You have no idea what you’re doing. Not when it comes to sex and dating and women, anyway. Don’t beat yourself up about it though, because it’s not your fault. Your culture has fa…
As admins, how do we want to handle submissions (posts) in light of what was uncovered by @MicholasMouse@beehaw.org?
The authors are both incredibly suspect here and, IMHO, should be rejected from any mention on this instance. Questioning the prevailing science around a pandemic with human lives at stake? Egregious, insulting and harmful statements directed at certain individuals?
I think @MicholasMouse hits on a lot of the same thoughts I have on the issue. There is ultimately a potential good that can come from an article like this. Pointing out the problems with the authors is a good practice which can help to frame what’s here better and can help people to learn where the authors fall flat or what they didn’t consider when writing this article.
A blanket rejection isn’t warranted, I don’t think, especially when the poster attempts to frame that it’s a problematic article. I think that @thursday_j did a great job giving this an appropriate title for the downsides/problems with the article. I also think this discussion we’ve been having is a good example of how to discuss problematic content, without removing it from the server.
yikes, thanks for the context
As admins, how do we want to handle submissions (posts) in light of what was uncovered by @MicholasMouse@beehaw.org?
The authors are both incredibly suspect here and, IMHO, should be rejected from any mention on this instance. Questioning the prevailing science around a pandemic with human lives at stake? Egregious, insulting and harmful statements directed at certain individuals?
I think @MicholasMouse hits on a lot of the same thoughts I have on the issue. There is ultimately a potential good that can come from an article like this. Pointing out the problems with the authors is a good practice which can help to frame what’s here better and can help people to learn where the authors fall flat or what they didn’t consider when writing this article.
A blanket rejection isn’t warranted, I don’t think, especially when the poster attempts to frame that it’s a problematic article. I think that @thursday_j did a great job giving this an appropriate title for the downsides/problems with the article. I also think this discussion we’ve been having is a good example of how to discuss problematic content, without removing it from the server.
Agreed. If we don’t call out the problems, isn’t it tacit approval?