Joe Rogan and Elon Musk pressure scientist into ‘debating’ anti-vaxxer RFK Jr | Hacker News Reader

Joe Rogan and Elon Musk pressure scientist into ‘debating’ anti-vaxxer RFK Jr

independent.co.uk

11 pointspinewurst23 comments

Long form interviews with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will disabuse many of Kennedy's supposed extremism.

Jordan Peterson: https://rumble.com/v2t1gla-jordan-peterson-interviews-robert...

Russell Brand: https://rumble.com/v2nermq-russell-and-rfk-jr-fauci-cia-secr...

this is a waste of time given the medium. Essentially nobody will change their opinion, and they'll end up yelling at each other for "entertainment". If the sides are so sure of their facts and their data, participate in the research and conference environment associated with vaccines, covid, etc. and present without the histrionics. Twain already commented on this.

Are they questioning the deaths? Whether Covid existed? The vaccines and if so which one(s)? The concept of vaccines in general? The political and economic reaction to Covid? The impact on the world economy, ... It's an undefined "discussion" that will flow from item to item unconstrained by roadmap or justification.

There will be no time limits, and we can expect to explore many or all of the questions you've elucidated, yes, in an unconstrained fashion.

Just hearing a point-counterpoint with ad hominem attacks yellow carded by Rogan will be very, very refreshing.

“Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.”

We need more debate not less. Why is hiding from debate acceptable these days? Sometimes we need to face and think critically about alternate points of view and this cannot happen if people in the spotlight and candidates for office are allowed to hide from debate.

Two morons making a person do something they don’t want to isn’t the same as “hiding”

Public thought leaders should not get to pick and choose every question they answer. That's how we end up with two morons on a debate stage with no one genuine to choose. Great thought comes with great responsibility?

What is a "public thought leader"? Is this something one trains for or gets certified for? Or, did we used to call them celebrities?

THere's already a lot of discussion on various scientific topics, you merely have to go where it's occurring. What comes out of these discussions are (mis)used by political and yammering types to prove or disprove a point. These two communities do not and possibly do not wish to understand each other as the words don't mean the same thing.

Take "theory". To the general public, it's a guess. However, Newton's theory of gravity guarantees that a good faceplant is gonna hurt. It also keeps the rocks up there from falling or wandering off.

The algorithms pick them, to be a thought leader in modern society is to have your words echo throughout social and other forms of digital media. Do you think he has accumulated influence for any personal gain? I think I heard him promoting his upcoming book on his interview tonight with MSNBC.

So they are celebrities then? Famous for being famous….

Should they get to pick and choose any question they answer? From what I've seen of RFK Jr's beliefs, this is one step above debating the homeless guy on the street corner ranting about the end times.

What is the balance then? Must people have common ground for debate in a society where influence moves all? Two sides radically differing without debate might become echo-chambers with catastrophic collision at some point. They both certainly have followings.

I don't know what the balance is; when people embrace "alternative facts" I think there is fundamentally not a way to have a meaningful debate. Without a commonly accepted subset of (relevant) objective reality, all argumentation reduces to marketing. These sort of "debates" typically amount to little more than battles of charisma and oratory skill.

Edit: But perhaps the more damning thing about such circumstances is that even if both debaters are charismatic, intelligent, and honest it simply results in two people talking past each other by making equally logical derivations from separate and irreconcilable sets of facts.

This is a ridiculous take. People with thoughts (my take on the ridiculous “public thought leaders”) aren’t forced to tolerate idiots demanding their time.

Someone needs to educate the masses that follow a different perspective. If you yield the microphone in society it should require you to step out of your comfort zone at times. In this instance he has no problem using it to promote his book, which is great for reinforcing beliefs amongst his existing following (and wallet). It does little towards educating the people that have come to a different opinion.

No, posting YouTube videos shouldn’t mean you can be forced to do things you don’t want to.

Ridiculous.

A podcast host with one of the biggest followings in the world and a presidential candidate is a far cry from someone that posts basic youtube videos. Why are you so eager to discredit over listening to or participating in discussion?

An MMA announcer with a podcast, however many broesefs listen, and a Kennedy who turns out to be a crank across multiple topic areas, don't deserve the time of day from anyone. Nobody has to discredit them anew.

It seems your battle is with the reality of influence we live within, not me. Maybe look up the definitions of the labels you give people though? Urban dictionary has an interesting take on that word...

Edit: also https://twitter.com/search?q=%22a%20crank%22

That word seems to be on repeat lately, are your intentions genuine here?

So in this world you live in, the rich and famous can just demand anyone's time?

Real leaders in science publish in journals. It's not a perfect system. But debating a known crank on an entertainment show is much worse.

He has decided to move beyond a simple leader in science, into a life of public influence. That comes with responsibilities.

A lot of things are not worth debating.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com