The [Insane] Case for Finding Common Ground With RFK
January 2, 2025 1:02 PM Subscribe
Because better things aren't possible, an enlightened centrist at The Atlantic tries to move liberals more to the right on the topic of RFK Jr, mask mandates, medication, MMR vaccines, flu vaccines, birth control, IUDs, vaccination incentives, "vaccine hesitancy is not the same thing as anti-vax", fluoride, and the FDA. (Side note: Here's how to cancel your Atlantic subscription.)
The Behind the Bastards podcast has a two-episode series, "How The Liberal Media Helped Fascism Win" Part 1 and Part 2: Robert sits down with best pal Michael Swaim to discuss the great liberal media organizations of Italy, Germany and the U.S. in the 1920s and 30s, and how they failed utterly to stop Mussolini and Hitler.
Previously, hbomberguy's video Vaccines and Autism: A Measured Response
The Behind the Bastards podcast has a two-episode series, "How The Liberal Media Helped Fascism Win" Part 1 and Part 2: Robert sits down with best pal Michael Swaim to discuss the great liberal media organizations of Italy, Germany and the U.S. in the 1920s and 30s, and how they failed utterly to stop Mussolini and Hitler.
Previously, hbomberguy's video Vaccines and Autism: A Measured Response
Charles Murray: I think black and brown people are genetically inferior to other humans.
The Atlantic: Free speech unambiguously demands a hearing for this.
JVP: I’ve been blacklisted for publicly insisting it’s bad to bomb refugee camps.
The Atlantic: this is very complicated
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 1:06 PM on January 2 [29 favorites]
The Atlantic: Free speech unambiguously demands a hearing for this.
JVP: I’ve been blacklisted for publicly insisting it’s bad to bomb refugee camps.
The Atlantic: this is very complicated
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 1:06 PM on January 2 [29 favorites]
is this the best of the web, etc. etc.
posted by Going To Maine at 1:06 PM on January 2 [11 favorites]
posted by Going To Maine at 1:06 PM on January 2 [11 favorites]
Demsas: So I can imagine that there are people who are very afraid of RFK’s ascent and, like, kind of the increase in skepticism around basic public-health measures that are listening to the conversation and just going, I feel like you’re just sane-washing.
Yes. Yes, it does feel like she's just sane-washing and normalizing Trumpism, doesn't it?
Bedard: That’s really different, I will say, than I felt in 2016 with the first Trump administration, where I sort of felt like there was lots of reason to believe that resistance was the path. I don’t feel that way, and I don’t think we’re seeing that, generally, now, right?
#IDontFeelThatResistanceIsThePathGenerallyNowRight?
Ratchet theory: The job of conservatives is to turn society right and the job of the "liberal" corporate media is to keep society from turning left.
posted by AlSweigart at 1:07 PM on January 2 [44 favorites]
Yes. Yes, it does feel like she's just sane-washing and normalizing Trumpism, doesn't it?
Bedard: That’s really different, I will say, than I felt in 2016 with the first Trump administration, where I sort of felt like there was lots of reason to believe that resistance was the path. I don’t feel that way, and I don’t think we’re seeing that, generally, now, right?
#IDontFeelThatResistanceIsThePathGenerallyNowRight?
Ratchet theory: The job of conservatives is to turn society right and the job of the "liberal" corporate media is to keep society from turning left.
posted by AlSweigart at 1:07 PM on January 2 [44 favorites]
The only thing you can do with insane people is make sure they don't hurt themselves or others. If you find yourself having common ground with them it's time to worry.
posted by tommasz at 1:08 PM on January 2 [17 favorites]
posted by tommasz at 1:08 PM on January 2 [17 favorites]
It’s also a warning that, in their zeal to oppose RFK Jr.’s false claims about vaccine safety, opponents risk dismissing and alienating people who have a healthy skepticism of Big Pharma, overmedicalization, and just a generalized distrust of the medical system.
Hi, I'm someone who has a very healthy skepticism of big pharma, the psychiatry-industrial complex, who has criticisms of the way vaccine policy is carried out and who is not totally on board with fluoridated water, and for the love of god please zealously oppose RFK Jr and do not worry about dismissing or alienating people like me because this guy is a fucking nut and my ego boundaries aren't going to dissolve if you criticize him harshly. Criticizing RFK isn't the pipeline to pushing people right, RFK and his millionaire backers in the wellness podcast space are pushing people right.
posted by mittens at 1:15 PM on January 2 [81 favorites]
Hi, I'm someone who has a very healthy skepticism of big pharma, the psychiatry-industrial complex, who has criticisms of the way vaccine policy is carried out and who is not totally on board with fluoridated water, and for the love of god please zealously oppose RFK Jr and do not worry about dismissing or alienating people like me because this guy is a fucking nut and my ego boundaries aren't going to dissolve if you criticize him harshly. Criticizing RFK isn't the pipeline to pushing people right, RFK and his millionaire backers in the wellness podcast space are pushing people right.
posted by mittens at 1:15 PM on January 2 [81 favorites]
Bacterial pneumonia cases are on the rise. Human-to-human spread of high-mortality bird flu seems more likely every passing day. Very dangerous idiots are going to be in charge of how the US responds to the next pandemic.
And a large part of what The Atlantic, NYTimes, and other mainstream media outlets have been doing the last few months is basically program the public to accept the legitimacy of the regime they helped install, by spreading Russian misinformation in the guise of both-sideism. This is just more of the same coverage.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 1:16 PM on January 2 [64 favorites]
And a large part of what The Atlantic, NYTimes, and other mainstream media outlets have been doing the last few months is basically program the public to accept the legitimacy of the regime they helped install, by spreading Russian misinformation in the guise of both-sideism. This is just more of the same coverage.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 1:16 PM on January 2 [64 favorites]
Another NYT sanewashing article by milquetoast corporate dem from Long Island, Tom Suozzi Let’s Try Something Different in How We Deal With Trump
The best from-the-comments on that article, which can be applied to this article too:
"If I’m honest, I prefer the original comic, where Charlie Brown just tries to kick the football without giving a long speech first."
posted by lalochezia at 1:29 PM on January 2 [76 favorites]
The best from-the-comments on that article, which can be applied to this article too:
"If I’m honest, I prefer the original comic, where Charlie Brown just tries to kick the football without giving a long speech first."
posted by lalochezia at 1:29 PM on January 2 [76 favorites]
"vaccine-skeptical Americans"
Oh, that's how we're saying "common clay of the New West" now.
If these people were just taking ivermectin and shitting out their pancreases, I'd shrug. You've got a right to do something that stupid, or at least I'm not going to waste any energy stopping you. But not vaccinating puts other people in danger, but since I live in the stupidest timeline ever since people voted for Ralph Nader, that argument apparently no longer counts. Happy New Year of burning Teslas?
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 1:35 PM on January 2 [19 favorites]
Oh, that's how we're saying "common clay of the New West" now.
If these people were just taking ivermectin and shitting out their pancreases, I'd shrug. You've got a right to do something that stupid, or at least I'm not going to waste any energy stopping you. But not vaccinating puts other people in danger, but since I live in the stupidest timeline ever since people voted for Ralph Nader, that argument apparently no longer counts. Happy New Year of burning Teslas?
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 1:35 PM on January 2 [19 favorites]
Better things were possible, but voters -- both in the U.S. and on this site -- insisted that "both candidates were equally immoral." By the transitive property, I suppose both of their Secs of Health are equally sane and rational?
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 1:43 PM on January 2 [20 favorites]
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 1:43 PM on January 2 [20 favorites]
not vaccinating puts other people in danger
And most importantly, the people that they're not vaccinating is mostly not themselves, it's their children. Not that adult vaccinations don't matter obviously but the proximate effect of vaccine denial is dead and injured children, not dead antivaxxers.
posted by BungaDunga at 1:43 PM on January 2 [44 favorites]
And most importantly, the people that they're not vaccinating is mostly not themselves, it's their children. Not that adult vaccinations don't matter obviously but the proximate effect of vaccine denial is dead and injured children, not dead antivaxxers.
posted by BungaDunga at 1:43 PM on January 2 [44 favorites]
I thought the doctor interviewed for this article had some thoughtful things to say about how to communicate with people who are skeptical about vaccines, including that vaccines aren't really a left/right issue as we normally think of those, and that the way we communicate about public health is different from how we communicate with individuals, but that one can inform the other.
posted by box at 1:46 PM on January 2 [12 favorites]
posted by box at 1:46 PM on January 2 [12 favorites]
also vaccines are probably among the least "medicalized" of all medical treatments. they're a shot in the arm that doesn't even deliver a drug. They're almost as non-invasive as anything could be. They're a refinement of variolation, which is a literal folk prophylaxis.
posted by BungaDunga at 1:47 PM on January 2 [12 favorites]
posted by BungaDunga at 1:47 PM on January 2 [12 favorites]
Doctors have a very different type of responsibility when it comes to discussing vaccines with patients than politicians do. Coaxing parents to get their kids their shots by babying and flattering them is good medicine, but shitty politics.
posted by BungaDunga at 1:49 PM on January 2 [13 favorites]
posted by BungaDunga at 1:49 PM on January 2 [13 favorites]
Here's how to cancel your Atlantic subscription.
This is the kind of dripping condescension that helped make the left's tent small enough to lose all three branches of government.
posted by gwint at 1:56 PM on January 2 [22 favorites]
This is the kind of dripping condescension that helped make the left's tent small enough to lose all three branches of government.
posted by gwint at 1:56 PM on January 2 [22 favorites]
I liked the interview and respect what she had to say. It's plausible to believe, as everyone here seems to, that admitting that RFK is right about anything legitimizes him, including his insanity on autism and vaccines, etc. But I agree with Dr. Bedard that you're more likely to get people to listen if you first acknowledge all of their concerns, even when their beliefs are completely wrong, and second acknowledge where there is a legitimate debate about the facts. For example, just because the science is completely clear on polio vaccines doesn't mean there isn't a reasonable debate about who should get Covid boosters.
I think this is the crux of understanding her perspective:
...so how do you think about the risk of sane-washing?
I have always worked with marginalized populations where there’s a high prevalence of substance-use issues. And because of that, I’m very sort of seeped in the harm-reduction approach to problems. ... the fact that I don’t want RFK to be anywhere near in charge of the federal government’s health apparatus, it doesn’t make it not so. And my sort of principled opposition to that doesn’t feel like an intervention that has a lot of juice. ...What does it look like to try to achieve something that doesn’t even have to be consensus but is understanding between us so that the entire sort of public-health apparatus doesn’t just get dismantled?
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 1:57 PM on January 2 [8 favorites]
I think this is the crux of understanding her perspective:
...so how do you think about the risk of sane-washing?
I have always worked with marginalized populations where there’s a high prevalence of substance-use issues. And because of that, I’m very sort of seeped in the harm-reduction approach to problems. ... the fact that I don’t want RFK to be anywhere near in charge of the federal government’s health apparatus, it doesn’t make it not so. And my sort of principled opposition to that doesn’t feel like an intervention that has a lot of juice. ...What does it look like to try to achieve something that doesn’t even have to be consensus but is understanding between us so that the entire sort of public-health apparatus doesn’t just get dismantled?
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 1:57 PM on January 2 [8 favorites]
I really think, or maybe just hope, that Trump isn’t gonna listen to much of what RFK has to say about vaccines. I don’t think Trump himself is anti-VAX at all, and in fact he did support rolling out the Covid vaccine and tried to take credit for saving millions of people’s lives when in fact he had turned around and induced vaccine panic after Biden was in. He may only be floating the idea of RFK in his administration so that he can pay back for getting his support before the election, but it won’t either last long or RFK will just fade away into oblivion, or RFK may change his tune a bit now that his side hustle may not be so important to him for income.
posted by waving at 1:58 PM on January 2 [2 favorites]
posted by waving at 1:58 PM on January 2 [2 favorites]
Let's slow down a bit folk.
I think there is a real difference between 1) capitulating to fascism and 2) trying to approach people who disagree with you with care, empathy and in a thoughtful and understanding way.
Part of fighting the police state is not policing each other.
The argument isn't that anti-vaccine folk are not doing something dangerous or that you need to be any less strong in your beliefs and convictions and what you advocate for - its simply that berating them, shunning them and calling them idiots is not helpful from a public health or political perspective. Why wouldn't you just support fascism if the fascists are the only ones offering you a place to go?
Aren't we trying to get AWAY from "us vs. them" thinking? Doesn't that sort of thinking (no matter who is the one doing it) just reinforce the world view of fascism?
Just some thoughts. Enlightened centrism is a thing - but I don't actually think that is what this article is saying.
posted by grimace636 at 1:58 PM on January 2 [23 favorites]
I think there is a real difference between 1) capitulating to fascism and 2) trying to approach people who disagree with you with care, empathy and in a thoughtful and understanding way.
Part of fighting the police state is not policing each other.
The argument isn't that anti-vaccine folk are not doing something dangerous or that you need to be any less strong in your beliefs and convictions and what you advocate for - its simply that berating them, shunning them and calling them idiots is not helpful from a public health or political perspective. Why wouldn't you just support fascism if the fascists are the only ones offering you a place to go?
Aren't we trying to get AWAY from "us vs. them" thinking? Doesn't that sort of thinking (no matter who is the one doing it) just reinforce the world view of fascism?
Just some thoughts. Enlightened centrism is a thing - but I don't actually think that is what this article is saying.
posted by grimace636 at 1:58 PM on January 2 [23 favorites]
Coaxing parents to get their kids their shots by babying and flattering them is good medicine, but shitty politics.
Sounds like you agree with her: "Yeah, so vaccine mandates work. They’re really important. They’re the only thing that has been shown to work to get meaningful vaccine uptake in a population."
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 1:58 PM on January 2 [4 favorites]
Sounds like you agree with her: "Yeah, so vaccine mandates work. They’re really important. They’re the only thing that has been shown to work to get meaningful vaccine uptake in a population."
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 1:58 PM on January 2 [4 favorites]
So I guess Republicans didn't need to compromise on pro-vaccine policies when Biden won in 2020?
Why does compromise always seem like it's a one way street? Why do I always have to compromise my values for the sake of preserving the nation?
posted by RonButNotStupid at 2:05 PM on January 2 [38 favorites]
Why does compromise always seem like it's a one way street? Why do I always have to compromise my values for the sake of preserving the nation?
posted by RonButNotStupid at 2:05 PM on January 2 [38 favorites]
Why does compromise always seem like it's a one way street? Why do I always have to compromise my values for the sake of preserving the nation?
I think sitting with difference and trying to deeply understand people is different than compromising. I would read the article again - that is not what I am getting from it.
posted by grimace636 at 2:10 PM on January 2 [8 favorites]
I think sitting with difference and trying to deeply understand people is different than compromising. I would read the article again - that is not what I am getting from it.
posted by grimace636 at 2:10 PM on January 2 [8 favorites]
I stopped paying for The Atlantic awhile back. I guess I do need to officially cancel my subscription, huh.
posted by jenfullmoon at 2:18 PM on January 2 [4 favorites]
posted by jenfullmoon at 2:18 PM on January 2 [4 favorites]
The sad truth is that our institutions, and an increasing number of people, have just giving up resisting our slide into fascism.
posted by grumpybear69 at 2:22 PM on January 2 [15 favorites]
posted by grumpybear69 at 2:22 PM on January 2 [15 favorites]
I'd also say - the author is separate from the person they are interviewing. Think the "enlightened centrism" argument might be more applicable to the author than to the subject of the interview themselves.
Think the subject is touching on something different than what the summary at the top of the article describes it as being about, or the conclusions the author takes away from the conversation.
posted by grimace636 at 2:26 PM on January 2 [6 favorites]
Think the subject is touching on something different than what the summary at the top of the article describes it as being about, or the conclusions the author takes away from the conversation.
posted by grimace636 at 2:26 PM on January 2 [6 favorites]
>> Here's how to cancel your Atlantic subscription.
> This is the kind of dripping condescension that helped make the left's tent small enough to lose all three branches of government.
Telling people how to cancel their subscription to The Atlantic is too extremist rhetoric now?
posted by AlSweigart at 2:30 PM on January 2 [50 favorites]
> This is the kind of dripping condescension that helped make the left's tent small enough to lose all three branches of government.
Telling people how to cancel their subscription to The Atlantic is too extremist rhetoric now?
posted by AlSweigart at 2:30 PM on January 2 [50 favorites]
gyofb
posted by gwint at 2:30 PM on January 2 [4 favorites]
posted by gwint at 2:30 PM on January 2 [4 favorites]
"vaccine hesitancy is not the same thing as anti-vax" : not taking any vax ever :: "I'm not opposed to a woman President, just not *this* woman" : not voting for any woman ever
posted by Capt. Renault at 2:30 PM on January 2 [29 favorites]
posted by Capt. Renault at 2:30 PM on January 2 [29 favorites]
Against the forces of Mordor, there can be no victory. We must join with Sauron.
posted by Lemkin at 2:39 PM on January 2 [13 favorites]
posted by Lemkin at 2:39 PM on January 2 [13 favorites]
More like, "Let's see whether we might be better off if we engaged in outreach with the orcs and trolls who want to put our meat on their menu."
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 3:05 PM on January 2 [4 favorites]
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 3:05 PM on January 2 [4 favorites]
On the latest episode of Know Your Enemy, Dorothy Fortenberry speaks a bit on what it might look like for Dems to speak to concerns without, under any circumstances, having to hand it to RFK, Jr.
posted by audi alteram partem at 3:12 PM on January 2 [5 favorites]
posted by audi alteram partem at 3:12 PM on January 2 [5 favorites]
I mean, the Harris campaign lost because they failed to campaign on popular policies, not because of the non-centrists.
The "centrist" policies and politicians of the Dems are what lost the election.
You're gonna keep losing elections if you keep insisting on running centrist candidates pushing worker hostile policies.
The people who voted for Trump largely don't poll as wanting more conservative economic policy, they poll as being further to the left of center.
posted by constraint at 3:12 PM on January 2 [15 favorites]
The "centrist" policies and politicians of the Dems are what lost the election.
You're gonna keep losing elections if you keep insisting on running centrist candidates pushing worker hostile policies.
The people who voted for Trump largely don't poll as wanting more conservative economic policy, they poll as being further to the left of center.
posted by constraint at 3:12 PM on January 2 [15 favorites]
When one partner in a marriage is constantly abusive and cheating and the other partner is always compromising and trying not to provoke the other its not a marriage its a hostage crisis.
Americans who want to have nice things will not be able to get those things past the Mullahs in the Supreme Court, nor past the Dem collaborators in the Senate nor from fickle corporate PR campaigns and corporate or oligarch owned media. And of course, there is nothing Republicans enjoy more than ruining nice things for people who aren't them, even at their own expense. Its their fetish.
Your reasonable gun control proposals don't fool the 2A types into supporting you.
Your health insurance instead of healthcare systems don't convince the health insurers not to murder you for profit and then donate that profit against your campaigns.
Your welfare reforms don't end the calls to cut welfare.
All your border security and deportations didn't stop them from claiming you want to let in illegal murderers to white genocide them.
And giving them lipservice on their witchdoctor youtube advice won't stop them from spreading Covid, Flu or Pox to you.
So debate all you want about the best way to flatter your capturs, its a long bus-ride to the camps.
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 3:28 PM on January 2 [28 favorites]
Americans who want to have nice things will not be able to get those things past the Mullahs in the Supreme Court, nor past the Dem collaborators in the Senate nor from fickle corporate PR campaigns and corporate or oligarch owned media. And of course, there is nothing Republicans enjoy more than ruining nice things for people who aren't them, even at their own expense. Its their fetish.
Your reasonable gun control proposals don't fool the 2A types into supporting you.
Your health insurance instead of healthcare systems don't convince the health insurers not to murder you for profit and then donate that profit against your campaigns.
Your welfare reforms don't end the calls to cut welfare.
All your border security and deportations didn't stop them from claiming you want to let in illegal murderers to white genocide them.
And giving them lipservice on their witchdoctor youtube advice won't stop them from spreading Covid, Flu or Pox to you.
So debate all you want about the best way to flatter your capturs, its a long bus-ride to the camps.
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 3:28 PM on January 2 [28 favorites]
Telling people how to cancel their subscription to The Atlantic is too extremist rhetoric now?
Accusing someone of being condescending is accusing them of extremist rhetoric now?
posted by coffeecat at 3:48 PM on January 2 [12 favorites]
Accusing someone of being condescending is accusing them of extremist rhetoric now?
posted by coffeecat at 3:48 PM on January 2 [12 favorites]
Another NYT sanewashing article by milquetoast corporate dem from Long Island, Tom Suozzi Let’s Try Something Different in How We Deal With Trump
I saw this headline and I thought fuck no, there is no way I'm reading that. The NYT sucks.
posted by bluesky43 at 4:02 PM on January 2 [7 favorites]
I saw this headline and I thought fuck no, there is no way I'm reading that. The NYT sucks.
posted by bluesky43 at 4:02 PM on January 2 [7 favorites]
"vaccine hesitancy is not the same thing as anti-vax" : not taking any vax ever :: "I'm not opposed to a woman President, just not *this* woman" : not voting for any woman ever
When you're talking public figures, certainly. But there are real people who are "skeptics" who nonetheless end up getting some vaccines eventually, or end up giving their children at least some or even all their vaccines, eventually. Healthcare workers find ways to convince hesitant people pretty often. Some people are persuadable.
posted by BungaDunga at 4:03 PM on January 2 [8 favorites]
When you're talking public figures, certainly. But there are real people who are "skeptics" who nonetheless end up getting some vaccines eventually, or end up giving their children at least some or even all their vaccines, eventually. Healthcare workers find ways to convince hesitant people pretty often. Some people are persuadable.
posted by BungaDunga at 4:03 PM on January 2 [8 favorites]
…and who is not totally on board with fluoridated water
Fluoridated water is up there with vaccines as one of the most important public health interventions of the 20th century. People don't think of dental caries as a serious health risk, but tooth decay can cause chronic infections and raises the risk of stroke and heart attack, including in children. Tooth decay is also a major contributor to chronic malnutrition in children and low-income adults.
posted by adrienneleigh at 4:08 PM on January 2 [30 favorites]
Fluoridated water is up there with vaccines as one of the most important public health interventions of the 20th century. People don't think of dental caries as a serious health risk, but tooth decay can cause chronic infections and raises the risk of stroke and heart attack, including in children. Tooth decay is also a major contributor to chronic malnutrition in children and low-income adults.
posted by adrienneleigh at 4:08 PM on January 2 [30 favorites]
I think sitting with difference and trying to deeply understand people is different than compromising.
So, are you demanding the antivaxxers and "health skeptics" to sit with difference and deeply understand us? Or is this once again a unilateral ask of us with no expectation of reciprocation from the other side?
Because if it is the latter, then it is very much a demand for compromise, and I am past done with it.
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:18 PM on January 2 [22 favorites]
So, are you demanding the antivaxxers and "health skeptics" to sit with difference and deeply understand us? Or is this once again a unilateral ask of us with no expectation of reciprocation from the other side?
Because if it is the latter, then it is very much a demand for compromise, and I am past done with it.
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:18 PM on January 2 [22 favorites]
Open war is upon you, whether you would risk it or not.
posted by Lemkin at 4:53 PM on January 2 [8 favorites]
posted by Lemkin at 4:53 PM on January 2 [8 favorites]
Accusing someone of being condescending is accusing them of extremist rhetoric now?
I'll bite: in what sense is telling people how to cancel their Atlantic subscription "dripping condescension"?
posted by Gadarene at 4:55 PM on January 2 [28 favorites]
I'll bite: in what sense is telling people how to cancel their Atlantic subscription "dripping condescension"?
posted by Gadarene at 4:55 PM on January 2 [28 favorites]
the Harris campaign lost because they failed to [one single thing]
Oh, come on.
posted by stevil at 5:06 PM on January 2 [8 favorites]
Oh, come on.
posted by stevil at 5:06 PM on January 2 [8 favorites]
But there are real people who are "skeptics" who nonetheless end up getting some vaccines eventually, or end up giving their children at least some or even all their vaccines, eventually.
I personally talked 3 people into Covid vaccines at my work. I knew them all, listened to them, stated my views, encouraged them to read up on legitimate sites, rinse and repeat. This was probably in the golden window (first round of vaccines) before it was so politicized up here.
Calling people stupid just wouldn’t work. Also, the people I was speaking with weren’t. They had just absorbed a lot of “wellness” information.
I understand, because despite being decently well educated and a believer in science, I fell prey to a lot of the natural birth movement, breastfeeding, and I wouldn’t say vax hesitancy but vaccine nerves before the Andrew Wakefield fraud came fully to light. (I vaccinated my kid who is now 19, but I really was worried about it.) I didn’t need people yelling at me. I needed respect and information.
That said, on the policy level it is worth yelling and battling.
posted by warriorqueen at 5:17 PM on January 2 [19 favorites]
I personally talked 3 people into Covid vaccines at my work. I knew them all, listened to them, stated my views, encouraged them to read up on legitimate sites, rinse and repeat. This was probably in the golden window (first round of vaccines) before it was so politicized up here.
Calling people stupid just wouldn’t work. Also, the people I was speaking with weren’t. They had just absorbed a lot of “wellness” information.
I understand, because despite being decently well educated and a believer in science, I fell prey to a lot of the natural birth movement, breastfeeding, and I wouldn’t say vax hesitancy but vaccine nerves before the Andrew Wakefield fraud came fully to light. (I vaccinated my kid who is now 19, but I really was worried about it.) I didn’t need people yelling at me. I needed respect and information.
That said, on the policy level it is worth yelling and battling.
posted by warriorqueen at 5:17 PM on January 2 [19 favorites]
Meanwhile, you should go ahead and have your dr test your titers of MMR if you got that shot several decades ago, especially if more unvaccinated people are going to be carrying measles around. And/ or RFK's CDC makes those vaccinations hard to get.
posted by emjaybee at 5:21 PM on January 2 [3 favorites]
posted by emjaybee at 5:21 PM on January 2 [3 favorites]
Fluoridated water is up there with vaccines as one of the most important public health interventions of the 20th century.
Adrienneleigh, has it. The ones who have benefited most from fluoride addition are those who couldn't/can't afford dental and health care, and yet that is the population most direly impressed by the anti-health rhetoric. You would have thought this would have been a done deal, but hell nooooo.
Poor people, people in 'medical deserts' or on reservations, people with shitty health insurance--these are the ones who'll be paying interest on the high price of avoiding vaccines. They'll die in greater numbers and they'll have no recourse against long covid. They're the ones who have been sold the bill of goods, and part of the reason they believe there are these kinds of conspiracies is because there really is one, a big one. This system is designed to keep the big dogs on top, and they know it. Looking at that, is it so hard to understand that people can believe it's conspiracy all the way down?
I get it. I get it, but I'm still so pissed. Supporters of the right don't even attempt to think. It comes off facebook or fox, and therefore it must be true. When the brown hits the aerator there are a lot of people I'm not going to miss because their willful stupidity was also contagious. It's kids, immunocompromised, the old, the innocent that will suffer that bother me.
posted by BlueHorse at 5:31 PM on January 2 [16 favorites]
Adrienneleigh, has it. The ones who have benefited most from fluoride addition are those who couldn't/can't afford dental and health care, and yet that is the population most direly impressed by the anti-health rhetoric. You would have thought this would have been a done deal, but hell nooooo.
Poor people, people in 'medical deserts' or on reservations, people with shitty health insurance--these are the ones who'll be paying interest on the high price of avoiding vaccines. They'll die in greater numbers and they'll have no recourse against long covid. They're the ones who have been sold the bill of goods, and part of the reason they believe there are these kinds of conspiracies is because there really is one, a big one. This system is designed to keep the big dogs on top, and they know it. Looking at that, is it so hard to understand that people can believe it's conspiracy all the way down?
I get it. I get it, but I'm still so pissed. Supporters of the right don't even attempt to think. It comes off facebook or fox, and therefore it must be true. When the brown hits the aerator there are a lot of people I'm not going to miss because their willful stupidity was also contagious. It's kids, immunocompromised, the old, the innocent that will suffer that bother me.
posted by BlueHorse at 5:31 PM on January 2 [16 favorites]
Even now, as it ever was . . . please read the article and not just the headline/tag. I know we all come into situations with ongoing conversations in our heads (both the remnants of ones we had with others as well as the ones with ourselves), and then we comment on the reaction we have to the first thing we read from the place . . . but there's a lot of really smart stuff in the article, and I don't find it sanewashing at all. It lays out strategies based one the world we've been living in, through Trump the first time, through the pandemic, through the recent election, and projects into the future in a way that looks at how we can do harm reduction. The MAGA set, the ""common clay of the New West", etc, are not going away no matter how much we "resist". This is going to happen. And we have to do whatever we can to minimize their impact and maintain hope and an alternative way forward. It's not about compromise, nor is it, I don't think, about a fight. I think it's a combo of underground action and outright manipulation. Stall and block where possible; create community and solutions and mutual support always; Jedi mind tricks whenever it works against the weak-minded or the too worried to think straight (which is what I want to believe most RFK Jr believers are).
Anyway, read the article, and fuck the Atlantic most of the time.
posted by pt68 at 5:54 PM on January 2 [12 favorites]
Anyway, read the article, and fuck the Atlantic most of the time.
posted by pt68 at 5:54 PM on January 2 [12 favorites]
This is going to happen.
It's one thing to make backup plans for this, it;'s another to entirely acquiesce in advance. Senators can STOP kennedy from his appointment, and fucking the health system and the NIH back to the dark ages, if they grow a fucking SPINE.
Remember: there are enemies and there are cowards, and "the true work of political action is not to identify idealized superheroes to run for office. It is, instead, to create the conditions in the world that make it safe for the cowards to vote the right way.". We have to make the cowardly republicans who know this is bullshit beyond the pale to grow spines.
posted by lalochezia at 6:15 PM on January 2 [17 favorites]
It's one thing to make backup plans for this, it;'s another to entirely acquiesce in advance. Senators can STOP kennedy from his appointment, and fucking the health system and the NIH back to the dark ages, if they grow a fucking SPINE.
Remember: there are enemies and there are cowards, and "the true work of political action is not to identify idealized superheroes to run for office. It is, instead, to create the conditions in the world that make it safe for the cowards to vote the right way.". We have to make the cowardly republicans who know this is bullshit beyond the pale to grow spines.
posted by lalochezia at 6:15 PM on January 2 [17 favorites]
So, are you demanding the antivaxxers and "health skeptics" to sit with difference and deeply understand us?
Yes. Exactly. It is 100% their responsibility too.
It will always be a job for everyone. The fact that you think the other person isn't doing it well doesn't change the fact that it is what everyone needs to do.
That's my point - leaning into an "us vs them" narrative reinforces the fascist perspective, which is that there are "winners vs losers". Its not a zero sum game.
posted by grimace636 at 6:27 PM on January 2 [8 favorites]
Yes. Exactly. It is 100% their responsibility too.
It will always be a job for everyone. The fact that you think the other person isn't doing it well doesn't change the fact that it is what everyone needs to do.
That's my point - leaning into an "us vs them" narrative reinforces the fascist perspective, which is that there are "winners vs losers". Its not a zero sum game.
posted by grimace636 at 6:27 PM on January 2 [8 favorites]
I looked and looked for something horrible from Dr. Bedard. Didn’t find it. Seems like they have practical strategies for improving public health, and that they don’t enjoy the privilege to ignore a patient based on their political leanings.
With respect, I would like someone like Dr. Bedard to be amplified more, not less, and wish they were in RFK Jr’s place instead.
posted by mathjus at 6:34 PM on January 2 [11 favorites]
With respect, I would like someone like Dr. Bedard to be amplified more, not less, and wish they were in RFK Jr’s place instead.
posted by mathjus at 6:34 PM on January 2 [11 favorites]
That's my point - leaning into an "us vs them" narrative reinforces the fascist perspective, which is that there are "winners vs losers". Its not a zero sum game.
Nah, dude - you're advocating we should be so open minded our brains fall out, which is a large part of why we're here in the first place. It is okay for us to have positions that we've come to through reason, and to hold fast to them - there's nothing "us vs. them" about that.
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:34 PM on January 2 [6 favorites]
Nah, dude - you're advocating we should be so open minded our brains fall out, which is a large part of why we're here in the first place. It is okay for us to have positions that we've come to through reason, and to hold fast to them - there's nothing "us vs. them" about that.
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:34 PM on January 2 [6 favorites]
it is okay for us to have positions that we've come to through reason, and to hold fast to them
100%. There is nothing "us vs them" about having strong beliefs and sticking to them.
I'm just saying there is a value to listening to other people who you disagree with, even if it doesn't change your mind.
I hate RFK's opinions on vaccines. I think they are dangerous. But there is also tendency where like, if anyone mentions RFK, we need to immediately dunk on them and dismiss everything they say.
And I don't see how that is useful. I don't need to compromise my beliefs in order to treat other people with respect and listen to them.
And we can also do that while recognizing marginalized voices are marginalized and ensuring those voices are lifted up. We can do all that without dunking anyone down.
posted by grimace636 at 6:43 PM on January 2 [3 favorites]
100%. There is nothing "us vs them" about having strong beliefs and sticking to them.
I'm just saying there is a value to listening to other people who you disagree with, even if it doesn't change your mind.
I hate RFK's opinions on vaccines. I think they are dangerous. But there is also tendency where like, if anyone mentions RFK, we need to immediately dunk on them and dismiss everything they say.
And I don't see how that is useful. I don't need to compromise my beliefs in order to treat other people with respect and listen to them.
And we can also do that while recognizing marginalized voices are marginalized and ensuring those voices are lifted up. We can do all that without dunking anyone down.
posted by grimace636 at 6:43 PM on January 2 [3 favorites]
I’m going to wait for the next outbreak of A Horrible Pandemic, and when a lot of people die because RFK told them to eat dead whale, but only the ones shot be Trump, Jr, or maybe Billionaires Urine , my field of fucks to give will have been made empty, burned, plowed under, the ground salted and I shall stare at them as a barely restrained, quiet “Step back six feet, you son-of-bitch” emerges from my grim smile.
I’ll probably get shot for being a liberal.
posted by JustSayNoDawg at 6:55 PM on January 2 [2 favorites]
I’ll probably get shot for being a liberal.
posted by JustSayNoDawg at 6:55 PM on January 2 [2 favorites]
I'm just saying there is a value to listening to other people who you disagree with, even if it doesn't change your mind.
I'm going to quote myself from a previous thread:
That needs to stop.
If someone wants to espouse support for anti-intellectual ideas that will hurt other people, then no, we should not listen to them, nor argue that they should be given a hearing - remember, the academy does not give the floor to cranks because that damages knowledge. And as for the "respect" argument, I'd rather show respect to the people who are in the firing line of these beliefs by not engaging and normalizing them.
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:58 PM on January 2 [25 favorites]
I'm going to quote myself from a previous thread:
I've come to the belief that when one finds themselves reaching for "X you don't like/don't agree with/find offensive" (or some other variant of the sentiment), it's a sign to pause and ask oneself "Am I saying this because the actual issues don't matter, or am I looking to elide over the issue because if I get into the actual reason for the conflict, I might not like what side I'm actually defending?"The problem people have with RFK is not that they disagree with his beliefs, but as you point out that they are genuinely dangerous, to the point that they have a body count. And a large part of how we got here is because we've been told that we need to turn a blind eye to this shit, out of a improper application of the principle of charity - which has allowed this shit to get fucking normalized.
That needs to stop.
If someone wants to espouse support for anti-intellectual ideas that will hurt other people, then no, we should not listen to them, nor argue that they should be given a hearing - remember, the academy does not give the floor to cranks because that damages knowledge. And as for the "respect" argument, I'd rather show respect to the people who are in the firing line of these beliefs by not engaging and normalizing them.
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:58 PM on January 2 [25 favorites]
This is the kind of dripping condescension that helped make the left's tent small enough to lose all three branches of government.
I'm not worried about this actually happening, but if truly wild shit goes down and I'm literally the last person in the world saying that anti-vax people need to be kept away from literally *any* position of authority (including parenthood), I will find a way to content myself with being entirely alone in a tent made for one.
posted by tclark at 7:05 PM on January 2 [13 favorites]
I'm not worried about this actually happening, but if truly wild shit goes down and I'm literally the last person in the world saying that anti-vax people need to be kept away from literally *any* position of authority (including parenthood), I will find a way to content myself with being entirely alone in a tent made for one.
posted by tclark at 7:05 PM on January 2 [13 favorites]
And a large part of how we got here is because we've been told that we need to turn a blind eye to this shit, out of a improper application of the principle of charity - which has allowed this shit to get fucking normalized.
I hear you - and I do want to be clear I am not advocating for RFK to be elevated, or have a blind eye taken to, or normalized. When he starts putting out harmful policies - we should oppose them. Full stop. We should support and defend those who will be harmed by them. Full stop.
I think that we can do that without falling into the trap of then casting out anyone who finds some of what he is saying appealing. Or assuming that everything he says is equally bad.
I feel it is sometimes hard to distinguish between "enlightened centrism" and "holding complexity". There is a difference between saying "let's find compromise and shift to the middle" and saying "maybe these good vs evil binaries aren't serving us".
posted by grimace636 at 7:16 PM on January 2 [4 favorites]
I hear you - and I do want to be clear I am not advocating for RFK to be elevated, or have a blind eye taken to, or normalized. When he starts putting out harmful policies - we should oppose them. Full stop. We should support and defend those who will be harmed by them. Full stop.
I think that we can do that without falling into the trap of then casting out anyone who finds some of what he is saying appealing. Or assuming that everything he says is equally bad.
I feel it is sometimes hard to distinguish between "enlightened centrism" and "holding complexity". There is a difference between saying "let's find compromise and shift to the middle" and saying "maybe these good vs evil binaries aren't serving us".
posted by grimace636 at 7:16 PM on January 2 [4 favorites]
Ooof. The amount of normalizing in this thread is disturbing (even of fluoridation now? Really? We're mainstreaming the Dr. Strangelove bodily fluids guy?)
I thought we learned the dangers of sharing a platform with insane zealots (and RFK Jr. is both) with the Intelligent Design movement in the 2000s and the alt-right nazis in the 2010s, and that coddling naked emperors won't make them accept that they walked out in public with no clothes on. "Once you give a charlatan power over you, you rarely get it back."
Blessed are the people doing de-radicalization work, but even the derad folks will tell you their success rate is low.
I post a link to a page where people can cancel their Atlantic subscriptions, and for this I'm told I'm dripping with condescension and am part of the why the Democrats lost all three branches of government and I should gyofb.
Please don't blame me for costing Gavin Newsom the 2028 presidency because of all the times I poked fun at Cybertruck owners.
posted by AlSweigart at 7:24 PM on January 2 [31 favorites]
I thought we learned the dangers of sharing a platform with insane zealots (and RFK Jr. is both) with the Intelligent Design movement in the 2000s and the alt-right nazis in the 2010s, and that coddling naked emperors won't make them accept that they walked out in public with no clothes on. "Once you give a charlatan power over you, you rarely get it back."
Blessed are the people doing de-radicalization work, but even the derad folks will tell you their success rate is low.
I post a link to a page where people can cancel their Atlantic subscriptions, and for this I'm told I'm dripping with condescension and am part of the why the Democrats lost all three branches of government and I should gyofb.
Please don't blame me for costing Gavin Newsom the 2028 presidency because of all the times I poked fun at Cybertruck owners.
posted by AlSweigart at 7:24 PM on January 2 [31 favorites]
The issue isn't that "everything he says is equally bad", it's that you don't get to pick and choose what to take. Again, this is the whole "Nazi bar" argument all over - the "more reasonable" ideas are used to lead into the rest of it - which is why you can't open the door at all.
There is a difference between saying "let's find compromise and shift to the middle" and saying "maybe these good vs evil binaries aren't serving us".
"Good vs. evil" is purely your framing of the issue, and it's a bad one that's making you ignore the point people are making - that when you start saying "well, I can work with this person here", you are, in fact, serving to normalize them.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:27 PM on January 2 [13 favorites]
There is a difference between saying "let's find compromise and shift to the middle" and saying "maybe these good vs evil binaries aren't serving us".
"Good vs. evil" is purely your framing of the issue, and it's a bad one that's making you ignore the point people are making - that when you start saying "well, I can work with this person here", you are, in fact, serving to normalize them.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:27 PM on January 2 [13 favorites]
Also: Dr. Bedard sounds very sensible about many things. Doctors and public health officials do need to do the work of soothing people's fears and listening to people's mistaken beliefs; that is part of the work they do, and it is vitally important! But there is a huge difference between doing that work and normalizing stupid wrong ideas. And Dr. Bedard clearly understands that, but i don't think the interviewer does.
posted by adrienneleigh at 7:40 PM on January 2 [15 favorites]
posted by adrienneleigh at 7:40 PM on January 2 [15 favorites]
I remember the muddying of the waters in 2016, the lack of clarity when there was so much bullshit on every social media platform it felt like you had to at least entertain the ideas because so many people were holding them, even if you knew they were wrong, because what is truth anyway? And I don't want to go back into that headspace ESPECIALLY not in advance, thanks.
posted by subdee at 7:57 PM on January 2 [4 favorites]
posted by subdee at 7:57 PM on January 2 [4 favorites]
and yet that is the population most direly impressed by the anti-health rhetoric
Huh? In my region of North America, it is university-educated upper middle class wellness devotees, not the most impacted poor people, who are most likely to fall for anti-health rhetoric. Local Black communities were kind of vilified on that point early in the pandemic, but their hesitancy around public health messaging was more complex, and a bunch of what was misinterpreted as hesitancy or lack of as strong communal adherence to pandemic measures was really just being forced into the highest risk jobs by economic circumstances, not a higher rate of less healthy individual choices.
The groups that I know of or read about online that still encourage regular masking and build covid precautions into their activities and such are predominantly poor, queer, and with higher than average POC inclusion.
posted by eviemath at 7:58 PM on January 2 [18 favorites]
Huh? In my region of North America, it is university-educated upper middle class wellness devotees, not the most impacted poor people, who are most likely to fall for anti-health rhetoric. Local Black communities were kind of vilified on that point early in the pandemic, but their hesitancy around public health messaging was more complex, and a bunch of what was misinterpreted as hesitancy or lack of as strong communal adherence to pandemic measures was really just being forced into the highest risk jobs by economic circumstances, not a higher rate of less healthy individual choices.
The groups that I know of or read about online that still encourage regular masking and build covid precautions into their activities and such are predominantly poor, queer, and with higher than average POC inclusion.
posted by eviemath at 7:58 PM on January 2 [18 favorites]
that when you start saying "well, I can work with this person here", you are, in fact, serving to normalize them.
Appreciate the pushback and I do want to be clear - I'm not suggesting we should break our values. If some one came on Metafilter posting anti-vax bullshit, we should remove the post.
Groups I'm in have very strict masking / testing rules. And I support them 100%. We should all set the boundaries we need.
I would not support RFK to be in government. If was a TV host, I would not invite him on my show. I would kick him out of the bar. He has plenty of positions which warrant that.
I want to create a society where racism is not normalized. And I work to be anti-racist, call it out when I see it. But the fact is - racism, ableism, nationalism (take your pick) are systemic. So I'm going to find it everywhere. We are all creating and complicit in creating harm. All of us. You can go to the most leftist organizations in the world - and someone can still point out where racism is occurring and where it is causing real tangible harm.
So I'm not suggesting we shouldn't set clear boundaries on what is tolerable in different settings. I'm saying that we can show a little more grace in recognizing that we are all still human.
The fascist mindset identifies a specific group as "disposable". I would advocate instead to practice abolitionism. No one is disposable.
We don't live in a utopia, harm is real, and we very much need boundary setting - but we can try to do that without giving into a "us vs them" framing.
I'm not saying everyone should listen to Nazis. I'm saying that we should all be constantly to identify our boundaries that are needed for us to feel safe - and then push ourselves to be vulnerable, listen a bit more, and reach out to those on the edges of them.
Much love folks. We're in a tough moment and the threats are real. Let's protect each other and hold onto our values.
posted by grimace636 at 8:05 PM on January 2 [8 favorites]
Appreciate the pushback and I do want to be clear - I'm not suggesting we should break our values. If some one came on Metafilter posting anti-vax bullshit, we should remove the post.
Groups I'm in have very strict masking / testing rules. And I support them 100%. We should all set the boundaries we need.
I would not support RFK to be in government. If was a TV host, I would not invite him on my show. I would kick him out of the bar. He has plenty of positions which warrant that.
I want to create a society where racism is not normalized. And I work to be anti-racist, call it out when I see it. But the fact is - racism, ableism, nationalism (take your pick) are systemic. So I'm going to find it everywhere. We are all creating and complicit in creating harm. All of us. You can go to the most leftist organizations in the world - and someone can still point out where racism is occurring and where it is causing real tangible harm.
So I'm not suggesting we shouldn't set clear boundaries on what is tolerable in different settings. I'm saying that we can show a little more grace in recognizing that we are all still human.
The fascist mindset identifies a specific group as "disposable". I would advocate instead to practice abolitionism. No one is disposable.
We don't live in a utopia, harm is real, and we very much need boundary setting - but we can try to do that without giving into a "us vs them" framing.
I'm not saying everyone should listen to Nazis. I'm saying that we should all be constantly to identify our boundaries that are needed for us to feel safe - and then push ourselves to be vulnerable, listen a bit more, and reach out to those on the edges of them.
Much love folks. We're in a tough moment and the threats are real. Let's protect each other and hold onto our values.
posted by grimace636 at 8:05 PM on January 2 [8 favorites]
This is the kind of dripping condescension that helped make the left's tent small enough to lose all three branches of government.
My tent doesn't have any room for stone-cold morons. Sorry :-(
posted by Back At It Again At Krispy Kreme at 8:11 PM on January 2 [12 favorites]
My tent doesn't have any room for stone-cold morons. Sorry :-(
posted by Back At It Again At Krispy Kreme at 8:11 PM on January 2 [12 favorites]
Je suis NoxAeternum.
At some point the sane and humane have to stop endlessly conceding ground to those who clearly and increasingly wilfully ain't. There is no there there.
We are at that point now. Maybe even well past it.
If allowed to do what he says he will then RFK Jr. will be a disaster, and not just for the USA. The time to stop him is now, before he gets the chance to inflict his insanity writ large.
This is a guy whose influence has already caused many avoidable deaths of children, sown huge distrust of science-based medicine, and who wants Anthony Fauci jailed. There is no workable compromise on the table with that deranged mentality.
posted by Pouteria at 8:54 PM on January 2 [17 favorites]
At some point the sane and humane have to stop endlessly conceding ground to those who clearly and increasingly wilfully ain't. There is no there there.
We are at that point now. Maybe even well past it.
If allowed to do what he says he will then RFK Jr. will be a disaster, and not just for the USA. The time to stop him is now, before he gets the chance to inflict his insanity writ large.
This is a guy whose influence has already caused many avoidable deaths of children, sown huge distrust of science-based medicine, and who wants Anthony Fauci jailed. There is no workable compromise on the table with that deranged mentality.
posted by Pouteria at 8:54 PM on January 2 [17 favorites]
I think an "us vs them" perspective is entirely appropriate here; humanity is at war with pathogens, and the anti-health loons are giving aid and comfort to the enemy. until disease evolves a capacity for mercy and understanding, i see no reason we should grant them to its allies and propagandists.
posted by multics at 10:08 PM on January 2 [10 favorites]
posted by multics at 10:08 PM on January 2 [10 favorites]
When he starts putting out harmful policies - we should oppose them. Full stop.
But he's already putting out harmful policies! How RFK Jr. Falsely Denied His Connection to a Deadly Measles Outbreak in Samoa [Mother Jones]
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:24 AM on January 3 [20 favorites]
But he's already putting out harmful policies! How RFK Jr. Falsely Denied His Connection to a Deadly Measles Outbreak in Samoa [Mother Jones]
Appearing in Shot in the Arm, a 2023 documentary about vaccine opposition, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was asked about the deadly measles outbreak that occurred in Samoa in 2019 and claimed the lives of 83 people, mostly children. Kennedy, a leading anti-vaxxer who had visited the Pacific island nation a few months before the outbreak, replied, “I’m aware there was a measles outbreak…I had nothing to do with people not vaccinating in Samoa. I never told anybody not to vaccinate. I didn’t go there with any reason to do with that.”And if Mother Jones isn't centrist enough to be taken seriously: I’ll Never Forget What Kennedy Did During Samoa’s Measles Outbreak [NYT Opinion]
Kennedy was being disingenuous, sidestepping his connection to that tragedy. Children’s Health Defense, the nonprofit anti-vax outfit he led until becoming a presidential candidate, had helped spread misinformation that contributed to the decline in measles vaccination that preceded the lethal eruption. And during his trip to Samoa, Kennedy had publicly supported leading vaccination opponents there, lending credibility to anti-vaxxers who were succeeding in increasing vaccine hesitation among Samoans. Moreover, in early 2021, Kennedy, in a little-noticed blog post, hailed one of those vaccination foes as a “hero.”
[Kennedy] claimed that the vaccine might have “failed to produce antibodies” in vaccinated mothers sufficient to provide infants with immunity, that it perhaps provoked “the evolution of more virulent measles strains” and that children who received the vaccine may have inadvertently spread the virus to other children. “Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of any assistance,” he added, writing in his role as the chairman of Children’s Health Defense, an anti-vaccine group.John Oliver also did an excellent episode on why RFK is so dangerous.
At the time of his letter, 16 people, many of them younger than 2, were already reported dead. Measles, which is among the most contagious diseases, can sometimes lead to brain swelling, pneumonia and death. For months, families grieved over heartbreaking little coffins, until a door-to-door vaccination campaign brought the calamity to a close. The final number of fatalities topped 80.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:24 AM on January 3 [20 favorites]
The other problem with finding common ground with RFK is that we have no reason to believe he'll stand still. He's made being anti-vaxx into a very lucrative career. How do we know compromising won't just cause him to move on to promoting even wider skepticism? Don't forget that this insanity began with just the MMR vaccine and autism, and now he's sowing doubt about all vaccines, birth control, and modern medicine in general.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:32 AM on January 3 [13 favorites]
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:32 AM on January 3 [13 favorites]
I've been blogging a review/analysis of RFK Jr's book on Anthony Fauci. I have twelve entries so far, the first one here.
This is the most jaw-dropping passage so far. RFK is praising various (quack) doctors' success in treating COVID with already available medicines and substances. He quotes Dr. Brownstein of Detroit:
'We've been treating viral diseases here for twenty-five years, COVID can't be any different.' In all that time, our office had never lost a single patient to flu or flu-like illness. We treated people in their cars with oral vitamins A, C, and D, and iodine. We administered IV solution outside all winter with IV hydrogen peroxide and vitamin C. We'd have them put their butts out the car window and shot them up with intramuscular ozone.'
There are a lot of other whoppers, easily disproved lies, and conclusions that contradict his references.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 6:59 AM on January 3 [11 favorites]
This is the most jaw-dropping passage so far. RFK is praising various (quack) doctors' success in treating COVID with already available medicines and substances. He quotes Dr. Brownstein of Detroit:
'We've been treating viral diseases here for twenty-five years, COVID can't be any different.' In all that time, our office had never lost a single patient to flu or flu-like illness. We treated people in their cars with oral vitamins A, C, and D, and iodine. We administered IV solution outside all winter with IV hydrogen peroxide and vitamin C. We'd have them put their butts out the car window and shot them up with intramuscular ozone.'
There are a lot of other whoppers, easily disproved lies, and conclusions that contradict his references.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 6:59 AM on January 3 [11 favorites]
Some people, when faced with shunning and ridicule for their position, will resent it, double down and become radicalized further, others will conform to the mileiu around them.
The Herman Cain Awards probably generated both responses. Some folks unconsciously thinking they don't want to be mocked for dying of covid and others vowing to murder anyone who tries to give them a shot.
In the past, the media, the local notables, the church ladies could gstekeep that milieu and effecticely wield shame and ridicule and gossip to keep people in line. I think the internet has broken that.
We can't deplatform RFK and declaring him a pariah from our tent won't hurt him.
But we should make it clear to our team that it is treason to aid him. He should get no votes, no benefit of the doubt, no compromise. No "a stopped clock".
What if they held a (civil) war and nobody (from our side) came? Thats how you have a man who lead an armed insurrection against the system still on the ballot and allowed to run for office.
Because it us Us vs Them, and you can't trick them into forgetting that. And they won't save you because you were one of the nice ones.
RFK is a quack, don't comply, don't obey, don't respect the office, don't maintain decorum and etiquette. The wolves have shed their sheep costumes, best stop playing checkers with them and fight or flee.
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 7:06 AM on January 3 [18 favorites]
The Herman Cain Awards probably generated both responses. Some folks unconsciously thinking they don't want to be mocked for dying of covid and others vowing to murder anyone who tries to give them a shot.
In the past, the media, the local notables, the church ladies could gstekeep that milieu and effecticely wield shame and ridicule and gossip to keep people in line. I think the internet has broken that.
We can't deplatform RFK and declaring him a pariah from our tent won't hurt him.
But we should make it clear to our team that it is treason to aid him. He should get no votes, no benefit of the doubt, no compromise. No "a stopped clock".
What if they held a (civil) war and nobody (from our side) came? Thats how you have a man who lead an armed insurrection against the system still on the ballot and allowed to run for office.
Because it us Us vs Them, and you can't trick them into forgetting that. And they won't save you because you were one of the nice ones.
RFK is a quack, don't comply, don't obey, don't respect the office, don't maintain decorum and etiquette. The wolves have shed their sheep costumes, best stop playing checkers with them and fight or flee.
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 7:06 AM on January 3 [18 favorites]
I post a link to a page where people can cancel their Atlantic subscriptions, and for this I'm told I'm dripping with condescension and am part of the why the Democrats lost all three branches of government and I should gyofb.
No, it's because the way you framed this post was by trolling the interview you linked to, which is a bit of pattern of yours. And your framing of the interview was disingenuous and deceptive - Dr. Bedard, the subject of the interview, is thoughtful, I found a lot of what she had to say worth engaging, and she's clearly done a lot of good work (like advocating for prisoners in Rikers to get vaccines). This thread could have maybe gotten into some of what she actually says, but instead - because of how you framed it essentially screams "this interview is hogwash that isn't worth reading!" - it's mostly people getting on their high horse who clearly didn't read the interview.
posted by coffeecat at 8:22 AM on January 3 [19 favorites]
No, it's because the way you framed this post was by trolling the interview you linked to, which is a bit of pattern of yours. And your framing of the interview was disingenuous and deceptive - Dr. Bedard, the subject of the interview, is thoughtful, I found a lot of what she had to say worth engaging, and she's clearly done a lot of good work (like advocating for prisoners in Rikers to get vaccines). This thread could have maybe gotten into some of what she actually says, but instead - because of how you framed it essentially screams "this interview is hogwash that isn't worth reading!" - it's mostly people getting on their high horse who clearly didn't read the interview.
posted by coffeecat at 8:22 AM on January 3 [19 favorites]
I appreciate grimace636s attempt to find the good in people and try to work to create change. A friend of mine who is in his 80s worked with the Braver Angels organization after Trump’s first victory. For those unfamiliar with it, they organize meetings between willing Conservatives and Democrats to find common ground and reduce divisiveness in politics. He became a main organizer after awhile.
He quit after this last election. He told us that for all the work he put in, every Conservative in the group was still willing to vote for Trump. I know this is anecdotal but I think it represents how closed minded folks are now to reality.
I don’t begrudge those who try peacemaking. But what I think is much more important for those of us who didn’t support this deranged grifter… is to unite to oppose everything he does. Not argue about the merits of canceling subscriptions.
posted by jabo at 8:31 AM on January 3 [8 favorites]
He quit after this last election. He told us that for all the work he put in, every Conservative in the group was still willing to vote for Trump. I know this is anecdotal but I think it represents how closed minded folks are now to reality.
I don’t begrudge those who try peacemaking. But what I think is much more important for those of us who didn’t support this deranged grifter… is to unite to oppose everything he does. Not argue about the merits of canceling subscriptions.
posted by jabo at 8:31 AM on January 3 [8 favorites]
because of how you framed it essentially screams "this interview is hogwash that isn't worth reading!" -
Well yes, because it turns out that this interview wasn't published in a vacuum. The title of the piece is quite literally arguing that we should make "common ground" with an antivax extremist whose policy actions got people killed, and who abused and gaslit his ex-wife in their divorce proceedings - to death. That is bullshit that needs to be openly rejected, especially because the purpose of the article is to manufacture consent for his appointment.
As I said in another thread here, the wisdom of dril re: ISIS is worth remembering here. We are not obliged to give such work a blind eye to what it is being used for out of some misguided sense of fairness - in fact, it is imperative that we reject attempts to manufacture consent.
So I'm not suggesting we shouldn't set clear boundaries on what is tolerable in different settings. I'm saying that we can show a little more grace in recognizing that we are all still human.
I am so very tired of this thought terminating cliche, and what it insinuates (but never outwardly argues.) No, using our freedom of association to tell people who push harmful beliefs to go away is not dehumanizing them, no matter how much you try to make that argument. And let me point out this - what does it say to the people targeted by those beliefs when you argue that they should be listened to and kept in the fold?
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:56 AM on January 3 [9 favorites]
Well yes, because it turns out that this interview wasn't published in a vacuum. The title of the piece is quite literally arguing that we should make "common ground" with an antivax extremist whose policy actions got people killed, and who abused and gaslit his ex-wife in their divorce proceedings - to death. That is bullshit that needs to be openly rejected, especially because the purpose of the article is to manufacture consent for his appointment.
As I said in another thread here, the wisdom of dril re: ISIS is worth remembering here. We are not obliged to give such work a blind eye to what it is being used for out of some misguided sense of fairness - in fact, it is imperative that we reject attempts to manufacture consent.
So I'm not suggesting we shouldn't set clear boundaries on what is tolerable in different settings. I'm saying that we can show a little more grace in recognizing that we are all still human.
I am so very tired of this thought terminating cliche, and what it insinuates (but never outwardly argues.) No, using our freedom of association to tell people who push harmful beliefs to go away is not dehumanizing them, no matter how much you try to make that argument. And let me point out this - what does it say to the people targeted by those beliefs when you argue that they should be listened to and kept in the fold?
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:56 AM on January 3 [9 favorites]
I think there is a lot of arguing in this thread that is stretching people's words beyond what they are actually saying.
I don't disagree with anything that anyone is saying about normalization, harm, etc. The Atlantic is doing liberal normalization which props up fascism, please feel free to cancel your subscription.
I think people's point is to not let that blind us from actually listening to what the interviewee is saying (despite the harmful presentation by the Atlantic and the author).
Rather than limiting ourselves to "this article is trash", we can hold the complexity of saying "This article is doing shitty normalization AND the actual interviewee is raising really important points."
Should you send the article out to your centrist aunt with no context? No. Can we have a more thoughtful conversation around this on Metafilter? Yes.
posted by grimace636 at 9:09 AM on January 3 [10 favorites]
I don't disagree with anything that anyone is saying about normalization, harm, etc. The Atlantic is doing liberal normalization which props up fascism, please feel free to cancel your subscription.
I think people's point is to not let that blind us from actually listening to what the interviewee is saying (despite the harmful presentation by the Atlantic and the author).
Rather than limiting ourselves to "this article is trash", we can hold the complexity of saying "This article is doing shitty normalization AND the actual interviewee is raising really important points."
Should you send the article out to your centrist aunt with no context? No. Can we have a more thoughtful conversation around this on Metafilter? Yes.
posted by grimace636 at 9:09 AM on January 3 [10 favorites]
Remember when Serling Haden’s anti-Fluoride rant was accepted as idiotic?
posted by aiq at 9:14 AM on January 3 [1 favorite]
posted by aiq at 9:14 AM on January 3 [1 favorite]
Rather than limiting ourselves to "this article is trash", we can hold the complexity of saying "This article is doing shitty normalization AND the actual interviewee is raising really important points."
No, you can't. Because the argument of "this person is raising important points" is the mechanism by which that normalization occurs. Hence why the rejection must be complete and categorical.
This is what people mean by being so open minded one's brain falls out - being so focused on "well, we should give this a fair hearing" that they fail to notice how that is being weaponized against them.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:26 AM on January 3 [2 favorites]
No, you can't. Because the argument of "this person is raising important points" is the mechanism by which that normalization occurs. Hence why the rejection must be complete and categorical.
This is what people mean by being so open minded one's brain falls out - being so focused on "well, we should give this a fair hearing" that they fail to notice how that is being weaponized against them.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:26 AM on January 3 [2 favorites]
For what it's worth, I feel like this thread worked out pretty well
There has been discussion on What to Do About Normalization among other things, we're seeing different viewpoints expressed, I think it's healthy to debate things in this context
There are times it does feel like a sort of purity hive mind voice comes out in MeFi, a kind of chastising "you should know this by now" and no, that is not real life.
thanks all
posted by ginger.beef at 9:38 AM on January 3 [3 favorites]
There has been discussion on What to Do About Normalization among other things, we're seeing different viewpoints expressed, I think it's healthy to debate things in this context
There are times it does feel like a sort of purity hive mind voice comes out in MeFi, a kind of chastising "you should know this by now" and no, that is not real life.
thanks all
posted by ginger.beef at 9:38 AM on January 3 [3 favorites]
NoxAeternum, did you read the interview? Because "the person raising important points" is saying things I would assume you (and most Mefites) would agree with, like that people in Rikers deserved to get the COVID vaccine first, and to get paid for getting it. Or do you think the interviewee's experience of convincing vaccine-hesitant inmates to get the jab is providing "normalization"? The gist of a lot of their arguments, based on their experience, is that people can have incorrect views for understandable reasons (like knowing someone that experienced a rare complication from a vaccine, for example), and that working with patients to correct their views requires listening to the reasons behind their views. That's not sane washing or normalizing anything, that's advocating for empathy and understanding.
(And to be clear, yeah, The Atlantic on the whole publishes a lot of shoddy writing and engages in click-bait headlines, but that doesn't mean they never publish anything worth engaging with on some level - I'd say this interview is an example)
posted by coffeecat at 10:44 AM on January 3 [4 favorites]
(And to be clear, yeah, The Atlantic on the whole publishes a lot of shoddy writing and engages in click-bait headlines, but that doesn't mean they never publish anything worth engaging with on some level - I'd say this interview is an example)
posted by coffeecat at 10:44 AM on January 3 [4 favorites]
All the energy spent fighting liberal publications awkwardly bending the knee to 21st century fascism is energy not spent fighting Fox and Newsmax. Why can't we keep the darkest people in focus? Is it because they're scarier, and the easier targets are less threatening?
posted by CynicalKnight at 10:46 AM on January 3 [3 favorites]
posted by CynicalKnight at 10:46 AM on January 3 [3 favorites]
Or do you think the interviewee's experience of convincing vaccine-hesitant inmates to get the jab is providing "normalization"?
No, I think the act of allowing their words to be published under the lede of "The Case for Finding Common Ground With RFK" is providing normalization and aiding the author in trying to manufacture consent for his appointment. And if I was in that doctor's shoes, I would be livid at having my words under that lede.
You keep trying to argue that we can separate the two, but we can't. The article's author has poisoned the well here with their intent, clearly shown through with the lede. The point of the exercise is to get you to engage and in doing so normalize RFK - which is why rejection is necessary.
All the energy spent fighting liberal publications awkwardly bending the knee to 21st century fascism
I find calling The Atlantic - patient zero for the atrocity that is "broken windows" policy, and managed by the likes of Andrew Sullivan and James Bennet - liberal laughable.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:11 AM on January 3 [5 favorites]
No, I think the act of allowing their words to be published under the lede of "The Case for Finding Common Ground With RFK" is providing normalization and aiding the author in trying to manufacture consent for his appointment. And if I was in that doctor's shoes, I would be livid at having my words under that lede.
You keep trying to argue that we can separate the two, but we can't. The article's author has poisoned the well here with their intent, clearly shown through with the lede. The point of the exercise is to get you to engage and in doing so normalize RFK - which is why rejection is necessary.
All the energy spent fighting liberal publications awkwardly bending the knee to 21st century fascism
I find calling The Atlantic - patient zero for the atrocity that is "broken windows" policy, and managed by the likes of Andrew Sullivan and James Bennet - liberal laughable.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:11 AM on January 3 [5 favorites]
Why can't we keep the darkest people in focus?
Perhaps you should ask The Atlantic that. They're the ones asking us to find common ground with RFK. Seriously, they're an entire magazine with paid writers, researchers, and distribution. By comparison we're just a bunch of people on an Internet forum screaming into the void. It would be way more productive if The Atlantic spent their energy fighting Fox and Newsmax, but instead they're asking us to stop fighting and accept things.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 11:22 AM on January 3 [11 favorites]
Perhaps you should ask The Atlantic that. They're the ones asking us to find common ground with RFK. Seriously, they're an entire magazine with paid writers, researchers, and distribution. By comparison we're just a bunch of people on an Internet forum screaming into the void. It would be way more productive if The Atlantic spent their energy fighting Fox and Newsmax, but instead they're asking us to stop fighting and accept things.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 11:22 AM on January 3 [11 favorites]
Some thoughts, as someone who really likes the Atlantic and resubscribed after the election:
1) It's a magazine with opinion pieces, plural. Obviously they only publish what they think is worthwhile, but that doesn't mean there's a party line. Sometimes it's worthwhile to hear from people you respect but disagree with.
2) Many of the editors and writers are, like me, to the right of most people here on substantive policy issues, but still clearly on the left of the U.S. political spectrum.
3) It's a leading anti-Trump/MAGA publication. See, e.g., the Jan/Feb 2024 issue on If Trump Wins: "America survived the first Trump term, though not without sustaining serious damage. A second term, if there is one, will be much worse."
4) The debate about which tactics are most effective is, I think, separate from the debate about policy issues. Whether you think there should be a more progressive income tax or a huge wealth tax shouldn't affect your opinion on whether acknowledging points where RFK is right legitimizes his craziness on others.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 11:31 AM on January 3 [4 favorites]
1) It's a magazine with opinion pieces, plural. Obviously they only publish what they think is worthwhile, but that doesn't mean there's a party line. Sometimes it's worthwhile to hear from people you respect but disagree with.
2) Many of the editors and writers are, like me, to the right of most people here on substantive policy issues, but still clearly on the left of the U.S. political spectrum.
3) It's a leading anti-Trump/MAGA publication. See, e.g., the Jan/Feb 2024 issue on If Trump Wins: "America survived the first Trump term, though not without sustaining serious damage. A second term, if there is one, will be much worse."
4) The debate about which tactics are most effective is, I think, separate from the debate about policy issues. Whether you think there should be a more progressive income tax or a huge wealth tax shouldn't affect your opinion on whether acknowledging points where RFK is right legitimizes his craziness on others.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 11:31 AM on January 3 [4 favorites]
I think sitting with difference and trying to deeply understand people is different than compromising.
But Republicans don't do that either.
posted by Gelatin at 11:56 AM on January 3 [4 favorites]
But Republicans don't do that either.
posted by Gelatin at 11:56 AM on January 3 [4 favorites]
I can't believe we're still talking about understanding. I understand them just fine.
posted by tiny frying pan at 12:15 PM on January 3 [8 favorites]
posted by tiny frying pan at 12:15 PM on January 3 [8 favorites]
I'm kind of morbidly curious what would happen if somebody posted a Fox or Newsmax article here under the pretense of getting MeFi commenters to "fight" it
posted by Selena777 at 12:18 PM on January 3 [3 favorites]
posted by Selena777 at 12:18 PM on January 3 [3 favorites]
Ok, #Not-all-The Atlantic
Its owned by a billionaire whose wealth was via familial passage (not that there is any good way to earn billions, and putting up with Steve Jobs as a husband seems like earning it more than most billionaires). That billinaire donates to democrats.
The author of the Article has not kicked any puppies.
They are human beings, we are allowed to disagree with them, and we are allowed not to buy their product. And the idea that using whatever leverage over them we might have is somehow improper and counter productive is obscene. If you can't contemplate inviting people to unsubscribe to centrists who are pre-complying and ceding the center to fascists and quacks.... well, then what are you willing to do to stop the fascists? Because shaming turncoats and boycotting collaborationists is small potatoes and whats coming is worse than a difference of opinion about tax rates.
When they talk about rounding up 25 million immigrant invaders (a number so over-generously large that it begs the listener to assume they aren't strictly focused on cartel members, do you think it will be too rude to not buy a muffin from the ICE/Homeland Security bake sale? " They are humans that we need to understand. Maybe the Capos had unaddressed anxiety about the economy? The station guards patriotism is at least admirable if we disagree with how they expres it. We should give the camps a chance to work, meet them half way, because we support both work and freedom in different ways, maybe work will set us free."
They won't spare you. They won't play by the rules, or give you credit for your open mindedness or respect your firmly held but different beliefs. The acolates of Yarvin and the sycophants of Trump and the software made by Thiel and the money from the Kochs, its to eliminate you. And if you can't be on your side, no one else can save you.
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 12:56 PM on January 3 [3 favorites]
Its owned by a billionaire whose wealth was via familial passage (not that there is any good way to earn billions, and putting up with Steve Jobs as a husband seems like earning it more than most billionaires). That billinaire donates to democrats.
The author of the Article has not kicked any puppies.
They are human beings, we are allowed to disagree with them, and we are allowed not to buy their product. And the idea that using whatever leverage over them we might have is somehow improper and counter productive is obscene. If you can't contemplate inviting people to unsubscribe to centrists who are pre-complying and ceding the center to fascists and quacks.... well, then what are you willing to do to stop the fascists? Because shaming turncoats and boycotting collaborationists is small potatoes and whats coming is worse than a difference of opinion about tax rates.
When they talk about rounding up 25 million immigrant invaders (a number so over-generously large that it begs the listener to assume they aren't strictly focused on cartel members, do you think it will be too rude to not buy a muffin from the ICE/Homeland Security bake sale? " They are humans that we need to understand. Maybe the Capos had unaddressed anxiety about the economy? The station guards patriotism is at least admirable if we disagree with how they expres it. We should give the camps a chance to work, meet them half way, because we support both work and freedom in different ways, maybe work will set us free."
They won't spare you. They won't play by the rules, or give you credit for your open mindedness or respect your firmly held but different beliefs. The acolates of Yarvin and the sycophants of Trump and the software made by Thiel and the money from the Kochs, its to eliminate you. And if you can't be on your side, no one else can save you.
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 12:56 PM on January 3 [3 favorites]
The Atlantic's EIC, Jeffrey Goldberg, also volunteered to torture prisoners for Israel back during the first Intifada.
posted by adrienneleigh at 12:59 PM on January 3 [3 favorites]
posted by adrienneleigh at 12:59 PM on January 3 [3 favorites]
> It's a magazine with opinion pieces, plural
Another recent Atlantic article, from science writer Sarah Zhang: Here’s How We Know RFK Jr. Is Wrong About Vaccines.
posted by lisa g at 1:04 PM on January 3 [3 favorites]
Another recent Atlantic article, from science writer Sarah Zhang: Here’s How We Know RFK Jr. Is Wrong About Vaccines.
posted by lisa g at 1:04 PM on January 3 [3 favorites]
No, I think the act of allowing their words to be published under the lede of "The Case for Finding Common Ground With RFK" is providing normalization and aiding the author in trying to manufacture consent for his appointment.
OK, so you're fine with the article/interview content itself, it's just the headline/lede you're bothered by?
One of my pet peeves of the last, maybe five years, is the rise of click-bait headlines to varying degrees across pretty much every outlet except a few non-profits with high integrity like ProPublica. But I'm not sure how the headline normalizes anything other than clickbait headlines being an acceptable practice. It's also good to keep in mind that journalists often do not get to write their headlines or ledes. I know I've seen other journalist's complain about the headline their article got in The Atlantic, so I wouldn't be surprised if the author here had nothing to do with it.
In any case, a person who is skeptical about RFK Jr. is not going to be persuaded by a clickbait headline. If they go ahead and click and read the article, I don't see anything in the article content that acts to normalize RFK Jr.'s appointment, a decision that's up to the GOP. What it does do, is pose the question, "If he gets the nomination, is there anywhere reasonable people could constructively work with him?" And there, the doctor suggests that yes.
For example, from the interview:
The problem with blanket rejection of anyone you disagree with is that if you refuse to acknowledge any area of agreement or "truth" to their statements than you just come off as an ostrich with its head in the sand at best, elitist at worst - and yes, that mentality among many liberals was certainly one factor that contributing to Trump's recent win. Not only is it not helping, it's pernicious.
posted by coffeecat at 1:11 PM on January 3 [5 favorites]
OK, so you're fine with the article/interview content itself, it's just the headline/lede you're bothered by?
One of my pet peeves of the last, maybe five years, is the rise of click-bait headlines to varying degrees across pretty much every outlet except a few non-profits with high integrity like ProPublica. But I'm not sure how the headline normalizes anything other than clickbait headlines being an acceptable practice. It's also good to keep in mind that journalists often do not get to write their headlines or ledes. I know I've seen other journalist's complain about the headline their article got in The Atlantic, so I wouldn't be surprised if the author here had nothing to do with it.
In any case, a person who is skeptical about RFK Jr. is not going to be persuaded by a clickbait headline. If they go ahead and click and read the article, I don't see anything in the article content that acts to normalize RFK Jr.'s appointment, a decision that's up to the GOP. What it does do, is pose the question, "If he gets the nomination, is there anywhere reasonable people could constructively work with him?" And there, the doctor suggests that yes.
For example, from the interview:
Demsas: So you brought us back to RFK and to mandates. And another part of your op-ed is that—and I don’t want this to just be about vaccines—but you say that “there are seeds of truth to some of what Mr. Kennedy says.” And I want you to overview. I mean, you’ve mentioned the mandates here, and you’ve talked a little bit about kind of some of the nutrition stuff, but what are these seeds of truth that you think we should be seeing in what he’s talking about?Pointing out that someone isn't 100% wrong is not normalizing them. And, as the doctor explains re: vaccine hesitancy, often it's a crucial step to persuading people. And RFK Jr. isn't 100% wrong about everything. He's also an environmentalist. If the GOP decides to allow him the nomination, which seems likely, don't people want the Democrats to try and work with him where there is common ground, like more preventative care?
Bedard: You know, I think the concerns about the relationship between pharma and government and drug regulation are really valid. They’re concerns that any liberal doctor would tell you they agree with, up to a point.
So when I say that there’s seeds of truth, common ground—the common ground stops at some point, where it’s not like Anthony Fauci traveled to China in order to engineer the COVID vaccine himself or whatever. Like, that’s just absolutely not true. But the idea that there is too cozy a relationship between pharma, pharma-sponsored patient-advocacy groups, the FDA, and the committees that provide drug approvals, and then provider associations—like, that’s definitely true. And there are lots of recent examples of that.
There’s, you know, sort of famously: In 2021, there was a really controversial, high-profile case of approval for a drug for Alzheimer’s that had just been shown not to work, basically. And Alzheimer’s—very common disease, incredibly devastating to families. People are desperate to believe that there is something that they can do for folks. We don’t really have good treatments right now. This was the sort of treatment that had received a lot of hype in advance.
The data was just not supportive of the idea that it was effective. And, in fact, it did obviously cause harm in some small number of patients. It got pushed through the FDA approval process anyway, largely, in part, due to pressure from the Alzheimer’s Association, which was receiving money from the drug company. That is a perfect-storm setup for an RFK-type critique. And it’s true. And at the time, I wrote an op-ed criticizing that process. So that’s a place where he and I totally agree.
There is a lot of truth, I think, in questioning the balance in terms of how much we’re thinking about treating diseases versus preventing them. He talks a lot about prevention. He talks a lot about lifestyle. He talks a lot about working on things upstream before they develop into sort of full-blown organ failure, right? So tackling childhood obesity by changing the food environment and encouraging exercise—it’s pretty hard to disagree with that, right?
Whether that means that, you know, I am a huge booster of the GLP-1 drugs, of Ozempic and its brethren, RFK is not, right? And that’s a place of disagreement. But it’s not a place of disagreement because I think that his premise is necessarily wrong. I think it’s a different idea about what’s realistic in terms of addressing a current prevalent issue.
The problem with blanket rejection of anyone you disagree with is that if you refuse to acknowledge any area of agreement or "truth" to their statements than you just come off as an ostrich with its head in the sand at best, elitist at worst - and yes, that mentality among many liberals was certainly one factor that contributing to Trump's recent win. Not only is it not helping, it's pernicious.
posted by coffeecat at 1:11 PM on January 3 [5 favorites]
Pointing out that someone isn't 100% wrong is not normalizing them. And, as the doctor explains re: vaccine hesitancy, often it's a crucial step to persuading people.
RFK Jr is not most people. He's the disingenuous core of an entire network that was built to spread disinformation.
He's also an environmentalist. If the GOP decides to allow him the nomination, which seems likely, don't people want the Democrats to try and work with him where there is common ground, like more preventative care?
That's making a pretty big assumption that a guy who came to power by flattering Trump is going to do anything which upsets his boss? And honestly, given some of his beliefs, can we even trust him to do anything?
The problem with blanket rejection of anyone you disagree with is that if you refuse to acknowledge any area of agreement or "truth" to their statements than you just come off as an ostrich with its head in the sand at best, elitist at worst - and yes, that mentality among many liberals was certainly one factor that contributing to Trump's recent win. Not only is it not helping, it's pernicious.
As it's been repeated over and over again in this thread...the GOP does the same thing and then some! Hell, RFK Jr made a name for himself by blanket rejecting anyone who disagreed with him about the links between vaccines and autism.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 1:32 PM on January 3 [4 favorites]
The problem with blanket rejection of anyone you disagree with is that if you refuse to acknowledge any area of agreement or "truth" to their statements than you just come off as an ostrich with its head in the sand at best
Counterpoint: "issuing correction on a previous post of mine, regarding the terror group ISIL. you do not, under any circumstances, 'gotta hand it to them,'"
Emphasis mine.
And it's not a blanket rejection of anyone I disagree with, it's specifically a blanket rejection of RFK for his insane policies, conspiracy theories, and penchant for beheading dead animals with a chainsaw.
posted by AlSweigart at 3:35 PM on January 3 [4 favorites]
Counterpoint: "issuing correction on a previous post of mine, regarding the terror group ISIL. you do not, under any circumstances, 'gotta hand it to them,'"
Emphasis mine.
And it's not a blanket rejection of anyone I disagree with, it's specifically a blanket rejection of RFK for his insane policies, conspiracy theories, and penchant for beheading dead animals with a chainsaw.
posted by AlSweigart at 3:35 PM on January 3 [4 favorites]
They won't spare you. They won't play by the rules, or give you credit for your open mindedness or respect your firmly held but different beliefs. The acolates of Yarvin and the sycophants of Trump and the software made by Thiel and the money from the Kochs, its to eliminate you. And if you can't be on your side, no one else can save you.
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future.
This, on steroids.
–––––––
That's making a pretty big assumption that a guy who came to power by flattering Trump is going to do anything which upsets his boss? And honestly, given some of his beliefs, can we even trust him to do anything?
posted by RonButNotStupid
There is also no world in which the big money supporters of the Repubs are going to let RFK interfere with their lucrative Big Ag/Food investments. e.g. High fructose corn syrup. Massive farming subsidies. Crap quality products in general. Etc.
posted by Pouteria at 3:43 PM on January 3 [1 favorite]
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future.
This, on steroids.
–––––––
That's making a pretty big assumption that a guy who came to power by flattering Trump is going to do anything which upsets his boss? And honestly, given some of his beliefs, can we even trust him to do anything?
posted by RonButNotStupid
There is also no world in which the big money supporters of the Repubs are going to let RFK interfere with their lucrative Big Ag/Food investments. e.g. High fructose corn syrup. Massive farming subsidies. Crap quality products in general. Etc.
posted by Pouteria at 3:43 PM on January 3 [1 favorite]
The problem with blanket rejection of anyone you disagree with
I'm going to point back to my earlier comment about reaching for "X you don't like/disagree with" here. Because as AlSweigart pointed out, this is not a blanket rejection of "people that we disagree with", but the specific rejection of a specific actor over his specific behavior (including causing a number of kids to die from communicable diseases that vaccination would have prevented) that illustrates him to be a bad faith actor that you cannot work with.
And yeah, Dr. Bedard's argument there is a poor one - it's the same sort of argument that we see when someone argues that we can work with some bigoted group on a point of common interest, saying that we can just ignore their harmful beliefs.
This always ends in tears and pain.
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:06 PM on January 3 [5 favorites]
I'm going to point back to my earlier comment about reaching for "X you don't like/disagree with" here. Because as AlSweigart pointed out, this is not a blanket rejection of "people that we disagree with", but the specific rejection of a specific actor over his specific behavior (including causing a number of kids to die from communicable diseases that vaccination would have prevented) that illustrates him to be a bad faith actor that you cannot work with.
And yeah, Dr. Bedard's argument there is a poor one - it's the same sort of argument that we see when someone argues that we can work with some bigoted group on a point of common interest, saying that we can just ignore their harmful beliefs.
This always ends in tears and pain.
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:06 PM on January 3 [5 favorites]
the atlantic is garbage and does not deserve your money and respect.
posted by i used to be someone else at 4:26 PM on January 3 [4 favorites]
posted by i used to be someone else at 4:26 PM on January 3 [4 favorites]
RE: The Atlantic is garbage--They crushed the spirit of Ed Yong, their very best science reporter, who won a Pulitzer for his writing for the magazine on the pandemic, by bothsidesing COVID
posted by hydropsyche at 4:30 PM on January 3 [7 favorites]
posted by hydropsyche at 4:30 PM on January 3 [7 favorites]
I’m with coffeecat on this - it’s important to separate our critique/opposition to each idea/policy from blanket resistance to a particular person. If ISIS was in favor of distributing food to people in their territory, would you have to oppose that or else be “making concessions” to “dark people?”
It is important to identify ideas that are bad and pernicious, those that are wrong but not likely to cause harm, and things that are true. You can then draw conclusions about the person depending on whether they generally are known to work to achieve goals that are stupid or good or harmful.
Please recognize that it also gives so much power to your opposition if you allow them to choose the things you’re against. Of course, you do not need to support the effort of a person you oppose to accomplish a goal that you agree with. It is better to support a neutral or good person who is working toward the same end, but you will seem more fair-minded if you’re at least not denouncing that effort in a fiery way.
posted by puffinaria at 7:24 PM on January 3 [4 favorites]
It is important to identify ideas that are bad and pernicious, those that are wrong but not likely to cause harm, and things that are true. You can then draw conclusions about the person depending on whether they generally are known to work to achieve goals that are stupid or good or harmful.
Please recognize that it also gives so much power to your opposition if you allow them to choose the things you’re against. Of course, you do not need to support the effort of a person you oppose to accomplish a goal that you agree with. It is better to support a neutral or good person who is working toward the same end, but you will seem more fair-minded if you’re at least not denouncing that effort in a fiery way.
posted by puffinaria at 7:24 PM on January 3 [4 favorites]
Might as well get mad at Bernie Sanders for being too fiery about billionaires and the one percent, because you can point to a few nice things that Zuckerbergbezosgates have done.
posted by BungaDunga at 7:32 PM on January 3 [1 favorite]
posted by BungaDunga at 7:32 PM on January 3 [1 favorite]
If ISIS was in favor of distributing food to people in their territory, would you have to oppose that or else be “making concessions” to “dark people?”
Two points to this:
* One, dril's point is that people who push horrible, harmful ideologies and policy do not get credit when they might align with policy we might agree with, be they are causing that harm.
* Two, if we take this frankly ridiculous thought experiment at face value, the likelihood is that ISIS - an organization bent on brutal theocratic control - would use food distribution as another means to that control, and thus yes, we should oppose that behavior.
Which leads into the excellent point that the LGM folks made about the article:
Please recognize that it also gives so much power to your opposition if you allow them to choose the things you’re against.
Good thing that's not what's happening whatsoever. You're inverting the arrow of causality to make your argument work here - they do not define positions by being the opposition, but are defined as the opposition by the policies they hold.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:31 PM on January 3 [4 favorites]
Two points to this:
* One, dril's point is that people who push horrible, harmful ideologies and policy do not get credit when they might align with policy we might agree with, be they are causing that harm.
* Two, if we take this frankly ridiculous thought experiment at face value, the likelihood is that ISIS - an organization bent on brutal theocratic control - would use food distribution as another means to that control, and thus yes, we should oppose that behavior.
Which leads into the excellent point that the LGM folks made about the article:
The idea that you can somehow manipulate RFK’s empty platitudes about the Public Health Establishment and manipulate them to progressive purposes is absolutely delusional. He’s not trying to pursue good goals through different ends. He’s an extremely dangerous crackpot hell-bent on undermining incredibly important public health achievements, and he’s already played a direct role in getting children killed.And again, this is something we see all the time when some progressive thinks they can find "common ground" with bigots and the hateful, only to learn the hard way that no, it really is hate all the way down and what they thought was "common ground" was built on bigotry on their side.
Please recognize that it also gives so much power to your opposition if you allow them to choose the things you’re against.
Good thing that's not what's happening whatsoever. You're inverting the arrow of causality to make your argument work here - they do not define positions by being the opposition, but are defined as the opposition by the policies they hold.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:31 PM on January 3 [4 favorites]
The sentiment here (nocnofnofnof) is what I've been feeling since the election. I'm done with the other side. There is not a good faith argument to be had and there is no willful or unwilful ignorance to be suffered. The left argues faithfully and ignorantly fine amongst ourselves. I can love my neighbor as a human, but if they Back Trump or RFK, they are not worth my time trying to argue with. They are full of shit. I'm circling the wagons and inviting refugees from every backward state to come to Massachusetts, and then I'm working on making MA and New England a good place to come. Because that's what I can do. It is a WASTE of effort to try and argue with bigoted idiots.
posted by es_de_bah at 4:46 AM on January 4
posted by es_de_bah at 4:46 AM on January 4
RFK Jr is not most people.
Correct. He is a member of a politically powerful family, and politically powerful families should not exist. Political dynasties are an existential threat to democracy, and further proof (not evidence, proof) that, just as the modern police state shows that the Confederacy was the real winner of the Civil War, the politically powerful class funded by generational wealth demonstrates that the Aristocracy (not "Americans") won the revolutionary war.
to sum up: In-groups gonna in-group.
posted by JohnFromGR at 4:58 AM on January 4
Correct. He is a member of a politically powerful family, and politically powerful families should not exist. Political dynasties are an existential threat to democracy, and further proof (not evidence, proof) that, just as the modern police state shows that the Confederacy was the real winner of the Civil War, the politically powerful class funded by generational wealth demonstrates that the Aristocracy (not "Americans") won the revolutionary war.
to sum up: In-groups gonna in-group.
posted by JohnFromGR at 4:58 AM on January 4
Look, nobody in this thread, nor in the linked article (contrary to the disingenuous framing in the FPP), are advocating for RFK to have any power. Nobody is suggesting that him getting power is a good thing - everyone is clear that it's bad. Nobody is "handing it" to RFK. But the reality is that his confirmation seems fairly inevitable. So the question is, how should people who do not support him respond to reality? Dr. Bedard's argument is one of harm reduction, to quote from the article:
I don’t think that advocacy from the public-health community or doctors is going to be what prevents RFK from getting through the Senate and being approved to become an HHS secretary. I think he’s gonna end up getting the job. And I also think—because of the sort of way that he is ensconced in Trump World and the fact that he comes with his own constituency that Trump sort of needs—in the outcome where, like, a couple brave senators stand up and decide that they’re not going to vote for him, I think he gets made health czar or something like that. Like, I don’t think he just goes away.posted by coffeecat at 12:32 PM on January 4 [5 favorites]
So part of the harm-reduction ethos is just about being real about what the challenges are. And to me, the fact that I don’t want RFK to be anywhere near in charge of the federal government’s health apparatus, it doesn’t make it not so. And my sort of principled opposition to that doesn’t feel like an intervention that has a lot of juice.
That’s really different, I will say, than I felt in 2016 with the first Trump administration, where I sort of felt like there was lots of reason to believe that resistance was the path. I don’t feel that way, and I don’t think we’re seeing that, generally, now, right? Like, we’re seeing a lot less sort of resistance stuff and a lot more trying to figure out how to make the reality of this situation less harmful.
I don’t think it’s sane-washing him to say, Look—if this guy’s gonna be in charge, what does it look like for us to recognize who he is and where he’s coming from, recognize that he has a growing movement of people behind him, who aren’t just going to go away because we yell at them? What does it look like to try to achieve something that doesn’t even have to be consensus but is understanding between us so that the entire sort of public-health apparatus doesn’t just get dismantled? [Emphasis in the original]
But that's the thing that Dr. Bedard is astutely avoiding acknowledging - RFK's goal is the dismantling of the public health apparatus. Working with him is not only not going to stop that, it's actually going to enable it as he then gets to point to people like her as both justification and as proof that his position has mainstream support.
Which is the point that many of us are making - what it looks like for us to acknowledge who he is and where he's coming from is to acknowledge how utterly dangerous he is, and how completely out of step his positions - positions that have an actual body count of children, remember - are from the actual medical consensus. And yes, it is absolutely sanewashing to treat him as anything as but the dangerous crackpot that he is (and I'll point out that a large part of why the antivaxx movement has been able to "grow" has been the attitude that they should be treated as anything but dangerous crackpots.)
Again, we've seen how this movie plays out before - attempts to engage bigots and the hateful in the name of harm reduction winds up resulting in harm enablement.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:01 PM on January 4 [4 favorites]
Which is the point that many of us are making - what it looks like for us to acknowledge who he is and where he's coming from is to acknowledge how utterly dangerous he is, and how completely out of step his positions - positions that have an actual body count of children, remember - are from the actual medical consensus. And yes, it is absolutely sanewashing to treat him as anything as but the dangerous crackpot that he is (and I'll point out that a large part of why the antivaxx movement has been able to "grow" has been the attitude that they should be treated as anything but dangerous crackpots.)
Again, we've seen how this movie plays out before - attempts to engage bigots and the hateful in the name of harm reduction winds up resulting in harm enablement.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:01 PM on January 4 [4 favorites]
it's actually going to enable it as he then gets to point to people like her as both justification and as proof that his position has mainstream support
Again, she's not supporting his position.
posted by coffeecat at 1:18 PM on January 4 [1 favorite]
Again, she's not supporting his position.
posted by coffeecat at 1:18 PM on January 4 [1 favorite]
Again, she's not supporting his position.
She can say that all she likes - but again, we've seen how this works. RFK is going to claim that people like her trying to find "common ground" with him shows that they support him, because that's the whole point of him "working" with them.
As the song goes, you can't shake the devil's hand and say you were only kidding.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:30 PM on January 4 [1 favorite]
She can say that all she likes - but again, we've seen how this works. RFK is going to claim that people like her trying to find "common ground" with him shows that they support him, because that's the whole point of him "working" with them.
As the song goes, you can't shake the devil's hand and say you were only kidding.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:30 PM on January 4 [1 favorite]
Dr. Bedard's argument is one of harm reduction
Seems problematic to use specific public health policy terminology to describe managing a brainworm-infected antivaxxer who will be put in charge of said policy. His boss and the political party he is affiliated with are against harm reduction, to begin with.
Anyway, the misinformation campaigns behind this election have made it clear you can enable these kinds of people without overtly supporting them.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 2:36 PM on January 4 [2 favorites]
Seems problematic to use specific public health policy terminology to describe managing a brainworm-infected antivaxxer who will be put in charge of said policy. His boss and the political party he is affiliated with are against harm reduction, to begin with.
Anyway, the misinformation campaigns behind this election have made it clear you can enable these kinds of people without overtly supporting them.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 2:36 PM on January 4 [2 favorites]
This is some of what we must do to restore our dysfunctional health care system (Bernie Sanders op-ed in The Guardian)
posted by box at 3:03 PM on January 4 [2 favorites]
posted by box at 3:03 PM on January 4 [2 favorites]
Coffee cat: RFK's confirmation is inevitable so lets find some things we can work with him on.
1) Way to demonstrate that you are not even going to fight his nomination, and make those who support RFK waste resources and take a hit on that support. we haven't even had inauguration and already you consider opposition to RFK fruitless. You don't have to just hand it to them.
2) Your pessimism about stopping RFK doesn't somehow prevent you from having optimisim that the policies you want would 't get stopped by Trump, Big Pharma, Senate republicans or... an unreliable RFK. You have optimism for that, but not for the nomination fight.
Nominees get sunk sometimes. Even if the odds are low, they aren't zero. Gaetz is already toast.
3) The nazi's built volkswagens and hitler was a vegetarian, and if you worked with the Nazi's on affordable cars and natural food, that is being an accomplice not a harm reducer. If you think analogies to the holocaust are over-the-top, how many people do you think vaccines have saved?
There are 335 million americans. How many have to die from Polio, Measles etc before "don't be alarmist" gets dropped? Name your number now, while its still theoretical. How many people have to die during Trump and maybe RFK before you think that "lets find a silver lining" would prove to wrong.
A number. A man needs a number.
P.S. sorry Coffee Cat, im attacking your quote as a stand in for this larger problem, i am sure you are a good person and we disagree about what to do going forward.
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 4:42 PM on January 4 [4 favorites]
1) Way to demonstrate that you are not even going to fight his nomination, and make those who support RFK waste resources and take a hit on that support. we haven't even had inauguration and already you consider opposition to RFK fruitless. You don't have to just hand it to them.
2) Your pessimism about stopping RFK doesn't somehow prevent you from having optimisim that the policies you want would 't get stopped by Trump, Big Pharma, Senate republicans or... an unreliable RFK. You have optimism for that, but not for the nomination fight.
Nominees get sunk sometimes. Even if the odds are low, they aren't zero. Gaetz is already toast.
3) The nazi's built volkswagens and hitler was a vegetarian, and if you worked with the Nazi's on affordable cars and natural food, that is being an accomplice not a harm reducer. If you think analogies to the holocaust are over-the-top, how many people do you think vaccines have saved?
There are 335 million americans. How many have to die from Polio, Measles etc before "don't be alarmist" gets dropped? Name your number now, while its still theoretical. How many people have to die during Trump and maybe RFK before you think that "lets find a silver lining" would prove to wrong.
A number. A man needs a number.
P.S. sorry Coffee Cat, im attacking your quote as a stand in for this larger problem, i am sure you are a good person and we disagree about what to do going forward.
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 4:42 PM on January 4 [4 favorites]
Laws and rules and norms and fairness and process and the constitution and obeying institutional hierarchys etc. They are the terms of a ceasefire. A mutually beneficial ceasefire that allows vast numbers of people to cooperate and benefit despite being in many different classes, religions, ethnic groups, cultures, personalities, financial interests, political ideologies broad etc.
They are not self-enforcing goods in and of themselves, the ceasefire works and groups of people comply not because everyone believes and loves it deeply (though some do) but because the various other factions have the credible option of retaliation if some folks stop complying. What keeps the peace and functioning, what allows most groups to police their behavior to compliance is that you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't breach the ceasefire and expect everyone else to just keep following it.
One side unilaterally surrendering does not make a ceasefire, it enables the otherside to betray the deal and take advantage.
Don't let the fascists hold you to any rules they aren't following. Don't pretend one person can save the marriage, don't enable their treachery.
Ok, rant over.
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 4:57 PM on January 4 [2 favorites]
They are not self-enforcing goods in and of themselves, the ceasefire works and groups of people comply not because everyone believes and loves it deeply (though some do) but because the various other factions have the credible option of retaliation if some folks stop complying. What keeps the peace and functioning, what allows most groups to police their behavior to compliance is that you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't breach the ceasefire and expect everyone else to just keep following it.
One side unilaterally surrendering does not make a ceasefire, it enables the otherside to betray the deal and take advantage.
Don't let the fascists hold you to any rules they aren't following. Don't pretend one person can save the marriage, don't enable their treachery.
Ok, rant over.
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 4:57 PM on January 4 [2 favorites]
Y’know, maybe it’s just me, but I do generally think Holocaust analogies are over the top.
posted by box at 5:29 PM on January 4 [1 favorite]
posted by box at 5:29 PM on January 4 [1 favorite]
I'd like a time machine to go back when I could have agreed with you
There was a moment when Ireland was suddenly stabilizing and it looked like time and work might start to heal some of the bad history in Israel/Palestine
But now? Over the top, you think?
posted by ginger.beef at 7:51 PM on January 4 [2 favorites]
There was a moment when Ireland was suddenly stabilizing and it looked like time and work might start to heal some of the bad history in Israel/Palestine
But now? Over the top, you think?
posted by ginger.beef at 7:51 PM on January 4 [2 favorites]
RFK's confirmation is inevitable
RFK is pro-choice, an easy target, and it would have been a savvy gesture in hindsight for Harris to respond to his begging by giving him a job in a basement somewhere with a duncecap and a sceptre, filling potholes for healthcare that may or may not have existed. Trump grabbed him for effect at the last minute during the brief election moment that bags undecideds.
posted by Brian B. at 10:18 AM on January 5
RFK is pro-choice, an easy target, and it would have been a savvy gesture in hindsight for Harris to respond to his begging by giving him a job in a basement somewhere with a duncecap and a sceptre, filling potholes for healthcare that may or may not have existed. Trump grabbed him for effect at the last minute during the brief election moment that bags undecideds.
posted by Brian B. at 10:18 AM on January 5
RFK was republican funded from the start, he is ideologically anti-establihment and opportunistic. Could Harris have offered him something bigger than FDA? what would that even be for RFK, i guess CIA so he can settle some family scores.
But i agree that we shouldn't just roll over for him.
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 4:40 AM on January 6 [1 favorite]
But i agree that we shouldn't just roll over for him.
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 4:40 AM on January 6 [1 favorite]
Could Harris have offered him something bigger than FDA?
If big was on the table then maybe the BLM, the federal land management agency. It's currently in court defending the largest land grab by the western states, in a lawsuit filed by anti-government groups, supported by western conservatives who want to sell it off to billionaires for private hunting ranches and exclusive ski resorts, if not an outright gift to them. RFK, as a roadkill-eating Easterner, would more likely align against those states who are arguing for local sovereignty, perhaps made it an empire-ego personal fight to keep it intact.
posted by Brian B. at 8:00 AM on January 6
If big was on the table then maybe the BLM, the federal land management agency. It's currently in court defending the largest land grab by the western states, in a lawsuit filed by anti-government groups, supported by western conservatives who want to sell it off to billionaires for private hunting ranches and exclusive ski resorts, if not an outright gift to them. RFK, as a roadkill-eating Easterner, would more likely align against those states who are arguing for local sovereignty, perhaps made it an empire-ego personal fight to keep it intact.
posted by Brian B. at 8:00 AM on January 6
RFK, as a roadkill-eating Easterner, would more likely align against those states who are arguing for local sovereignty, perhaps made it an empire-ego personal fight to keep it intact.
That's an awfully big assumption. Are you absolutely sure a guy who has demonstrated nothing but craven opportunism would be anything other than a craven opportunist?
I like how all of these RFK apologia just completely ignore how, for all of his supposed qualities and principals, he still had no qualms about first running as an independent candidate and then endorsing Trump. If RFK was a random twentysomething campaigning for Stein or voting for Trump because they thought Harris was too connected with big pharma or too in bed with with big agriculture, we'd be (rightfully) excoriating them for being a selfish dumbass. But somehow RFK gets a pass and is treated like a legitimate political force despite all the things he's done over the years.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 10:38 AM on January 6 [4 favorites]
That's an awfully big assumption. Are you absolutely sure a guy who has demonstrated nothing but craven opportunism would be anything other than a craven opportunist?
I like how all of these RFK apologia just completely ignore how, for all of his supposed qualities and principals, he still had no qualms about first running as an independent candidate and then endorsing Trump. If RFK was a random twentysomething campaigning for Stein or voting for Trump because they thought Harris was too connected with big pharma or too in bed with with big agriculture, we'd be (rightfully) excoriating them for being a selfish dumbass. But somehow RFK gets a pass and is treated like a legitimate political force despite all the things he's done over the years.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 10:38 AM on January 6 [4 favorites]
Are you absolutely sure a guy who has demonstrated nothing but craven opportunism would be anything other than a craven opportunist?
He's much worse than that, and possibly still brain damaged. He easily carried millions of votes to Trump after Harris turned him away. I wish Harris was half the opportunist as RFK is.
posted by Brian B. at 3:10 PM on January 6 [1 favorite]
He's much worse than that, and possibly still brain damaged. He easily carried millions of votes to Trump after Harris turned him away. I wish Harris was half the opportunist as RFK is.
posted by Brian B. at 3:10 PM on January 6 [1 favorite]
And in counterpoint: RFK Jr. Is A Vaccine Cynic, Not A Skeptic:
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:05 AM on January 13 [3 favorites]
The news media labels Robert F. Kennedy Jr. a “vaccine skeptic.” He’s not. I’m an actual vaccine skeptic. In fact, everyone who serves with me on the Food and Drug Administration’s vaccine advisory committee is a vaccine skeptic. Pharmaceutical companies must prove to us that a vaccine is safe, that it’s effective. Then and only then will we recommend that it be authorized or licensed for use by Americans.This is why you cannot work with him.
Mr. Kennedy, on the other hand, is a vaccine cynic, failing to accept studies that refute his beliefs. He claims that the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine causes autism despite more than a dozen studies performed in seven countries on three continents involving thousands of children showing that it doesn’t.
He has claimed that “there is no vaccine that is safe and effective.” (Childhood vaccines have prevented more than one million deaths and 32 million hospitalizations over the past three decades). He has encouraged people not to vaccinate their babies: “I see somebody on a hiking trail carrying a little baby, I say to him, ‘Better not get him vaccinated.’”
When asked about the polio vaccine, Mr. Kennedy claimed that it caused an “explosion in soft tissue cancers” that killed, “many, many, many, many, many more people than polio ever did.” Setting aside the fact that an “explosion in soft tissue cancers” hasn’t occurred, studies comparing children who received early batches of polio vaccines with unvaccinated children found no differences in cancer incidence. By 1979, paralytic polio was eliminated from the United States. When Mr. Kennedy says he wants vaccines to be better studied, what he really seems to be saying is he wants studies that confirm his fixed, immutable, science-resistant beliefs. That’s not skepticism.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:05 AM on January 13 [3 favorites]
« Older Would 2,025 Links be too much to ask? | 🎵Everything is Custom 🎵 Newer »
posted by Lemkin at 1:04 PM on January 2 [53 favorites]