• Chris Remington@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 years 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)@beehaw.orgM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years 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.