to anything? Even the possibility of speaking or thinking utter drivel is dependent on success or failure in the real world, as you can't express yourself if your means of expression are cut off, and you can't even think it if your head is cut off.

 

[d4m10n]

I don't know quite how to phrase this, but I really hate the way that surveillance is used to justify surveillance. What I mean by that is that we are told that it's ok to monitor people's social media accounts to see what they are doing outside of work, and the justification is that people might be monitoring social media accounts outside of work.

Agreed. IMO we need more of an ethos along the lines of "If it doesn't impact your ability to do your job well, corporate has better things to worry about." Alas, waves of internet busybodies calling for cancellation probably does impact your ability to do your job well.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Kayleigh McEnany claimed at a White House press conference that Trump was concerned that cancel culture had led to the cancellation of PAW Patrol and Lego's City Police Station. Neither is true.

 

[Belz...]

Kayleigh McEnany claimed at a White House press conference that Trump was concerned that cancel culture had led to the cancellation of PAW Patrol and Lego's City Police Station. Neither is true.

Well, now Trump can boast that he saved both.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Some researchers who shamed various MDs for being provocative off the clock are now being shamed in turn:

https://twitter.com/flowingdoctor/status/1286641349207494656

It's cancel culture all the way down.

In related news, #MedBikini appears to be trending.

The article has been retracted because, amongst other things, the researchers lecturing people about unprofessional behaviour didn't get permission to access the database they used in order to find the vascular surgeons they looked at the social media accounts of

 

[d4m10n]

Hurrah for the cancel mob! Raise a glass.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

What an odd response. I'd have thought that people pointing out methodological and ethical problems with a published article is exactly the kind of thing that should cause a scientific journal to retract it.

Perhaps that's only true if the number of people who do draw the editors' attention to those issues is fewer than a certain, abstract number.

In another example of cancel culture, The Lancet has retracted the paper by Andrew Wakefield which kick-started the whole anti-vaxx movement. Bloody woke leftie whingers opposing Wakefield and anti-vaxxers and thereby putting undue pressure on The Lancet to retract! Terrible! Boo!

 

[d4m10n]

What an odd response. I'd have thought that people pointing out methodological and ethical problems...

Does an outpouring of "sadness, anger, and disappointment" fall under methodology or ethics?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

You're right, those three words in one sentence do invalidate everything else in the whole statement.

Thank God nobody has ever expressed any sadness, anger, or disappointment over the anti-vaxx movement. If they had, it would unquestionably gain scientific credibility and The Lancet would be in the wrong for retracting the original paper.

 

[d4m10n]

You're right, those three words in one sentence do invalidate everything else in the whole statement.

No, you're right. Hurt feelings are a reliable guide to science after all.

Thank God nobody has ever expressed any sadness, anger, or disappointment over the anti-vaxx movement. If they had, it would unquestionably gain scientific credibility and The Lancet would be in the wrong for retracting the original paper.

What a fantastic analogy. Much like the anti-vaxx movement, this new paper about social media usage suffered from such profound flaws it was going to increase the excess death rate across multiple modern nations.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

No, you're right. Hurt feelings are a reliable guide to science after all.

This is an odd choice of straw man. Especially as it directly contradicts things that I've actually said.

What a fantastic analogy. Much like the anti-vaxx movement, this new paper about social media usage suffered from such profound flaws it was going to increase the excess death rate across multiple modern nations.

This is just stupid. I know you're not arguing that science should only be open to being examined if it would otherwise cause death.

But a scientific article being withdrawn due to flaws in its methodology and due to ethical concerns is exactly what we're talking about here - in both cases. Yes, people were outraged about both¹, but there's no indication that that was the cause of the retraction in either case.

If you want to make the argument that it was the cause with the most recent case, then you'll either have to demonstrate that the criticisms of the methodology and ethics² of the paper are invalid, or that the journal in question routinely ignores such issues with the papers and articles it publishes and that this is therefore a special case.

Simply going "oh no, people were upset about it and the editors acknowledged that people were upset about it!" isn't actually an argument at all.

You should also probably clarify whether you think the article should have been retracted or not. It seems like you're arguing that it shouldn't, but you haven't made that clear, and you haven't acknowledged that methodological and ethical problems with it.

¹although it should be noted that much of the outrage about the more recent paper manifested itself in doctors posting pictures of themselves wearing bikinis and/or holding alcohol.

²And, for simplicity's sake, you can limit the ethical considerations just gathering names from a database that you do not have authorisation to access.

 

[johnny karate]

But a scientific article being withdrawn due to flaws in its methodology and due to ethical concerns is exactly what we're talking about here - in both cases. Yes, people were outraged about both¹, but there's no indication that that was the cause of the retraction in either case.

If wokescolds couldn’t embellish with Orwellian flourishes and manufacture hidden agendas without evidence, they’d have no argument at all.

 

[d4m10n]

You should also probably clarify whether you think the article should have been retracted or not.

I've no idea. Some databases are public facing and generally shared among academics, others are paywalled, others are in-between. The details of this particular database (and particularly how it was accessed) might well persuade me that the paper really deserved to come down, but let's not kid ourselves about why the editors pulled it when they did, and let's not pretend that this article is consequential in anything resembling the way Wakefield's was.

...much of the outrage about the more recent paper manifested itself in doctors posting pictures of themselves wearing bikinis and/or holding alcohol.

Which has almost nothing to do with whether or not this paper ought to be retracted.

 

[Meadmaker]

I've no idea. Some databases are public facing and generally shared among academics, others are paywalled, others are in-between. The details of this particular database (and particularly how it was accessed) might well persuade me that the paper really deserved to come down, but let's not kid ourselves about why the editors pulled it when they did, and let's not pretend that this article is consequential in anything resembling the way Wakefield's was.

Which has almost nothing to do with whether or not this paper ought to be retracted.

That's interesting.

To me, the source of the data is at best a marginal reason to contribute to the decision to remove the paper. If the paper contains good science, then it should remain even if the data was obtained illegally.

My objection is that the science is lousy. I'm not even sure that it's really science in any meaningful sense of the word. It's a paper saying that young doctors sometimes appear on the internet in their underwear.

And? Does she look good in it? Wait. That's not a scientific question so it shouldn't matter. What the heck business is it of the journal's or the journal's readers that people are engaging in behavior on social media that would not be condoned if they were engaging in it at work. Where's the "science" in that? Ok. Fine. You could study that sort of thing from a scientific perspective, but why would it be of interest outside of a sociology journal?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I've no idea.

Perhaps you could start by actually reading what the editors said, rather than just three words of one sentence? But then that wouldn't allow you to do what you're doing yet again - to take a snippet of something and use that as a way to dismiss it all out of hand without engaging with the substance of it.

[...] let's not kid ourselves about why the editors pulled it when they did[...]

Shame the million dollar prize is no more. Your mind-reading skills could see you earn a fortune.

[...]and let's not pretend that this article is consequential in anything resembling the way Wakefield's was.

Nobody has said that at all. That's just the straw man that you've chosen to wang on about.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that scientific rigour is something that is important for good science, no matter how consequential any particular study, paper, or article is. That you seem to have chosen to die on the hill of it only being important if the science in question "was going to increase the excess death rate across multiple modern nations" is on your own head.

Which has almost nothing to do with whether or not this paper ought to be retracted.

You're right. And the statement from the editors indicates that it was not. That you've chosen to depict them as liars due to your superior mind-reading powers is also irrelevant to why they actually pulled the article.

 

[d4m10n]

That you've chosen to depict them as liars due to your superior mind-reading powers is also irrelevant to why they actually pulled the article.

Given that the editors knew that the authors used the Association of Program Directors in Vascular Surgery directory back in December, what's your best guess as to why they pulled the article this summer? Nothing to do with a recent viral media campaign leading to an outpouring of strong negative feelings?

My objection is that the science is lousy. I'm not even sure that it's really science in any meaningful sense of the word. It's a paper saying that young doctors sometimes appear on the internet in their underwear.

That is part of what it says, yes. It also talks about open violations of HIPAA, drug abuse, and other such uncontroversially unprofessional conduct.