Speaker: Talking past each other: Ideological silos and research
345 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 … 14 Newer→ Last
-
Sacha, in reply to
Seemed relevant, wouldn't you say? And my, check the quiet kvetching.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Seemed relevant, wouldn't you say?
Seems relevant to you, maybe. It seems creepy to me. And Russell does follow Danielle, so it's not as if she's speaking behind his back or anything. Get a hold of yourself.
-
(No kvetching, by the way, I remember when you theatrically blocked her.)
-
Both Russell and Deborah follow me on Twitter, and are friends with me on Facebook. I’m happy for them to see anything I post on social media regarding this thread.
I’m not interested in interacting with you at all in future, Sacha, as I find you unnecessarily cruel.
PS My Twitter profile isn't linked here for a reason. Could you not link the two, please? I have been threatened on Twitter before and it was frightening.
-
At the serious risk of mansplaining... one of the pairings of ideological silos we seem to keep getting stuck in here is the opposition between "obesity is a mass noun(!), and we should concentrate on its mass, probabilistic, population-level real-world effects" (as maintained by Bart, Sacha, and others) and "obese people are individuals, and their feelings are real too" (as voiced by Danielle, Deborah, and others).
Each of these viewpoints, pursued to the point of ideological purity, causes the other camp some understandable frustration; but (and I'm certainly not the first person to note this: see Rebecca, for example) it's not a competition, and any political solution will have to balance both the population-level and the individual-level effects. Continuing the discussion means recognising and respecting these differences. -
David Hood, in reply to
I presume “men” refers to me
I presume “men” refers to me
I was the only other person who discussed closing the thread, so I might be one third of the at least 2+ males that must exist to be men. I try generally assuming the best and posting to add to the surrounding knowledge, and I was regretting the nett outcome of my actions in this thread. If I was one of those being ascribed as feeling oppressed (and statistical the odds were pretty good I was one), then I note that those feelings were being misattributed to me.
While the sugar tax was introduced by surprise by a right wing president, it was recently weakened (generally regarded as due to lobbying by corporates). Left wing parties opposed weakening the sugar tax.
However, the lower house of Congress voted in October to halve the tax on soft drinks containing less than 5 grams of added sugar per 100ml, arguing this would encourage drinks companies to change.
That move, backed by the ruling PRI party that proposed the initial tax, caused a storm of protest among leftwing opposition parties and was speedily overturned in the final approval of the 2016 budget.
One deputy said reducing the tax was a “death sentence” and the Alliance for Food Health, a campaign group that supports it, said the tax needed to be doubled, not halved and that soft drinks killed more Mexicans than organised crime."http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5593d870-97fe-11e5-9228-87e603d47bdc.html#axzz47lvX5Pu2
-
Sacha, in reply to
It seems creepy to me.
Really? We have different Twitter usage patterns. You follow about 700 people, me about 4000. I visit other people's timelines when a conversation prompts it. Nothing remotely 'creepy' about that, sir.
-
Sacha, in reply to
cruel
goodbye
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
I visit other people's timelines when a conversation prompts it.
So, a conversation goes on here and you casually drop by on somebody who is very pointedly not one of the 4,000 you follow on Twitter? Okay. Whatever, really.
-
linger, in reply to
Were I a moderator, I would delete every single comment above about people’s Twitter behaviour (and then this comment, too)… There really is such a thing as veering too far, and too unproductively, off topic.
-
Sacha, in reply to
You may be mistaking Twitter for Facebook. Different norms.
-
Sacha, in reply to
When some people conduct a parallel conversation on another platform, how is that not relevant here?
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
I think I understand how Twitter works fairly well, thank you. But I'm with linger on the usefulness of this off-shoot of the thread.
-
Sacha, in reply to
it would help explain one participant's behaviour quite well. But who cares about that, right? Let's go on fragmenting progressive discourses. Can only end well.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
w
-
linger, in reply to
*headdesk* You do realise, in pursuing the personal (tone/ behaviour) over the logical (content), you are kind of supporting the substantive point that you started off opposing?
-
Sacha, in reply to
we is human
-
linger, in reply to
all too, true...
-
I discuss things here in good faith. I don't set out to offend. What I say here is what I think. I don't say anything different anywhere else and don't play games here.
I have come here for decades because most folks here are also intent on discussing in good faith. We may end up disagreeing but that's part of the nature of discussions. Usually the expectation is that even if we don't agree we try and understand each others point of view.
Of late I've felt that really hasn't been as consistent as it used to be. Partly it's just change in the people here, partly it's because some folks want to play games here and in other places on the net. Too many times folks have been intent on putting words into other people's mouths to make their position more righteous, something someone here reminded me was impolite at best.
I think that's a real pity. Making a discussion "all about me" is rarely helpful and often destructive for everyone and yet that has happened too often of late. I don't really know what can be done about it but it certainly isn't fun.
I think it's sad that a discussion about public health has turned into personal attacks. I've said all I can on the original topic and some here disagree with me, which is fine. What isn't fine is the nastyness here and elsewhere, I don't think many folks (myself included) should be terribly proud of what has happened here today.
-
What about running?
-
linger, in reply to
seems a very good idea right now :-/
-
Rebecca Gray, in reply to
I'm doing the virtual internet equivalent of popping back into the room in order to throw you a high five for that earlier comment, and then running away.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
show some guts flora…
You don’t want me to tell you what I thought of your throwaway post about obesity being contagious, in all honesty.
I don’t see anything throwaway about that post, it is valid speculation (and I heard a similar dismissive attitude from renowned microbiologist/actor Peter Elliott on today’s RNZ The Panel – NB description contains sarcasm).
We are only just scratching the surface of our synergetic and symbiotic interactions/communications with ‘our’ microbiomes and microbiota and the affect it has on many of our functions – we sure as hell can’t function properly without it/their massive contribution to digestion (gut flora and fauna) and all over the body – they help synthesise enzymes the body can’t, recent research has indicated they can affect moods and and even myelin production, they have a hot line to the brain via the gut brain, parasympathetic system and the vagus nerve.
Other research shows we share and pass on these ‘tenants’.
Who is to say that decades of antibacterial dosing and intensification of uptake of short chain soluble carbohydrates (sugar) hasn’t changed the make up of our hidden inner society, resulting in a predisposition to accreting adipose tissue, and intolerance?some follow up introductory reading :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gut%E2%80%93brain_axishttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagus_nerve
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_microbiota
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbiota
https://www.theguardian.com/science/neurophilosophy/2016/apr/05/gut-bacteria-brain-myelin
http://elifesciences.org/content/2/e00458
http://microbiomejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40168-014-0052-7
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
we is human
actually, I think we is colonies,
some of which is humanwe have met the enemy though
and it is us, largely...:- )
(see above)
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
I think it’s sad that a discussion about public health has turned into personal attacks.
Me too. One thing I have noticed is that, because many interact with other forms of communication, it seems like ye ol' (and I'm not being racist!) Chinese whispers by the time contributions get back to the thread of topic. When one doesn't get to see one's face, look a person in the eyes, glasses ,patch, whatever, one can only take written comments as they feel like taking them, not needing to try understand how , who or what is being said and perfect English may not be that person's first language . The number of factors that go into people having what boils down to an open public conversation with strangers on a very personal level is not that easy for all to get on the same page . I think what fucks it up is the whole "you're wrong, I'm right" . We don't get to be either all the time so maybe agreeing to disagree could dampen the animosity. None of us is perfect.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.