this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2023
3 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10174 readers
49 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Honestly, could we ignore him? He's a fringe candidate with a near-zero chance of reaching nomination. What impact does he have on the race other than to act as a potential spoiler and distraction candidate?
You'll remember that few weeks back, Joe Rogan challenged vaccine researcher Peter Hotez to debate RFK on his podcast.
When Hotez rightfully refused (I mean, what is the point of debating a pigeon), Elon Musk couldn't resist piling on -- accusing Hotez of being "scared" of debate. Cue the hooting across the bird site. (The whole thing reminded me of that scene with the apes at the beginning of 2001: A Space Odyssey, but I digress).
Anyhoo, the whole Rogan-Hotez-Musk episode, aside from being a low point in U.S. social-scientific discourse, raises all sorts of questions about how deeply one engages kookiness.
I tend to fall into the "laugh and ignore" camp because scientific truth can never be settled by who yells the loudest, and ... again, pigeons ... but there is a lot of room for nuance in determining the best way to combat misinformation. Particularly among populations in a position to be hurt by it. (anti-VAX nonsense and the elderly being a prime example).
we can, but obviously that's not going to make much of a difference if the media doesn't--and quite a lot of media outlets seem to be refusing to just ignore him. RFK Jr also has quite an audience already and promotes extremely harmful viewpoints, so the extent to which ignoring him is useful is, i think, debatable on some grounds. it may or may not be a good idea to let him spout anti-vaccine rhetoric unchecked.