@jayrosen_nyu

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.

@wjmaggos @jayrosen_nyu

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.

@theogrin @jayrosen_nyu

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.

@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.