The problem with gwern posts is that there are so rarely anything to nitpick, to spark conversation in the comments.
I'm unclear on the NYT motivation. "Let's pin it on the nicotine vapes," why? Scare stories sell papers, I guess.
NYT and vaping: How to lie by saying only true things (2022)
21–30 of 87 posts
Re: NYT and vaping: How to lie by saying only true things (2022)
#22Ironically, this article is guilty of the same thing it rails against. No evidence is provided for the safety of THC vaping products. An NYT article that was clearly biased against THC was picked apart instead. The clear implication is that THC vapes were unjustly targeted and readers should assume the contrary of the dishonest NYT article. i.e. That THC vapes are safe. Yet, no direct evidence of that is provided. A…
In general for me, the default position for recreational activities should be “okay” until they’re proven dangerous to others.
Wanna jump out of an airplane with no parachute and see if one of your buddies can strap one on you before you hit the ground? Totally fine with me.
Wanna base-jump off a skyscraper in NYC with a wing-suit ? Fuck off. You’ll probably hurt someone else who didn’t sign up for that.
That said, I’d also like the CPSC to look into whether products like this are safe and hold manufacturers accountable for their consequences.
I’d also very much appreciate it if the FTC and FDA actually did thorough random testing of drugs and supplements (recreational or therapeutic) to ensure that the actual ingredients and doses match the label. The FDA requires drug manufacturers to be in compliance, but doesn’t actually test drugs themselves, they mostly just look over paperwork to see if the processes followed would probably produce the correct product and assume the paperwork isn’t manipulated.
In fact, the FDA actively works to prevent people, even the Pentagon, from doing independent 3rd party drug testing of common pharmaceuticals [0]
0: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-12-05/pentagon-... / https://archive.is/eyWSn
Re: NYT and vaping: How to lie by saying only true things (2022)
#23Let's not forget: the vaping business model is to turn kids into addicts and then keep selling them the drug.
I'm not exactly going to get outraged at the NYT's rhetorical tactics against vaping.
Re: NYT and vaping: How to lie by saying only true things (2022)
#24Ironically, this article is guilty of the same thing it rails against. No evidence is provided for the safety of THC vaping products. An NYT article that was clearly biased against THC was picked apart instead. The clear implication is that THC vapes were unjustly targeted and readers should assume the contrary of the dishonest NYT article. i.e. That THC vapes are safe. Yet, no direct evidence of that is provided. A…
?
> An NYT article that was clearly biased against THC
This was an NYT article clearly biased against nicotine. One of us is confused here. Maybe I can't follow your particular idiom.
Re: NYT and vaping: How to lie by saying only true things (2022)
#25[deleted]
Re: NYT and vaping: How to lie by saying only true things (2022)
#26Let's not forget: the vaping business model is to turn kids into addicts and then keep selling them the drug. I'm not exactly going to get outraged at the NYT's rhetorical tactics against vaping.
Do you believe the NYT's activist biases will always line up perfectly with yours?
Re: NYT and vaping: How to lie by saying only true things (2022)
#27Let's not forget: the vaping business model is to turn kids into addicts and then keep selling them the drug. I'm not exactly going to get outraged at the NYT's rhetorical tactics against vaping.
If I tell a lie to support a good cause and you tell a lie to support the same cause and a third and a fourth person do the same thing then, then, being so propped up by lies how can we be sure it even is a good cause worth lying for?
In this way, the harms of lying compound while the benefits do not. For this reason I believe it highly unwise to allow it to be normalized.
Re: NYT and vaping: How to lie by saying only true things (2022)
#28I abandoned NYT when they ran cover for Iraq. How that wasn't a death sentence for US papers says a lot imo
Why would it be? People love patriotically murdering a bunch of other people in a place that never lifted a finger against them.
It shows us that we are strong, and others are weak, and that we need to attack the weak before they become strong and destroy us.
This sort of shit sells like hotcakes.
Re: NYT and vaping: How to lie by saying only true things (2022)
#29The problem with gwern posts is that there are so rarely anything to nitpick, to spark conversation in the comments.
Apparently, a lot of people blame his nicotine article for getting addicted to nicotine.
Re: NYT and vaping: How to lie by saying only true things (2022)
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meh. Writing like this was formative for me (before Gwern; I'm old), but I've come to realize that the biases of the rationalist community are really no different from the biases of anyone else. It just manifests in a different way? It boils down to an obvious disparity in the standard of proof they demand for "pet" topics versus what they need for everything else. You can do this kind of ultra-nitpicky "rational inq…
They insinuated that the ordinary vapes caused serious lung injury. The blame lay elsewhere, but you think it's fine to shift it around to your preferred target.
No. I was answering to parent's broader comment about "formative" writings on nicotine. And I was making my own broader point that the NYT piece is biased, but selective evidence-seeking in the rationalist community doesn't deserve any special praise.