Talk:Chemotherapy

	This science related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

"Chemotherapy is a conventional treatment for cancer. It is typically aggressive and has many side effects; it is a favourite bête noire of alties, who invariably call it "toxic chemotherapy" or "cytotoxic chemotherapy" (both accurate and therefore pointless, the dolts do not realise that these are merely technical terms for how it works)."

Hmm, I thought the point of describing a thing or concept by its pre-designated nomenclature or appropriate, fitting terminology is to give people a shared conception about what is being referred to ... for the sake of accuracy and clarity. Yet someone finds wrongdoing in using language for its intended purpose, here, apparently? Merely technical? Toxic is not particularly a technical term. Toxic is everyday language. Cytotoxic only requires a bare minutiae of medical understanding. Both of these terms appear to be more accurate and medically descriptive than "chemotherapy" which is so vague - even euphemistic - that it might refer to almost any medical treatment which applies any dosage of any material substance administered anyway you can conceive of. After all, the body is chemical, and so is medicine. "Chemotherapy" doesn't distinguish the tools of the trade in any meaningful way from almost any other form of bio-active medicine. If critics (conveniently pigeonholed and clumped together, given a cute pet name here for the sake of confusion and probably tribal distinction) are shining light and transparency and mainstream practitioners are hiding it, the critics are behaving reasonably and responsibly. This isn't cause to be angry or embittered.

Yeah, let's keep the snippy backbiting to a maximum of zero. I know poised rationality is a fetish among academically/professionally/emotionally/sexually frustrated tweens on the internet suffering from an unfortunate lack of constant praise and reverence (and physical intimacy), but those troubling realities are no excuse to lash out in Wikipedia article format with personal attacks and angry denouncements if you cherish the purported (and ultimately preposterous) image you hold of reason (essentially conflated with just thought at this point, whatever it entails and produces) and yourselves. 4Chan and Reddit are not bastions of sobriety or critical thought or critical appraisal of serious subjects. Juvenile habits from these places are adapting tribal antics for tribal, partisan thinking. Knock it off. Someone might think you're a little too threatened and lacking confidence and skill in reasoned, dispassionate deliberation required by your supposed calling to be considered a credit to it's name, like so many other Reasona-lities.^{— Unsigned, by: Lambchowder / talk / contribs}

Dude, you are so in the wrong place if you are going to cry and write a huge wall of text in reply to one insignificant sentence in one insignificant page in a wiki with more than 7,000 pages. This entire wiki analyses those tribals at reddit and 4chan, and beats them up with real science shit. If you really hate this one singular sentence, just fucking change it instead of crying about it in the talk page and writing an essay on it. — 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 ^{talk stalk} 09:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)