"Describing [RFK's] views as ‘controversial,’ I think, is dishonest. They’re not controversial. They’re false. He’s not spreading controversial views, he’s spreading lies. And so the framing matters enormously, and that’s something that I foresee being a huge, huge issue in the 2024 campaign."
Agreed!
Some key distinctions made by journalist Seth Mnookin in this sharp interview. (He wrote a book about the anti-vaccine movement in 2011.)
@jayrosen_nyu Ah, I remember when HuffPo was anti-vaxxer central.
Nice of them to 'fess up to that.
Hilariously that piece tries to rewrite the record and pass it off as tho they were just an open blog platform with a few cranks, but its namesake and editor-in-chief was (is?) an anti-vaxxer and all her celebrity friends were donating their anti-vax diatribes to the cause.
@buermann @mem_somerville @jayrosen_nyu
And Ron Paul wants to sell us Gold IRAs
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/07/25/gold-ira-conservative-media/
I have a hard time calling them lies cause I think he believes them. I think he's very mentally damaged from his emotional experiences. Like Hunter.
non ionizing radiation is damaging us.
you asked for an example and I gave one. there are plenty of articles detailing what many think he is lying about. I support long discussions between people who know their shit (or at least seem to) to disagree on important issues. Like COVID and the laptop. We are not children.
But I'm also very opposed to people spreading misinfo on important subjects, that they don't believe is true. Clean up is a lot harder than making the mess. We should admit this is hard.
On the political stage there is no functional difference between incompetence and malice. The one will always fuel the other, and the harms caused by them are indistinguishable in the end.
Besides, whether or not RFK actually believes them, the anti-vax stories began as lies, they'll end as lies, and they're mostly spread by liars.
for the audience, there's no difference. but there's all the difference in the world as to whether a conversation with them can get them to stop spreading the misinformation. maybe even turn them into an asset for changing minds since they now have the trust of those on the other side.
and what we think we know might always be wrong. we have to approach the public conversation with empathy and epistemic humility, lest we become like the worst visions we have of them.
@cadenza @theogrin @jayrosen_nyu
most of the world thought Sinead was nutty and wrong and her words would have a horrible impact. And that SNL did the right thing banning her. Or the bands that Clear Channel took off the radio during the Iraq War.
the companies (which are too big tho) have the right to decide, as they do now re RFK Jr. and there's not infinite space for every voice. but if somebody isn't acting out of bad faith, you treat them equally. show they are wrong if you believe that.
@wjmaggos @cadenza @jayrosen_nyu
Sinead's repudiation of the Catholic church was hardly out of left field. For decades beforehand, the 'joke' about abuse, particularly sexual, in the Catholic church was treated as simply an understanding of How Things Were, and calling them out for that was an act meant to curtail that harm, much like her refusal to sing following the US national anthem and her activism in general.
Contrast the fact that Kennedy's words are written to cause untold harm, no matter where they originated: Wakefield's Lancet article, or elsewhere. Anti-vaccination is a eugenics movement, full stop.
For what it's worth, innumerable folks have tried in the past to show that RFK and his ilk are spreading dangerous lies. But, no matter how often they're proven wrong, antivaxxers will continue to move the goalposts if not outright denying the argument.
It's no question that at this point, he'll continue to cause harm until he's no longer given a platform.
@cadenza @wjmaggos @jayrosen_nyu
The exceptional A.R. Moxon ( @JuliusGoat ) defines this in part as the Dipshit Paradox in his most recent post.
https://armoxon.substack.com/p/the-dipshit-paradox
One can certainly theorize that a person's patent refusal to acknowledge reality -- and it is a refusal -- is made in good faith. It's a choice between that, or acknowledging that the argument is NOT made out of honest and sincere misunderstanding, in which case it's disingenuous and even more actively destructive.
A fool or a murderer, as the saying goes.
The choice of a centrist to give equal weight to a person who came up with an idea while rummaging through their sock drawer, and to someone who has done research and presents credible evidence, is thus itself a validation of the leprechauns-in-my-socks petitioner, and thus intrinsically a harmful choice in and of itself.
@theogrin @cadenza @jayrosen_nyu @JuliusGoat
I am not a centrist. I am a lefty, but first a liberal. meaning that I think understanding the truth the best we can, is essential. this will hurt people's feelings.
this article is extremely verbose, but I will get through it. so far, it seems to get wrong what the assumption of good faith is. it's how you begin. it's necessary to call out hypocrisy, like free speech absolutist musk treating cis as a slur. it's not disarming, it's fighting fair.
@wjmaggos @cadenza @jayrosen_nyu
An assumption of good faith in many cases like these is a recipe for outright disaster. It may be a good start when the arguments are new. However, the arguments being put forth of which we speak -- of antivaccination, of anti-LGBTQ and anti-BIPOC discrimination and hate, of a refusal to acknowledged the grim realities of climate change -- are so well-rehearsed and commonly refuted that either their proponents have completely neglected to do the slightest hint of research, or they have a specific goal in mind which has nothing to do with science or observable reality.
There's something to be said about fighting fair, but when the other party doesn't give a wet slap about administering groin kicks, barbed wire around the knuckles, and pocket sand -- not to win 'fairly', but just to provide the appearance of victory -- then that something is 'losing'.
@theogrin @cadenza @jayrosen_nyu
but we're not trying to convince bastards not to be bastards, we're talking to the decent people in the audience who don't yet agree with us. they want to see a fair exchange of ideas so they can feel they made their decision appropriately. when they cheat, you call them on it. that's considered fair, and so it's actually appreciated. deplatforming cause otherwise there will be a bad outcome, requires the audience agrees the outcome will be bad and is ensured.
@cadenza @theogrin @jayrosen_nyu @JuliusGoat
I agree that tolerating shitty behavior drives normal people away. it's generally how the right does censorship, by just making people with views they disagree with leave.
but if they are not being shitty, you treat them nice. if they are pulling some secret manipulative shit, you call that out and respond accordingly. but again, you're talking to the audience, people who don't share your views of them. thus, being harsh can make you the asshole.
@cadenza @theogrin @jayrosen_nyu @JuliusGoat
I provided an example of someone who has changed many minds away from hate (Daryl Davis), and someone whose mind was changed from being hateful via social media (Megan Phelps Roper). many people also believe some things that are more lefty and some things that are more conservative. closing the info bubbles def doesn't work, unlike the past with few channels etc, it's simple for people to surround themselves in bs. the conversations must be had.
Is that because we have a hard time believing some could be so mendacious and craven ?
I know I struggled with it.
But I have come to understand that a great many successful people, are playing life on a completely different rule set to the one I was given.
@[email protected] @[email protected] for the audience, there's no difference. but there's all the difference in the world as to whether a conversation with them can get them to stop spreading the misinformation. maybe even turn them into an asset for changing minds since they now have the trust of those on the other side. and what we think we know might always be wrong. we have to approach the public conversation with empathy and epistemic humility, lest we become like the worst visions we have of them.
The various forms of coded language that the media has adopted to evade lawsuits from billionaire fascists are innumerable.
How to get information out to the powerless when the powerful want it stopped?
The powerful want to shut down the 1st amendment for regular citizens, yet permit its use to protect funded disinformation and malign influence campaigns by #KochNetwork .
It's pretty simple:
❶ If by 2020, one didn't know #RFKJr was FULL OF IT🔴https://rb.gy/j0dzm
❷ One probably lacks the good judgment to know: Like #Trump & #DeSantis, he's UNFIT to be #POTUS🔴https://rb.gy/tjd6e
#COVID #Politics #USA #Security #Fediverse #Democrats #COVID19 #Misinformation #iTHiNKLabs #Democracy #2024Election #Education▼
Steve Garfield
Jay Rosen
mem_somerville
josh buermann
toxtethogrady
KnowAttitude
Democracy Matters 
RodneyPetersonTalentAgency
william.maggos
🌲-alist
Jennifer Kayla | Theogrin 🦊
Pamela Ehn
doublejay
Bruce Mirken
Pamela
Anvil of Truth
OtownKim
CharlesWRobinson_2023
ValueTruth
Rev. Doc Fleam
Nicole Parsons
TT🇺🇦🇹🇼🇪🇹🇭🇹☪
Eric LeVan
Owen
⚙ARC
JL Roberson
Ted_Cville