"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.)
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.
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.
@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.
Jay Rosen
william.maggos
Jennifer Kayla | Theogrin 🦊
Pamela Ehn