• Chris Remington
        link
        fedilink
        51 year ago

        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?

        • Gaywallet (they/it)M
          link
          fedilink
          4
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

          • AnalogyAddict
            link
            fedilink
            29 months ago

            Agreed. If we don’t call out the problems, isn’t it tacit approval?