Health Nerd Profile picture
21 Jun, 10 tweets, 2 min read
Occasionally people ask how to argue well on the internet, so I'd like to introduce you to the two simple rules for productive internet conversations:

1. Always reply calmly
2. Never assume ill intent
Number 1 is first because it is the most important - DO NOT REPLY ANGRILY

Take a moment

Take a breath

THEN reply
If this takes an hour, a day, a week - so be it. When you reply angrily, you derail the conversation and it becomes a waste of time
The point here is that you want a PRODUCTIVE conversation. The moment you reply like a dickhead, it legitimizes any insults the other person has hurled at you and it's just another flame war

They might be that guy, but you don't have to be!
Number 2 is pretty vital too - never assume that someone is being disingenuous EVEN WHEN IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THEY ARE

I cannot stress this enough, just assume they're genuine
Some people will laugh at you, some will be rude and obnoxious, some will just keep throwing nonsense your way that they clearly don't believe, but if you stay calm and answer them as if they were being totally honest it's so much better
And sometimes - even often - you might assume someone is being disingenuous when they just aren't. It's so easy to assume ill intent from 280-character responses when they were not meant that way at all
If you follow these rules, you'll:

a) get into fewer fights online
b) potentially convince some people
c) not look like a dickhead
d) not BE a dickhead (most important)
Also, this is only if you WANT to engage someone. If you feel like it's a waste of time, hurtful, or even if you just can't be bothered, block/mute/ignore and move on. Not every discussion is worth it!
Moreover, this schema only works with people who aren't heinous - if someone is being clearly racist/homophobic etc having a useful discussion is unlikely

No online argument is worth damaging your mental health!

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Health Nerd

Health Nerd Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @GidMK

22 Jun
This new systematic review/meta-analysis of ivermectin for COVID-19 has come out, and everyone's asking me to review it

My take - decent study, but the devil's in the details 1/n Image
2/n The study is here. Because it's about ivermectin, and people are super weird about that specific drug, everyone's going wild with an Altmetric of 8,641 in the week since publication journals.lww.com/americantherap… Image
3/n I should say that my position on ivermectin previously has been that there is some interesting evidence but that most of the studies are low quality so it's hard to say much (even the one or two high-quality studies aren't very conclusive)
Read 30 tweets
21 Jun
A useful point to show why vaccines are so important - even though this is WELL below herd immunity rates, the vaccines already done so far in NSW have probably slowed down this outbreak significantly
Let's think this through - @NSWHealth reports 1.9m vaccine doses, which based on previous figures is probably ~1.5m first and .4m second doses

With a population of 8.2m, that's about 20% of the population vaccinated at least once
Let's assume that all of this was Astrazeneca, with an estimated vaccine efficacy (protection against infection) of somewhere around 70%, and think about some different scenarios of the reproductive number (R)
Read 11 tweets
17 Jun
Another day, another viral article being cited as proof that ivermectin can cure COVID-19

The newest example is even more depressing than previous ones somehow 1/n
2/n The paper is here, and mostly it's just a perspective piece in a minor Nature offshoot (Journal of Antibiotics, IF 2.4) written by two members of what I can only describe as a pro-ivermectin advocacy group
nature.com/articles/s4142…
3/n The advocacy group is called Front Line COVID Critical Care Alliance, and has a very flashy website that basically advocates for ivermectin (and vitamin D, melatonin, and mouthwash) as the cure of all COVID ills
Read 15 tweets
15 Jun
Was reminded of this old blog recently - scare stories about red meat and cancer are still all too common

gidmk.medium.com/red-meat-isnt-…
There's a reasonable basis for arguing that at a population level there might be some reduction in cancer rates if people stopped eating PROCESSED red meat
Less strong is the argument that eating non-processed red meat might impact cancer rates - even if there is some reduction, it would be pretty modest at a population level
Read 4 tweets
14 Jun
The trick is to be honest about the probabilities and what we know

So, for example, if you are worried about freedom, don't misuse vaccine reporting systems to make up fake concerns. Just talk about the issue you care about
The problem is that most of the time the issues that people care about are not really interesting or realistic. "Oh no they might force kids to get a vaccine" is a tired, tedious line
Instead, people who are against COVID-19 vaccines for whatever reason tend to go with arguments that are a lot less accurate but a lot more emotive, which is where the issues with the discussion come in
Read 4 tweets
13 Jun
The interesting thing to me is the divergence between the two lab leak theories:

1. Reasonably low likelihood that requires investigation
2. Wild conspiracy
In the first scenario, which most scientists espouse, we can't rule out the possibility that COVID-19 came from a lab, but it's the least likely explanation by a fair bit

Still needs looking in to!
In the second scenario, people have aggregated bizarre and nonsensical arguments into an impenetrable morass of vague thinking that supposedly means something - this is why I say it's like a conspiracy theory
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(