4 ms·

Is this actually real news to anybody? The so-called disinformation-prone conspiracy-theorists have been strongly emphasizing the problem of plastics and chemi

Is this actually real news to anybody? The so-called disinformation-prone conspiracy-theorists have been strongly emphasizing the problem of plastics and chemicals in the water having a negative affect on testosterone and sperm counts for many, many years. So why is this being reported on more just now? And beyond the science, what are the real social consequences of lower testosterone and sperm counts? You could look at lower birth rates particularly in developed nations, and less natural male aggression leading to a more docile and controllable population. Just an observation.

idiotsecant 4y ago
there are also plenty of things that the disinformation-prone conspiracy theorists think that are clearly falsifiable. A stopped clock is right twice a day and all that. It doesn't actually matter what some crank thinks without evidence to back it up.
- antiverse 4y ago
  This is a very mean-spirited response to people who are on the lookout for the safety of themselves and those around them, distrustful of believing everything they're told because "so-and-so said and they know better so you should listen." Especially on HN, it's a particularly shrewd assessment where we ought to be critical of every single thing we are told, and told to believe - because we've been burnt before, we've learned our lessons, and we ought to know better. The part of the play is to assume that everyone who is labeled a "conspiracy theorist" automatically believes in far out things like the planet being flat. It's a very good disqualification mechanism, and people buy into it easily. Lets not bring that to HN.
  - idiotsecant 4y ago
    No, requiring evidence for believing things is neither mean spirited or a disqualification method. It's simply a rational worldview.
stjohnswarts 4y ago
I think a lot of people think that men are naturally aggressive and can't get over. I suggest this isn't necessarily true. Furthermore, I think countries that have exceptionally low violence from males (like Scandinavian and (some) European countries) point out what -can be- and that this violence that we see in America and a lot of 3rd worlds countries is more societal and learned than innate. Aka nature affects it more than nurture. Given that just accepting this poisoning of male potency "as a good thing" is a really dumb move. Lowering what are basic biological functions and quantities of sperm and testosterone can not be a “good thing” as your post seems to imply.
- logicalmonster 4y ago
  > I think a lot of people think that men are naturally aggressive and can't get over. How high or low male aggression is is certainly an interesting discussion, but I think is missing the most important point. All other things being equal, a man with a higher testosterone level may tend to be more aggressive and less docile than the same man with a lower testosterone level. If chemicals/plastics are reducing testosterone, the average man today might be less aggressive than he otherwise would have been. > Furthermore, I think countries that have exceptionally low violence from males (like Scandinavian and (some) European countries) point out what -can be- and that this violence that we see in America and a lot of 3rd worlds countries is more societal and learned than innate. Do Scandinavian immigrants come to America and start a crime rampage either in the first, second, or third generation? Have any American newspapers made note of the Scandinavian crime problem? If the American experience was the biggest variable in American crime, then the crime rate from American immigrants from Scandinavian countries should be noticeably higher than the crime rate in Scandinavian countries? You need to isolate for the right variable and compare the same kind of apples-to-apples populations to make the determination. > Aka nature affects it more than nurture. You can have any opinion you want of course, but I think you meant to say that nurture matters more than nature because you're making the argument that violence is societal and learned.
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> The so-called disinformation-prone conspiracy-theorists have been strongly emphasizing the problem of plastics They are lucky they didnt discover that baceria make us sick - we've put that guy in a mental asylum
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
cerol 4y ago
There's a huge difference between "they're putting chemicals in our water to make us more docile" and "technologies and products which revolutionized food production and made it affordable for an increasingly larger population have now been shown to be harmful, but corporate interest acting on local monetary optimization coupled with government corruption (also acting on local monetary optimization) are preventing policies to be made for the sake of global human health". The latter is boring but useful. The former sells more books.
- logicalmonster 4y ago
  1) To be precise, I've heard the water quality concerns from some conspiracy theorists for many years, but I don't know which of them have specifically said why this is happening. That comment about a docile population was solely my speculation on its effects, and not a quote from anybody. 2) Certainly it's fair to point out that mind-reading isn't a thing and you can't prove why anybody does anything. Thoughts and motives of others are internal to their brain, and while they can be in evidence, they cannot be fully known. This idea that you can mind-read is something that virtually every media entity, whether it's a mainstream corporate outlet or some indie conspiracy theorist, gets wrong. Many news headlines are literal mind-reading headlines that are impossible to verify. Once you start looking for this, you'll see media mind-reading everywhere. 3) I'd like to point out that you arguably committed the same mind-reading error in your post that you're critiquing. By saying that that "the former sells more books", you're stating an assumption that their motives are fiduciary and not driven by a genuine desire for human freedom and quality of life. Your statement may or may not be accurate, but certainly isn't a provable summary of their motives. 4) A lot of the ivory tower crowd likes to scoff at the conspiracy theorists, saying they always get things wrong. That can be debated until the cows come home, but I'd like to point out one small thing. There's no war in my lifetime (other than Ukraine, imagine that) that a large chunk of the corporate media weren't hooting, hollering, and cheerleading for, and I can't think of many conspiracy theorists who ever supported the constant random wars. Just think about that when deciding if contrarian voices are needed or not.

idiotsecant 4y ago

there are also plenty of things that the disinformation-prone conspiracy theorists think that are clearly falsifiable. A stopped clock is right twice a day and all that. It doesn't actually matter what some crank thinks without evidence to back it up.

antiverse 4y ago
This is a very mean-spirited response to people who are on the lookout for the safety of themselves and those around them, distrustful of believing everything they're told because "so-and-so said and they know better so you should listen." Especially on HN, it's a particularly shrewd assessment where we ought to be critical of every single thing we are told, and told to believe - because we've been burnt before, we've learned our lessons, and we ought to know better. The part of the play is to assume that everyone who is labeled a "conspiracy theorist" automatically believes in far out things like the planet being flat. It's a very good disqualification mechanism, and people buy into it easily. Lets not bring that to HN.
- idiotsecant 4y ago
  No, requiring evidence for believing things is neither mean spirited or a disqualification method. It's simply a rational worldview.

stjohnswarts 4y ago

I think a lot of people think that men are naturally aggressive and can't get over. I suggest this isn't necessarily true. Furthermore, I think countries that have exceptionally low violence from males (like Scandinavian and (some) European countries) point out what -can be- and that this violence that we see in America and a lot of 3rd worlds countries is more societal and learned than innate. Aka nature affects it more than nurture. Given that just accepting this poisoning of male potency "as a good thing" is a really dumb move. Lowering what are basic biological functions and quantities of sperm and testosterone can not be a “good thing” as your post seems to imply.

logicalmonster 4y ago
> I think a lot of people think that men are naturally aggressive and can't get over. How high or low male aggression is is certainly an interesting discussion, but I think is missing the most important point. All other things being equal, a man with a higher testosterone level may tend to be more aggressive and less docile than the same man with a lower testosterone level. If chemicals/plastics are reducing testosterone, the average man today might be less aggressive than he otherwise would have been. > Furthermore, I think countries that have exceptionally low violence from males (like Scandinavian and (some) European countries) point out what -can be- and that this violence that we see in America and a lot of 3rd worlds countries is more societal and learned than innate. Do Scandinavian immigrants come to America and start a crime rampage either in the first, second, or third generation? Have any American newspapers made note of the Scandinavian crime problem? If the American experience was the biggest variable in American crime, then the crime rate from American immigrants from Scandinavian countries should be noticeably higher than the crime rate in Scandinavian countries? You need to isolate for the right variable and compare the same kind of apples-to-apples populations to make the determination. > Aka nature affects it more than nurture. You can have any opinion you want of course, but I think you meant to say that nurture matters more than nature because you're making the argument that violence is societal and learned.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

> The so-called disinformation-prone conspiracy-theorists have been strongly emphasizing the problem of plastics They are lucky they didnt discover that baceria make us sick - we've put that guy in a mental asylum

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

cerol 4y ago

There's a huge difference between "they're putting chemicals in our water to make us more docile" and "technologies and products which revolutionized food production and made it affordable for an increasingly larger population have now been shown to be harmful, but corporate interest acting on local monetary optimization coupled with government corruption (also acting on local monetary optimization) are preventing policies to be made for the sake of global human health". The latter is boring but useful. The former sells more books.

logicalmonster 4y ago
1) To be precise, I've heard the water quality concerns from some conspiracy theorists for many years, but I don't know which of them have specifically said why this is happening. That comment about a docile population was solely my speculation on its effects, and not a quote from anybody. 2) Certainly it's fair to point out that mind-reading isn't a thing and you can't prove why anybody does anything. Thoughts and motives of others are internal to their brain, and while they can be in evidence, they cannot be fully known. This idea that you can mind-read is something that virtually every media entity, whether it's a mainstream corporate outlet or some indie conspiracy theorist, gets wrong. Many news headlines are literal mind-reading headlines that are impossible to verify. Once you start looking for this, you'll see media mind-reading everywhere. 3) I'd like to point out that you arguably committed the same mind-reading error in your post that you're critiquing. By saying that that "the former sells more books", you're stating an assumption that their motives are fiduciary and not driven by a genuine desire for human freedom and quality of life. Your statement may or may not be accurate, but certainly isn't a provable summary of their motives. 4) A lot of the ivory tower crowd likes to scoff at the conspiracy theorists, saying they always get things wrong. That can be debated until the cows come home, but I'd like to point out one small thing. There's no war in my lifetime (other than Ukraine, imagine that) that a large chunk of the corporate media weren't hooting, hollering, and cheerleading for, and I can't think of many conspiracy theorists who ever supported the constant random wars. Just think about that when deciding if contrarian voices are needed or not.