Asklemmy

47694 readers

724 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

How did we get so casual about conspiracy theories? (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 23 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

43 comments fedilink hide all child comments

How did we get so casual about conspiracy theories?

I was talking with someone today about nutrition. This person has a PhD in material science. They mentioned eating beef daily and I asked about the cholesterol implications. The answer was about a vague 'they' wanted us to think that, but it wasn't true anymore.

I hear the vague 'they' so frequently now it's just a normal conversation. In truth, as soon as I hear the vague they I dismiss the speaker's credibility on the subject, but how did we get here? Vague they wanted us to think X is a valid counter argument by the most highly educated people in our society?

This sounds like more of a rant than a question, but I do truly want to know how this happened? Was it pop culture like the X Files that made conspiracy theories main stream? Was it social media? When will the vague they stop being an accepted explanation? Has it always been this way and I didn't notice?

Thanks, love you!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 hours ago

Cholesterol is a broad term and doesn't address the specifics necessary to addr iness overall average health for an individual.

I agree completely, people should not be trying to treat a cholesterol number. They should be optimizing their metabolic health. Cholesterol should be an indicator that further follow-up is required, either arterial imaging, or diet and lifestyle interventions

Then there is the whole "sugar" issue. There are dozens of sugars and we only associate the term with fructose or sucrose. We can technically name all sorts of things as sugars, but if it doesn't include sucrose and fructose explicitly, then it "isn't" sugar on the label.

Happily, all of those sugars do get included in the carbohydrate label on packaging. I would say dietary carbohydrates are the biggest culprit in cardiovascular disease, and that's what people should focus on instead of cholesterol.