3 ms·
In the past, this submission would be flagged instantly. The fact that hasn't gives me hope that we could have reasonable discussion on this topic instead of un
by benterix 2y ago
In the past, this submission would be flagged instantly. The fact that hasn't gives me hope that we could have reasonable discussion on this topic instead of unproductive flamewars.
- hagbard_c 2y agoDon't get your hopes up too much, it has been flagged already. It will take a while still for the censorious fraction of this (and other similar) site's population to realise that an open discussion on 'contentious' subjects does not cause 'harm' and that studies like the one mentioned here are part of the normal progress of research into these subjects.
- antisthenes 2y agoIt's already flagged. I flagged it too, but not even for the inflammatory title, but because the article itself is almost entirely devoid of content. There are no interesting specifics to discuss. It does link a few papers, but I assume those papers are only a tiny fraction of the research being done.
- benterix 2y ago> almost entirely devoid of content I thought the same and was irritated that it talks about the study without linking to it whereas at the same time providing several other links (irrelevant to me). Finally, they did it at the very bottom. So basically, for a casual reader, they discuss the main findings and explain their significance whereas the study just present the facts. On HN, we could just post the link to the study I guess, but for the general public it makes sense to explain what the white matter is etc.
- daft_pink 2y agojust need to keep tryin'
- archagon 2y ago[flagged]
- MrSkelter 2y agoWanting a reasonable discussion of pseudoscience doesn’t make you seem very smart. I’m sure Joe Rogan will cover it.