You can't have a functioning democracy when candidates aren't safe • Hacker News Board

Re: You can't have a functioning democracy when candidates aren't safe

#51

Post by keepamovin » Thu, Nov 16, 2023, 10:49 AM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #9

keepamovin wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alt account? What about the vaccine stuff presumably? He has a few books on the subject. Seems scholarly and scientific in conversation with Joe Rogan and others. https://www.thriftbooks.com/a/robert-f-kennedy-jr/3558232/

He has continued pushing long disproven stuff like the MMR autism link. That alone is sufficient to consider him a nutter. And given the size of his platform he is a wildly dangerous one causing immense harm.

Where did you form your view that it is "long disproven", and that he has continued "pushing it"?

These are complex issues, yet your language speaks of authoritative dismissal, and a reductive binary stance. Such oversimplification is hard to argue as credible.

The "appeal to harm" could equally be made in the opposite direction, but the speed at which you go to it only compounds the "without merit" signaling of your reductive simplifications.

Re: You can't have a functioning democracy when candidates aren't safe

#52

Post by keepamovin » Thu, Nov 16, 2023, 10:50 AM UTC

krapp wrote: post #30

andsoitis wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That alone is sufficient to consider him a nutter. This feels like an extreme position to me. Just because you have one or 10 nutty beliefs, that doesn’t make you a nutter. I don’t know where the threshold lie, but as an example, didn’t Newton believe in alchemy?

Newton believed in alchemy during a time when the metaphysical assumptions behind alchemy were considered reasonable and axiomatic by everyone - the concept of a natural world being separate from a supernatural world simply did not exist. That's a lot less nutty, relatively speaking, than believing in something like adrenochrome harvesting or Jewish space lasers or flat earth or reptilians today. Or even alchemy.

Right, and none of your "more nutty" examples have any overtures to JFK.

I mean "Jewish space lasers" hahah where are you even getting this? Hahahah great material by the way. Can you upload a YT vid, I want to see your comedy bit! :) hahaah

Re: You can't have a functioning democracy when candidates aren't safe

#53

Post by keepamovin » Thu, Nov 16, 2023, 10:53 AM UTC

rsynnott wrote: post #40

andsoitis wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That alone is sufficient to consider him a nutter. This feels like an extreme position to me. Just because you have one or 10 nutty beliefs, that doesn’t make you a nutter. I don’t know where the threshold lie, but as an example, didn’t Newton believe in alchemy?

> Just because you have one or 10 nutty beliefs, that doesn’t make you a nutter. It _does_. > I don’t know where the threshold lie, but as an example, didn’t Newton believe in alchemy? Yes; particularly in his later years, Newton was a nutter, though not in a particularly harmful way. (It was a lot more _forgivable_ back then; pretty much everyone was.)

This is a kind of absolutism and judgemental attitude that could be see as equally nutty but very harmful.

Essentially appointing yourself chief inquisitor and decide who the heretics are. Sure, we all love power, but actually owning up to that in a bad way and trying to implement that with a partition into "nut" and "non nut", over complex nuanced topics, speaks to a kind of mind control, a disrespect of other people's views, an unwillingness to engage on the real issues, an awareness perhaps that you have to silence the opposition as you know your own views do not withstand scrutiny, but basically, an: authoritarian simplistic reduction of the complexity of the world to "good" v "bad", making you or that attitude, uniquely incapable of dealing with the said issues. Hahaah! :)

Re: You can't have a functioning democracy when candidates aren't safe

#54

Post by keepamovin » Thu, Nov 16, 2023, 10:59 AM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #32

andsoitis wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That alone is sufficient to consider him a nutter. This feels like an extreme position to me. Just because you have one or 10 nutty beliefs, that doesn’t make you a nutter. I don’t know where the threshold lie, but as an example, didn’t Newton believe in alchemy?

When someone continues to push a disproven "theory" despite no evidence in favour of it and despite the extensive and long-standing harm the reduction in vaccinations, I consider it extreme to treat RFKjr as anything but a dangerous charlatan with psychopathic tendencies. Plenty can be said about Newton, but his belief in alchemy given the time was far more reasonable than RFKjr's insistence on continuing to do harm…

Do you realize how you sound? What you are saying is very extreme. Can you state what his position is on these topics on which you judge him? Have you read his books? Can you summarize them?

Your willingness to paint something you dislike as "dangerous" "harm", and your reduction to binary opposites with no discussion of nuance speaks to an authoritarian, "Witch hunt" mindset.

This suggests you are uniquely incapable of dealing with the issues in a scientific or rational way, making you equally unqualified to judge anybody.

I think the attitude displayed in your comment, is what's dangerous. I'm not saying JFK is "not dangerous", but not in the way you think, perhaps. And I'm not going to reduce people, or issues, to simplistic moral fables. Such a flawed model can never represent reality, so anyone wielding it can neither be said to be in touch with reality, nor capable of deciding anything that matters.

But the willingness to hate, is a dangerous thing. Think on it! Hahaha :)

Re: You can't have a functioning democracy when candidates aren't safe

#55

Post by keepamovin » Thu, Nov 16, 2023, 11:03 AM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #34

stcroixx wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What specific immense harm has he caused?

Spreading the claims has reduced vaccine uptake. The fallout of the reduce MMR vaccine uptake has been an increase in outbreaks of dangerous diseases. In my eyes the man is worse than a murderer.

So you are judging him because you think he has caused more harm? Do you have any evidence to support your hypothesis that JFK has caused more harm? Which dangerous diseases have increased, and by how much?

JFK engaging with the science and advocating for safety, and nuance in the face of a clear interest by big pharma to suppress that, is not dangerous. But you spreading your simplistic reductions is dangerous. Can you not see that your simplistic reductions and emotional judgements, are doing the very thing that you are accusing others of doing?

I think you need to think about that! Hahahaha! :)

Re: You can't have a functioning democracy when candidates aren't safe

#56

Post by keepamovin » Thu, Nov 16, 2023, 11:06 AM UTC

dkarl wrote: post #8

keepamovin wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alt account? What about the vaccine stuff presumably? He has a few books on the subject. Seems scholarly and scientific in conversation with Joe Rogan and others. https://www.thriftbooks.com/a/robert-f-kennedy-jr/3558232/

> Seems scholarly and scientific in conversation with Joe Rogan I doubt that's a hard thing to achieve for someone used to speaking in public. Joe Rogan is not known for challenging his guests intellectually.

Hahah! :) In this case it doesn't matter, because Rogan does not affect the truth or falsity of what he's saying. But regarding JR, do you have any evidence to support that about Rogan?

You suggest that you can't tell whether he's rational in conversation with Rogan because Rogan doesn't challenge, but you don't need another to challenge, you merely need to listen to him talk and decide yourself.

Rogan is merely helpfully providing a platform where the guy is talking. Hahaha! :)

Re: You can't have a functioning democracy when candidates aren't safe

#57

Post by keepamovin » Thu, Nov 16, 2023, 11:10 AM UTC

chad_c wrote: post #10

keepamovin wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alt account? What about the vaccine stuff presumably? He has a few books on the subject. Seems scholarly and scientific in conversation with Joe Rogan and others. https://www.thriftbooks.com/a/robert-f-kennedy-jr/3558232/

"in conversation with Joe Rogan" Yikes.

Well, it's better than "in conversation" with you. Hahahahahaha! :)

Yikes. Micro-comment.

So you're suggesting that a conversation with Rogan is something you should be afraid of? Or not trusted?

You do realize that Rogan doesn't affect the truth of falsity of what he's saying, right? Hahahaha! :)