Home
Artists
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register
Partychan Matrix ThePornDude
Home Artists Posts Import Register

Episode 718: Dark Brandon on the Picket Line (Patreon)

Published:
2023-10-01 14:06:35
Imported:
2024-12
Tags:

Downloads

Content

Show Notes

The second Republican primary debate, in 3 minutes

NASA's new policy chief took her oath on a copy of Carl Sagan's "Contact"

Misinformation research is buckling under GOP legal attacks

Gen Z falls for online scams more than their boomer grandparents do

Texas death row inmate at mercy of supreme court – and junk science | Capital punishment | The Guardian

Will the Trumps lose their homes? NY judge who dissolved Trump Org is cryptic at a tense hearing

This Footnote on Trump Boasting About His Saudi Line of Credit Is Terrifying | The New Republic

Mark Milley Taking ‘Safety Precautions’ After Trump Attack | HuffPost Latest News

My President Joined a Picket Line | The Nation

Most unionized US rail workers now have new sick leave | Reuters


Files

Comments

Blad Vigg

Okay guys thanks for another great episode, one quick point. The interstitials… is Ian okay?

I irradiate children.

Hi! I'm an associate professor at a large university, and you stepped into my wheelhouse in your segment on junk science. I work at a children's hospital, and was originally a pediatrician, but then did another residency and fellowship in pediatric radiology, and now focus on musculoskeletal and chest radiology. I am board certified in Radiology with added qualifications in Pediatric Radiology. One area I focus is child abuse, where a lot of my research and publications have been. The way your segment went it seemed as if you were saying that shaking a baby was no big deal and there was no science behind "shaken baby syndrome". Please please please tell people that shaking your baby can be deadly. The article by the Guardian is like many articles in the media on this topic where they fall prey to people that are trying to convince people that child abuse is unfounded. It is not. They try to confuse people with terminology, and (at least some of) the "experts" they quote in the article are very smart frauds who should have their licenses removed. The author does not bother to actually learn the science, rather they rely on others to tell them. Admittedly parsing the good science from the bad is very challenging, because unfortunately there is bad science too, but the consensus is very clear on this topic. The people that are the most vocal and end up in the news cherry pick the garbage science that fits their needs. I frequently act as an expert witness in cases of possible abuse, and I run a weekly conference for medical trainees to discuss cases of potential child abuse, the vast majority of which are not abuse. But when I fail to identify a sentinel injury, a child can die. And have died. I have to weigh that against potentially breaking up a family, though if there is any way to support the family rather than break it up we always try for that solution. I'm happy to discuss more, just know this topic is deep and complicated, and would not likely be great fodder for a show that's meant to be funny. I have all the references and it's my job to know the good science, the bad science, and the garbage that should not be considered science at all. But at the very least please please tell people that shaking babies is dangerous.

Telani Lasoleille

It's interesting that y'all talked about all the entertainment industry "investments" the Saudis are making without pointing out the much more (in my opinion) problematic issue of their farming alfalfa in Arizona. I'm less worried (not unworried) about their inroads into entertainment and a lot more worried about their almost entirely unrestricted access to our water.

Asymetra

I got into a bit of a discussion with Bo Bennett, author of Logically Fallacious. In his book, Uncomfortable Ideas, he talks about an audience reaction to a question posed to a transwoman's presentation. The question asked something about how she felt compared to "normal women." The audience reaction was "She [the presenter] was normal." Bennett's position was she wasn't normal. His reasoning relied on the definition of normal, meaning frequency and since transwomen represented 0.03% of all women, she wasn't normal by that standard. I emailed him. He responded with his reasoning. I countered with that seems like the logical fallacy of Appeal to Definition, since no one relies on frequency when using the word "normal." There are other definitions. For most people normal means 'expected,' 'regular,' or 'typical.' If a man dresses up everyday like a women from a Brazilian Carnival, once you got used to it, it's normal to you, but not to someone who met him the first time. He didn't respond. It's not often that one can catch out an author of a logical fallacies book committing a logical fallacy.